1: \documentclass{article} 

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

4: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}

5: \def\mco{\multicolumn}

6: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}

7: \def\vep{\varepsilon}

8: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

9: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}

10: \def\vp{{\bf p}}

11: \def\ko{K^0}

12: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}

13: \def\al{\alpha}

14: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}

15: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

16: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

17: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

18: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

19: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}

20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

21: \newcommand\noi{\noindent}

22: \newcommand\etal{{\it et al}.\ }

23: \newcommand\etalcom{{\it et al}.,}

24: \newcommand\epe{\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon}

25: \newcommand\ep{\epsilon}

26: \newcommand\sintb{\sin2\beta}

27: \newcommand\rhob{\bar \rho}

28: \newcommand\etab{\bar \eta}

29: \newcommand\md{\Delta m_{B_d}}

30: \newcommand\ms{\Delta m_{B_s}}

31: \newcommand\bbbar{B - \bar B}

32: \newcommand\bsbsbar{B_s - \bar B_s}

33: \newcommand\bdbdbar{B_d - \bar B_d}

34: \newcommand\bpsik{B \to \psi K_s}

35: \newcommand\vtdts{V_{td}/V_{ts}}

36: \newcommand\dodobar{D^0 - \bar D^0}

37: \newcommand\non{\nonumber}

38: \newcommand\notcp{\not{\!\!\!\!CP}}

39: \newcommand\bra{\langle}

40: \newcommand\ket{\rangle}

41: \newcommand{\RA}{\Rightarrow}

42: \def\bkhat{\hat B_K} 

43: \def\thesection{\Roman{section}}

44: %...................Definitions FOR FIGURES..............

45: %\input epsf.tex

46: %\def\DESepsf(#1 width #2){\epsfxsize=#2 \epsfbox{#1}}

47: %.....................END DEFINITIONS

48: \begin{document}

49: \rightline{BNL-HET-03/14}

50: %\mark{{Lattice Matrix Elements...}{CP Violation in B & K Physics}}

51: \begin{center}

52: {\large\bf Lattice Matrix Elements and CP Violation in B and K Physics: Status and 

53: Outlook$^*$}

54: \vspace{0.2in}

55: 

56: Amarjit Soni\\ 

57: \noindent High Energy Theory Group, Physics Department\\

58: Brookhaven National Laboratory,Upton, NY 11973\\ 

59: (email: soni@bnl.gov)

60: \end{center}

61: %\keywords{CP, lattice, B and K-unitarity triangles, chiral symmetry, $\Delta I = 1/2$ rule, \epe}

62: %\pacs{12.38 Ge, 11.30 Er, 13.25 Hw, 14.80 Cp}

63: \footnotetext{Invited talk at 9th International Symposium on Particles, Strings and Cosmology (PASCOS 03), Mumbai

64: (Bombay) India, 3-8 Jan 2003}

65: \begin{quote} 

66: \begin{center}

67: ABSTRACT

68: \end{center}

69: 

70: Status of lattice calculations of hadron matrix elements

71: along with CP violation in B and in K systems is reviewed.

72: Lattice has provided useful input which, in conjunction with

73: experimenatl data, leads to the conclusion that CP-odd

74: phase in the CKM matrix plays the dominant role in the

75: observed asymmetry in $B \to \psi K_s$. It is now

76: quite likely that any beyond the SM, CP-odd, phase

77: will cause only small deviations in B-physics. Search 

78: for the effects of the new phase(s) will consequently require

79: very large data samples as well as very precise theoretical

80: predictions. Clean determination of {\it all} the angles

81: of the unitarity triangle therefore becomes essential.

82: In this regard $B \to K D^0$ processes play a unique

83: role. Regarding K-decays, remarkable progress made by theory with regard

84: to maintenance of chiral symmetry on the lattice is

85: briefly discussed. First application already provide 

86: quantitaive information on $B_K$ and the $\Delta I=1/2$

87: rule. The enhancement in $Re A_0$ appears to arise solely

88: from tree operators, esp. $Q_2$; penguin contribution to $Re A_0$

89: appears to be very small. However, improved calculations

90: are necessary for $\epe$ as there the contributions

91: of QCD penguins and electroweak penguins largely seem to cancel.

92: There are good reasons, though, to believe that these

93: cancellations will not survive improvements

94: that are now underway. Importance of determining the unitarity

95: triangle purely from K-decays is also emphasized. 

96: \end{quote}

97: % ...................................

98: \section{Introduction}

99: 

100: With important input from the lattice along with the classic results of indirect CP 

101: violation in $K_L \to \pi \pi$, the asymmetric B-factories with measurements of CP

102: asymmetry in $B \to \psi K_s$ are providing valuable support to the CKM paradigm 

103: of CP violation\cite{ckm}. It is now clear that the CP-odd phase in the CKM matrix

104: is the dominant source of CP violation in $B \to \psi K_s$. However, as is well known

105: essentially compelling theoretical arguements suggest that new

106: CP-odd phase(s) should exist due to physics beyond the SM (BSM). At the same time

107: there is no good reason to think that their effects in B-physics would be 

108: particularly large.

109: Indeed, SM teaches a valuable lesson in this regard:

110: even though the CKM phase causes a huge asymmetry (i.e. $O(1)$) in $B \to \psi K_s$,

111: its effects in CP violation in K-decays is miniscule $\approx 10^{-3}$. 

112: Clearly this realization should motivate us to prepare for

113: small deviations from the predictions of the SM in B-Physics even if the new CP-odd

114: phase is large.   

115: For this reason, not only we need very large data samples of B's giving impetus to Super-B factories

116: along with BTeV and LHCB, we also need exteremely precise tests of the SM.

117: Residual theory errors are a serious cause of concern as they can easily thwart

118: experimental efforts for search of BSM CP-odd phase(s)\cite{pristine}.   

119: 

120: With this perspective in mind, a  brief discussion of the lattice method and results for the

121: hadronc matrix elements that are important for weak interaction

122: phenomenology are given in Sections I to IV. 

123: Therein I also discuss  some of the anticipated experimental input that could

124: help attain greater precision in constraining CKM parameters.  

125: Section V emphasizes concern about residual errors in theory and 

126: the importance of clean determinations, i.e. without theoretical 

127: assumptions, of all the angles

128: of the unitarity triangle. In this regard the special role of $B \to K D^0$ processes is also

129: emphasized there.    

130: 

131: 

132: Progress made in the past few years with regard to maintenance of exact chiral

133: symmetry on the lattice is outlined in Section VI along with application

134: of this development to $B_K$.    

135: 

136: Section VII gives a brief report on the results from the 1st application 

137: of domain wall fermion method, which exhibit excellent chiral behavior,

138: to $K \to \pi \pi$, $\Delta I=1/2$ rule and $\epe$.

139: These 1st applications give good insight to the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule; in particular,

140: contribution of penguin operators to $ReA_0$ in our lattice calculations appears to be extremely

141: small and most of the enhancement seen in $ReA_0$ is originating

142: from the tree operator, $Q_2$. Unlike in the case of the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule,

143: the approximation currently used though appear too crude to give reliable

144: information on $\epe$. This difficulty arises as contributions of QCD penguins

145: and electroweak penguins substantially cancel. 

146: However, there are very good reasons to suspect that this cancellation 

147: is not ``natural" and is unlikely to survive 

148: as calculations are improved.

149: 

150: For the purpose of stringent tests of the CKM model of CP violation

151: a separate determination of the unitarity triangle 

152: purely from K-decays, to be compared to that obtained from B-physics,

153: is highly desirable and this is finally emphasized in Section VIII. 

154: 

155: 

156: \section{Lattice Methodology: a very brief recapitulation}

157: 

158: Recall, Green's functions are calculated by numerical evaluation of the

159: Feynman path integral.

160: 

161: \begin{equation}

162: \langle 0|Q|0\rangle =\frac{\int~DU~W(Q)_M det~M(U)exp[-S_g(U)]}{\int~DU~ 

163: det~M(U)exp[-S_g(U)]}

164: \end{equation}

165: 

166: As it stands, dependence of the quark matrix M in this expression

167: on the link variables renders its evaluation extremely difficult.

168: To fecilitate the numerical calculation, one often uses the quench

169: approximation (QA)and sets $detM = 1$. Physically, this approximation 

170: corresponds to neglect of the $q \bar q$ vacuum polarization loops in the 

171: propagation of the gauge field. The hint that this may be a reasonable 

172: approximation originally came from deep inelastic scattering experiments

173: wherein the effect of $q \bar q$ pairs in the ``sea" is accurate to

174: about 15\% \cite{dwein}. There are, though, very good reasons that tell us that 

175: the

176: accuracy of the QA in lattice computations is process dependent.

177: 

178: In the past several years more and more ``unquenched" simulations,s

179: i.e. those not using the QA so that dynamical $q \bar q$ pairs are

180: included, have been underway.  These studies show that QA seems to be valid to 

181: about $5-10\%$ accuracy in non-singlet hadron spectrum \cite{dtous}. 

182: % Indications are that its effect on heavy-light

183: % B-parameters is

184: % quite negligible, with

185: %\bigskip\bigskip

186: 

187: %  EQN

188: %\bigskip\bigskip

189: 

190: On the other hand, dynamical quarks seem to increase the B-meson pseudoscalar

191: decay constant quite appreciably, (at least when $m_\rho$ is used to set the 

192: scale) \cite{heplat} 

193: %\begin{equation}^M

194: %Food_{total} = \sum_1^{2000} \int_0^T f(t) dt.^M

195: %\label{eq:food}^M

196: %\end{equation}^M

197: \begin{equation}

198: f_B^{N_f=3}/f_B^{N_f=0} = 1.23 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.06 

199: \label{eq:fbnf3ratio}

200: \end{equation}

201: 

202: In addition to the QA there are several other sources of systematic

203: errors in a typical lattice gauge calculation. Chief among these are finite

204: (box) size and finite lattice spacing (a) errors. Also most lattice simulations

205: are done with rather large values of masses of light (u,d,s) quarks and rather low 

206: values for the  b quark mass, compared to their physical values. Painstaking and 

207: elaborate efforts become necessary to accurately extract from the data 

208: information relevant to the physical case. This may, for example, require 

209: extrapolation of the data (at a fixed gauge coupling, or lattice spacing)

210: as a function of quark mass to the chiral limit and also extrapolation

211: of the data as a function of the lattice spacing to the continuum limit (i.e. 

212: lattice spacing goes to zero).

213: Furthermore, simulations for a fixed gauge coupling at two or more volumes are 

214: often needed for extrapolation to the infinite volume limit.

215: 

216: \subsection{Some Examples of Brute-Force}

217: 

218: 

219: Relevant to this talk there are three works which serve to illustrate

220: computational brute force used in bringing them to fruition; these are

221: $B_K$, $f_B$ and $K -> 2 \pi$.

222: 

223: \begin{enumerate}

224: 

225: \item $B_K$: A major accomplishment of the lattice gauge effort, and in

226: particular of the JLQCD group is their result\cite{aokione,kilcup}, $\bkhat = 

227: 0.860 \pm 

228: 0.058$ in the QA.  During the first 6-7 years ('84-'91 ), several exploratory 

229: attempts were made\cite{cbas88}.

230: Methodology was in place around '91 \cite{ssharp} which was followed by several 

231: years of

232: intensive computations leading to the final result obtained around '98. In the 

233: past few years this important result has been the 

234: focus of further checks and 

235: confirmation using other fermion discretizations, i.e. 

236: Wilson \cite{becir} as well as the 

237: newer discretizations: domain wall fermions \cite{tblum,alikh,blumone} and the 

238: overlap fermions \cite{milc,ngarr}.  The 

239: results of these methods are in rough agreement with the JLQCD result; however, 

240: with domain wall quarks (DWQ) method the central value of $B_K$ tends to be 10-15\% below 

241: the JLQCD result which may amount to a discrepancy of around 1-2 $\sigma$. 

242: (see Fig.~\ref{bkfig})

243: More 

244: precise calculations with these newer discretizations including a study with 

245: dynamical domain walls \cite{izubuchi} is now underway.

246: 

247: \begin{figure}

248: %\epsfxsize 4.0 in

249: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{bk_vs_a.eps}

250: \caption{

251: $B_K$ vs. a, the lattice spacing. Only the 2 data points (circles)

252: from DWF use non-perturbative renormalization of lattice

253: operators, all others use one-loop perturbation theory. Of

254: the circled DWF 2 points, the coarser spacing (right)

255: corresponds to data from NERSC whereas 

256: the finer one (left) belongs to RBC collaboration \cite{blumone}} 

257: \label{bkfig}

258: \end{figure}

259: 

260: 

261: \bigskip

262: 

263: \item $f_B$:  Another example is provided by $f_B$, the B-meson

264: pseudoscalar decay constant wherein the ``heavy" b-quark mass $\approx$ 4.5 GeV 

265: represents an additional technical problem.

266: After the initial 5-6 years of exploratory works the computational

267: strategy became quite well known around '92 \cite{bls}. Indeed the result in 

268: the QA has 

269: been quite stable and withstood checks with the use of different techniques 

270: \cite{nyam,nucl}.

271: In the past few years there has been some weak indication from

272: experiment that heavy-light decay constant are somewhat smaller in the QA 

273: compared to experiment \cite{hepph}(i.e. full QCD).

274: Indeed after years of persistent study the MILC collaboration has now

275: finished the calculation of $f_B$ in quenched as well as in full QCD

276: (i.e. with three light flavors of dynamical quarks) \cite{heplat,co94} and find, 

277: the ratio given in eq.(2).  

278: %\begin{equation}

279: %\frac{f_B^{n f=3}}{f_B^{n f=0}} = 1.23\pm.04 \pm .06

280: %\end{equation}

281: 

282: giving $f_B \simeq 207 \pm 35$ MeV\cite{error}.

283: Clearly many independent checks and confirmations will take place in the next 

284: few years.

285: 

286: \item $K \to \pi \pi$ and $\epsilon'/\epsilon$. Our third example is

287: the calculation of the matrix elements of $K \to 2\pi$ and $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ 

288: using domain wall quarks (DWQ) by the CP-PACS \cite{noaki}and RBC collaborations 

289: \cite{blumone}.

290: Unlike $B_K$ and $f_B$ this is a first attempt to address $K\rightarrow 

291: 2\pi$ by both the 

292: collaborations in which not only QA but also a few other key approximations are 

293: made [see below].

294: Nevertheless, given the complexity of the problem it must be considered an  

295: inportant accomplishment which even at this early stage is providing very useful information on 

296: the long standing issue of the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule. However, its repercussions 

297: on $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ require careful study of systematic errors and improved 

298: calculations, which could take another few years.

299: 

300: \end{enumerate}

301: 

302: \section{Lattice Matrix Elements and CKM Constraints}

303: 

304: In the Wolfenstein representation, the CKM matrix can be parameterized

305: in terms of the four parameters, $\lambda$, A, $\rhob$ and

306: $\etab$ \cite{hep0101336}. Of these $\lambda = \sin \theta_c = 0.221\pm 

307: 0.002$,

308: is the best known, A is known with modest accuracy, $A=0.847\pm~041$ and 

309: $\bar\rho$ and $\bar \eta$ are poorly known.

310: An important objective where lattice can help is in determination of

311: $\bar \eta$ and $\bar \rho$ accurately. $\bar \eta$ is intimately

312: related to the CKM phase $\delta_{13}$ \cite{kpart}; indeed SM cannot 

313: accommodate any CP

314: violation if $\bar \eta = 0$.

315: 

316: The basic strategy is very simple. Assuming the SM is correct, and using

317: the necessary theoretical input one translates experimental results on to an

318: allowed domain on the $\bar \eta$ - $\bar \rho$ plane. If a 

319: (new) experimental result requires value of $\bar\rho $ and/or $\bar\eta$ that are 

320: inconsistent with those extracted from existing experiments then that could mean 

321: a failure of the SM.

322: 

323: \subsection{Theoretical background and brief comments}

324: 

325: For the past several years, the following four experimental measurements

326: have been used for an extraction of $\bar\eta$ and $\bar\rho$:

327: 

328: \begin{enumerate}

329: 

330: \item The indirect CP violation parameter, $\epsilon = (2.274 \pm .017)\times

331: 10^{-3}$

332: 

333: \item The $B_d-\bar B_d$ mass difference, $\md = 0.487 \pm 0.014 ps^{-1}$

334: 

335: 

336: \item The $B_s-\bar B_s$ mass difference, for which at the moment only

337: a lower bound exists, $\ms \ge 15.0 ps^{-1}$ at 95\% CL.       

338: 

339: This important bound is provided by experiments at LEP and SLD \cite{lepb}.

340: It is widely anticipated that an actual measurement of $\ms$ 

341: (rather than just a bound) will be accomplished at the Tevatron in the next few 

342: years.  This will be very important for CKM determinations as the 

343: ratio $\md/\ms$ can give $V_{td}/V_{ts}$ if the SU(3) 

344: breaking ratio of hadronic

345: mixing matrix element could be determined\cite{bern}.

346: 

347: 

348: \item $R_{uc} \equiv b \to u l \nu / b \to c l \nu = 0.085 \pm 0.017.$

349: \end{enumerate}

350: 

351: Recall\cite{buch} 

352: \begin{equation}

353: |\epsilon| = \tilde{M}_{K} C_K A^2\lambda^6 {\etab}\{\eta_1 S(x_c) + 

354: \eta_2 S(x_t)A^2\lambda^4 (1 - {\rhob}) + \eta_{3} S(x_c,x_t)\}

355: \end{equation}

356: 

357: 

358: 

359: %\bigskip\bigskip\bigskip

360: 

361: %\bigskip\bigskip\bigskip

362: 

363: Here $x_q = m^2_q/M^2_W$, where $q = u,c,t$ i.e. the virtual quarks in the 

364: box graph for $K^0-\bar K^0$ oscillations, and $S(x_q)$ are the so called Inami-Lin 

365: functions \cite{tinam}. Also,

366: 

367: \begin{equation}

368: C_K = \frac{G^2_F M^2_W m_K}{6\sqrt 2 \pi^2 \Delta m_K}

369: \end{equation}

370: 

371: 

372: \begin{equation}

373: \tilde{M}_K =\frac{3}{8} M^{2}_K \langle K^{o}|[\bar{s}\gamma_\mu(1-

374: \gamma_5)d]^2|\bar {K}^{o}\rangle

375: \end{equation}

376: 

377: \noi is essentially the hadronic matrix element. Once the $\tilde{M}_K$ is known 

378: $\etab, \rhob$ can be constrained through the 

379: use of eq.3. This matrix element is often parametrized in terms of $B_K$ which 

380: should equal 1 if vacuum saturation approximation (VSA) holds. Since $f_K$ (and 

381: $m_K$) is known quite precisely from experiment, evaluation of the  matrix 

382: element is completely equivalent here to that of $B_K$.

383: 

384: 

385: Similarly, we note that for $B_d -\bar B_d$ oscillation 

386: 

387: 

388: 

389: \begin{equation}

390: x_{Bd} =\tilde{M}_{Bd}~C_{Bd}[{(1-\bar{\rho})~^2 + \bar{\eta}}~^2]\eta_{QCD} 

391: S(x_t)~A^{2}\lambda^{6}/\tau_{Bd}

392: \label{xbd}\end{equation}

393: 

394: \noi where $x_{Bd}\equiv\frac{\Delta~m_{Bd}}{\Gamma_{Bd}}$ and 

395: $C_{Bd}=\frac{G^{2}_{F} 

396: m^{2}_W}{6\pi^{2}~m^{3}_{Bd}}$

397: Again once the hadronic matrix element, $\tilde{M}_{bd}$, is known eq. 

398: ($\ref{xbd}$)   

399: can be used to 

400: constrain $\rhob$, $\etab$.  

401: 

402: This matrix element is a 3-point function, which is directly calculable on the 

403: lattice. More often than not, though, in analogy with the kaon case, $M_{bd}$ is 

404: parametrized in terms of a ``B-parameter" defined as

405: 

406: \begin{equation}

407: B_{Bd}=\frac{<B_{d}\vert[\bar{b}\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})d]^{2} 

408: \vert\bar{B}_d>}{\frac{8}{3}\tilde{m}_{Bd}^2f^2_{Bd}}

409: \end{equation}

410: %replace from 

411: Then the physical quantity $x_{Bd}$ requires both $B_{Bd}$ and $f_{Bd}$

412: since

413: the latter is not yet known from experiment. Besides since

414: $\tilde{M}_{Bd}$

415: seems to

416: scale roughly as $f^{2}_{Bd}$ one needs to know $f_{Bd}$ rather

417: accurately.

418: Also,

419: in practice in most calculations of $f_{Bd}$ one tries to fit the light

420: quark mass dependence through some linear function; such a fit, though

421: is

422: unlikely

423: to give precisely the dependence on light quark mass for $f^2_{Bd}$.

424: 

425: Once $B_s - \bar B_s$ oscillation are experimentally detected and $\ms$

426: becomes

427: known, then the ratio

428: 

429: \begin{equation}

430: \frac{\md}{\ms} = \frac{|V_{td}|^2}{|V_{ts}|^2}\frac

431: {\langle B_{d}|[\bar{b}\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)d]^2|\bar{B}_d\rangle}

432: {\langle

433: {B_{s}}|[\bar{b}\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)s]^2|\bar{B}_s\rangle}

434: \end{equation}

435: 

436: %copied from previous............

437: 

438: \noi can be used to determine $\vert~V_{td}\vert$ if the ratio of hadronic matrix 

439: elements could

440: be determined from the lattice.

441: 

442: Since this ratio of matrix elements is completely dependent on SU(3)

443: breaking effects $(s\leftrightarrow d)$ it is expected to be close to unity.

444: The objective of lattice calculations should be a precise evaluations

445: of this SU(3) breaking and this necessitates an accurate treatment of light 

446: quarks.

447: 

448: Again, introducing ``B-parameters" for $B_d$ and $B_s$ mesons we can rewrite

449: 

450: \begin{equation}

451: \frac{x_{Bd}}{x_{Bs}} = 

452: \frac{\tau_{Bs}}{\tau_{Bd}}\frac{m_{Bd}^2}{m_{Bs}^2}\frac{1}{\xi^2}~

453: \lambda^2[(1-

454: \rhob)^2 + 

455: \etab^2]

456: \end{equation}

457: 

458: 

459: 

460: 

461: where $\xi$

462: is the SU(3) breaking ratio, 

463: 

464: \begin{equation}

465: \xi = \frac{f_{Bs}}{f_{Bd}}\sqrt\frac{B_{Bs}}{B_{Bd}}

466: \end{equation}

467: 

468: 

469: 

470: Finally, the semi-leptonic branching ratio $b \to u l \nu /b \to c l

471: \nu$

472: 

473: is another important way of constraining $\rhob , \etab$ as it is a

474: function of $V_{ub}/V_{cb}$,

475: 

476: \begin{equation}

477: \frac{\vert~V_{ub}\vert}{\vert~V_{cb}\vert}= \lambda(\rhob^{2}+\etab^{2})/(1-

478: \frac{\lambda^{2}}{2})

479: \end{equation}

480:   

481: 

482: To deduce  $V_{ub}/V_{cb}$, from the experimental measurement of the 

483: branching ratios requires corresponding form factors for exclusive reactions 

484: wherein lattice methods can be useful \cite{aelk}.  In the interest of brevity, 

485: we will not 

486: disuss this here.

487: 

488: \section{Lattice Input for CKM Fits}

489: 

490: Table~\ref{ckm-fits}  shows the input from the lattice, experiment and elsewhere

491: used by us \cite{atwoodone} and compare it with the works of Ciuchini et al 

492: \cite{ciuch} and Hocker et al \cite{hocker}.  

493: The corresponding determination of the 

494: CKM parameter $\rhob, \etab$ and unitarity angles $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ as 

495: well as several other quantities of interest are also shown. Note that

496: our error on $f_{Bd} \sqrt B_{Bd}$ and on $\xi$ are appreciably bigger than used 

497: in the other studies. This is especially so for $\xi$, where for quite sometime we 

498: have been cautioning that the error of $\approx 0.05$ that was commonly taken was a 

499: serious underestimate \cite{intmor}.  Recently Kronfeld and Ryan 

500: \cite{aknon} and Yamada \cite{nyam} have also 

501: argued for a reassessment of errors on $\xi$ due to the presence of

502: chiral logs.  Following this development as of LAT'02 larger error on $\xi$ is 

503: now being widely advocated; for example, Lellouch \cite{llellh} in his review at 

504: ICHEP02 

505: summarized $\xi = 1.18 \pm 0.04 ^{+12}_{-0}$. 

506: 

507: 

508: \begin{table}[t]

509: \caption{Comparison of some fits.\label{tabone}}

510: \hspace*{-.5in}\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

511: \hline

512: Input Quantity

513: & Atwood \& Soni\cite{atwoodone}

514: & Ciuchini {\it et al}\cite{ciuch}

515: & Hocker {\it et al}\cite{hocker}

516: \\

517: \hline

518: \hline

519: $R_{uc} \equiv |V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ & $.085\pm.017$ & $.089\pm.009$ &

520: $.087\pm.006\pm.014$ \\

521: $F_{B_d} \sqrt{\hat B_{B_d}}$ MeV & $230\pm50$ & $230\pm25\pm20$ &

522: $230\pm28\pm28$ \\

523: $\xi$ & $1.16\pm.08$ & $1.14\pm.04\pm.05$ & $1.16\pm.03\pm.05$ \\

524: $\hat B_K$ & $.86\pm0.15$ & $.87\pm0.06\pm0.13$ & $.87\pm.06\pm.13$

525: \\

526: \hline

527: Output Quantity & & & \\

528: \hline

529: $\sin2\beta$ & $.70\pm.10$ & $.695\pm.065$ & $.68\pm.18$ \\

530: $\sin2\alpha$ & $-.50\pm.32$ & $-.425\pm.220$ & \\

531: $\gamma$ & $46.2^\circ\pm9.1^\circ$ & $54.85\pm6.0$ & $56\pm19$ \\

532: $\bar \eta$ & $.30\pm.05$ & $.316\pm.040$ & $.34\pm.12$ \\

533: $\bar \rho$ & $.25\pm.07$ & $.22\pm.038$ & $.22\pm.14$ \\

534: $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ & $.185\pm.015$ & & $.19\pm.04$ \\

535: $\Delta m_{B_s}(ps^{-1})$ & $19.8\pm3.5$ & $17.3^{+1.5}_{-0.7}$ &

536: $24.6\pm9.1$ \\

537: $J_{CP}$ & $(2.55\pm.35)\times10^{-5}$ & & $(2.8\pm.8)\times10^{-5}$ \\

538: $BR(K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu)$ & $(0.67\pm0.10)\times10^{-10}$ & &

539: $(.74\pm.23)\times10^{-10}$ \\

540: $BR(K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu)$ & $(0.225\pm0.065)\times10^{-10}$ & &

541: $(.27\pm.14)\times 10^{-10}$ \\

542: \hline

543: \end{tabular}

544: \label{ckm-fits}

545: \end{table}

546: 

547: \bigskip  

548: 

549: The SM fits now give $(sin 2\beta)^{SM} = 0.70 \pm 0.10$ as well as allowed

550: ranges for $\gamma, \etab, \rhob$ etc (see Table~\ref{ckm-fits}). 

551: While these fits provide 

552: fairly restrictive range for $\beta$ and $\gamma$, $\alpha$ is constrained 

553: rather poorly. Note also that $\bsbsbar$ mass difference $\ms = 19.8 \pm 3.5 

554: ps^{-1}$ is 

555: now constrained with a one sigma accuracy of about $15\%$; measurements at the 

556: Tevatron and later at the LHC should be able to test this important   

557: prediction of the SM. Meanwhile measurements of the CP asymmetry in $\bpsik$ 

558: is already providing quite an impressive determination, $\sintb = 0.734

559: \pm 0.054$ \cite{belle} in good agreement with the theoretical prediction. It is 

560: important to

561: note also that just in the past year B-factory experiments have improved the

562: determination of $\sintb$ from an error of $\pm$ 0.10 down to $\pm$ 0.05.

563: With the anticipated increase in luminosities of the B-factories, along with 

564: results from the Tevatron, this error should go down further to $\approx 0.02$ 

565: in another year or two.

566: (Recall that the intrinsic theory error in the determination of $\sintb$ 

567: is expected to be about $\le 0.01$)\cite{ynirh}

568: 

569: It is instructive to reflect on the 

570: pace of theoretical progress in constraining 

571: $\sintb^{SM}$. For this purpose we may

572: compare the inputs used in fits of $\approx$ 1995 

573: \cite{ashlat}, with 

574: that of 

575: $\approx$ 2001\cite{atwoodone}.

576: Indeed the 2001 fit has reduced the 

577: error on $\sintb$ from 0.20 to 0.10; correspondingly the error on $\etab$ 

578: and on 

579: $\ms$ is also appreciably reduced. However, only some of this improvement can

580: be related directly to lattice computations. In fact it seems

581: that a large portion of the improvement is due actually to the reduction 

582: especially in 

583: the error on $V_{cb}$ and to some degree on $V_{ub}/V_{cb}$ wherein the role

584: of the lattice is less clear.

585: 

586: What should be clear is that it will be extremely difficult to reduce

587: the theory error on $(\sintb)^{SM}$ from the current level of $\pm$ 0.10 down to 

588: level of 0.02

589: that the experiment is anticipated to reach in the very near future.  Thus to 

590: test the SM 

591: more precisely will require clean determination of the other angles $\alpha$ and 

592: $\gamma$ directly from experiment. We will come back to this point later on.

593: 

594: \subsection{Important Input from Experiment on the horizon for CKM 

595: Determination}

596:  

597: \begin{enumerate}

598: 

599: 

600: \item $B^{\pm} \to \tau^{\pm} + \nu_{\tau} (\bar \nu_{\tau})$ 

601: 

602: With $10^8$ or more $\bbbar$ pairs 

603: that BELLE and BABAR each will soon have access to, an experimental 

604: determination 

605: of $f_B$ (actually $f_B \times V_{ub})$ may be feasible. Using from the 

606: lattice $f_B \approx 207 \pm 35 MeV \cite{error}$  and  $V_{ub}/V_{cb} \approx 

607: 0.085 \pm 0.017$ 

608: one gets an estimate, Br ($B \to \tau + \nu_{\tau} \approx (7.8 \pm 2.0) \times 

609: 10^{-5}$).  Decays of $\tau$ into final states with $(\nu's)+ $ $\mu$ (e, $\rho$ 

610: or $\pi$) have a total branching ratio of around $50\%$. So with a few percent 

611: detection efficiency there should be a few hundreds of events for $B^{\pm} \to 

612: \tau^{\pm} + 

613: \nu_{\tau} (\bar \nu_{\tau})$, a   

614: respectable sample to provide a reasonable determination of $f_B\times V_{ub}$

615: and an important check on the lattice calculation.

616: 

617: \item $B \to l \nu \gamma$ 

618: 

619: Unlike $B \to l \nu$, $l \nu \gamma$ ($l = e, \mu$) does not suffer from helicity

620: suppression although it is suppressed by $\alpha$.  Emission of the photon from 

621: the light quark also tends to enhance the

622: process although precise calculation of the Br is difficult to make \cite{dga}; 

623: estimates \cite{ksw}

624: are in the range of $1 - 6 \times 10^{-6}$, i.e. about an order of magnitude

625: more than the 2-body helicity suppressed modes, $  B \to l \nu$.  

626: The constituent quark model, although too simple

627: to provide reliable details, perhaps does give a valid qualitative

628: picture indicating a ``hard" photon spectrum \cite{dga}:

629: 

630: \begin{equation}

631: \frac{dN}{d\lambda_{\gamma}}=\frac{m_{B}}{\Gamma_{l\nu\gamma}}\frac{d

632: \Gamma_{l\nu\gamma}}{dE_{\gamma}}=24\lambda_\gamma(1-2\lambda_{\gamma})

633: \end{equation}

634: 

635: 

636: where $\lambda_{\gamma} = E_{\gamma}/m_B$, and yields a total Br $\approx

637: 5\times 1 0^{-6}$ with a constituent light quark mass of about 350 MeV and $f_B 

638: = 200 MeV$. Predictions from several other estimates are given in 

639: Table~\ref{lnug}. These 

640: radiative modes should be accessible accompanied by $\mu$ or e with the data 

641: samples currently available. In making contact with the phenomenological

642: models, energy spectra of the photon and of the neutrino [ i. e. the

643: invarriant mass of ($\gamma +$ the charged lepton)] would be especially

644: useful. Detailed experimental studies of these radiative decays would also give another handle on the 

645: approximate value of $f_B$.

646: 

647: \bigskip

648: 

649: \begin{table}[t] 

650: \caption{Sample of rough estimates 

651: for $B^{\pm} \to l \nu \gamma$.\label{lnug}} 

652: %\hspace*{-.5in}

653: \hspace*{-.5in}\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}

654: \hline

655: Method & Reference & Br \\ 

656: \hline

657: const. quark model & Atwood et al\cite{dga} & $\approx 5 \times 10^{-6}$ \\ 

658: light cone + HQET & Korchemsky et al\cite{ksw} & $\approx 5 \times 10^{-6}$ \\ 

659: light-front & Geng et al\cite{ksw} & $\approx 4\times 10^{-6}$ \\

660: Rel. potential & Colangelo et al\cite{ksw} & $\approx 1\times 10{-6}$ \\

661: QCD-fact,SCET & Descotes-Genon and Sachrajda\cite{ksw} & $\approx a few\times 10^{-6}$ \\ 

662: \hline

663: \end{tabular}

664: \end{table}

665: 

666: 

667: 

668: \item $B^0 \to \rho + \gamma$

669: 

670: Another important input from experiment that could aid in the

671: determination of the CKM-parameters (esp. $\vert~V_{td}\vert/\vert~V_{ts}\vert$)  

672: is the reaction $B^0 \to \rho + \gamma$ 

673: since 

674: 

675: \begin{equation}

676: \frac{Br(B^{\circ}\rightarrow \rho^{\circ}\gamma)}{Br(B\rightarrow

677: K^{*}\gamma)}=\frac{[1-m^{2}_\rho/m^{2}_{B}]}{[1-m^{2}_{K^*}/m^{2}_{B}]}

678: \biggl[\frac{T_1^{B\rightarrow\rho}(0)}{T_1^{B\rightarrow 

679: K^{*}}(0)}\biggr]^2\frac{\mid 

680: V_{td}\mid^{2}}{\mid V_{ts}\mid ^{2}}

681: \label{brb}\end{equation}

682: 

683: 

684: The expected $Br (B^0 \to \rho + \gamma) \approx 1\times 10^{-6}$ seems

685: within reach of experiment.  An accurate calculation of the (SU(3)) breaking 

686: ratio of form factors $[T_1^{B \to \rho}(0)]/[T_1^{B \to K^*}(0)]$, for example 

687: by lattice methods, the feasibility of which was demonstrated long time already 

688: \cite{hsieh,bufor}, 

689: along with the anticipated experimental measurement of $B \to \rho + \gamma$ 

690: could lead to another determination of $V_{td}/V_{ts}$\cite{ahmed}.

691: 

692: This method of extracting $\vtdts$ has some advantages and some disadvantages 

693: compared to $\bsbsbar$ oscillations. For $B \to \rho \gamma$ the relevant 

694: operator is a bilinear one, whereas for $\bsbsbar$ oscillations a 4-quark

695: operator enters; the renormalization of a lattice 4-quark operator can be more

696: complicated compared to a bilinear one.  On the other hand, $B \to \rho + 

697: \gamma$  involves a large recoil thereby extracting the form factor at or near 

698: $q^2 = 0$ (where q is the 4-momentum of the photon) is numerically difficult on 

699: the lattice.

700: 

701: From the experimental side in the numerator of eq. ($\ref{brb}$) only neutral 

702: B's,

703: {$B^0,

704: \bar B^ 0 \to \rho^0 \gamma$} should be used as charged {$B^\pm \to \rho^\pm 

705: \gamma$} provides a non-negligible long-distance contribution \cite{blak} which 

706: is 

707: proportional to $V_{ub}$ (and independent of $V_{td}$) coming from the 

708: annihilation graph and cannot be estimated accurately.

709: 

710: \end{enumerate}

711: 

712: 

713: Due to these anticipated input from experiments along with developments in

714: theory, especially with the expected improvement in computational resources because  

715: of the Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing (SCIDAC) initiative \cite{scidac}, it 

716: is 

717: fairly safe to say that errors on SM parameters such as $\sintb$ will go down by 

718: a factor of about 2-3.  However, with larger pool of B-samples that are expected 

719: from B-factories and the hadron facilities, experiments should be able

720: to directly determine  $\sintb$ from CP asymmetry measurements in $\bpsik$

721: to an accuracy of 0.02; so experiment is likely to stay ahead of theory. 

722: Uncovering new sources of CP violation in B-physics though may well require more 

723: precise tests, as we will emphasize in the next few paras. 

724: 

725: \section{Theory Errors and the hunt for new sources of CP violation

726: in B-physics} 

727: 

728: Theory errors should be a concern as they can thwart experimental

729: efforts to search for the beyond the standard model (BSM)-CP odd new phase(s) 

730: which we will collectively denote 

731: as $\chi$. The main point is that $\chi$ may well cause only small deviations 

732: from the SM in B-physics.

733: Indeed the emerging  understanding of the CKM-paradigm serves as an important 

734: lesson in this regard.

735: The-CP-odd phase $\delta_{13}$, in the standard notation, ($\delta_{13}

736: \approx

737: \gamma \approx 50

738: \pm 10 \deg$) is not small and although it causes O(1) CP-asymmetry in

739: $\bpsik$ its  effects in $K_L \to \pi \pi$, $\epsilon$ or $\epsilon'$ are  

740: very small, $O(10^{-3} - 10^{-6})$ respectively \cite{kpart}. Analogously it is 

741: clearly not

742: inconceivable that even though a BSM-CP-odd phase $\chi$ is not small its effect 

743: on B-physics will be small. As an example, this may happen if $\chi$ 

744: arises in models with extra Higgs bosons; then its effects may be much larger in 

745: top physics and quite small in B-physics \cite{atwhep}.

746: 

747: For one thing this means we may need very large data samples of B's.

748: Indeed for an asymmetry of $O(10^{-3})$ (as in $K_L$), since the relevant Br is

749: unlikely to be larger than $\approx 10^{-3}$, which is about the branching ratio 

750: for $B\rightarrow\eta^{\prime}X_{s}$, detection may require $O(10^{10})$ 

751: B's. Higher luminosity super BELLE/BABAR B-factories as well as efforts at 

752: hadron B-facilities BTEV and LHCB may well be needed in the hunt for $\chi$.

753: 

754: In the search for $\chi$ the ability to detect small deviations from the SM also 

755: though requires that we develop tests of the SM that use little or no theory

756: assumptions and are as free of theory errors as possible. Note in this regard 

757: that for detection of deviations from the SM at the level of $\approx 10^{-3}$

758: means that even isospin approximation, widely used in many methods for 

759: extracting angles of the unitarity triangle can mask $\chi$ and thereby 

760: defeat the experimental effort for detection of new physics.

761: 

762: Motivated by these considerations we now discuss methods for getting  

763: unitarity angles with very little theory error, i.e. to $O (< 1\%)$. 

764: 

765: \subsection{Pristine Determination of the Unitarity Triangle via $B \to

766: K D^0$}. 

767: 

768: Angles of the unitarity triangle can be obtained very

769: ``cleanly" i.e. without any theoretical assumptions from analysis of final 

770: states

771: containing $D^0, \bar D^0$ in charged or neutral B-decays\cite{pristine}.

772: 

773: 

774: $\gamma$ can be extracted from a study of direct CP violation in

775: charged B-decays, $B^{\pm} \to K^{\pm} D^0, \bar D^0$ \cite{gronone,atwoodtwo,ygross}. 

776: $\delta \equiv (\beta -\alpha + 

777: \pi)=2\beta + \gamma$ \cite{sand,bran,kays,atwoodthree} as  

778: well as $\beta$ can be obtained from time dependent CP-asymmetry measurements in 

779: $B^0, \bar B^0 \to K^0 D^0, \bar D^0$.

780: In both cases common final states of $D^0, \bar D^0$ have to be used,

781: as flavor tagging of $D^0, \bar D^0$ is very difficult\cite{atwoodtwo}. 

782: There are 3 types of such common final states:

783: 

784: \begin{enumerate}

785: 

786: \item $D^0, \bar D^0$ decays to CP-non-eigenstates that are doubly Cabibbo 

787: suppressed \cite{atwoodtwo}, for example,

788: $K^+ \pi^-$, $K^+ \rho^-$, $K^{*+} \pi^-$ etc.

789: 

790: 

791: \item $D^0, \bar D^0$ decays to CP-eigenstates \cite{gronone}, for example, $K^+ 

792: K^-$,

793: $\pi^+ \pi^-$, $K^0_S \pi^0$

794: 

795: \item $D^0, \bar D^0$ decays to CP-non-eigenstates that are singly Cabibbo 

796: suppressed \cite{ygross} for example, $K^{*+} K^{-}$, $K^{-

797: }K^{*}$, $\rho^{+}\pi^{-}$, $\rho^-\pi^{+}$ etc. 

798: 

799: \end{enumerate}

800: 

801: 

802: It turns out that CP asymmetry are expected to be small ($\le 10\%$) for

803: CPES and for singly Cabibbo suppressed modes (i.e. 2nd and 3rd type) whereas the

804: interference and CP asymmetry is maximal for CPNES (1st type). On the other 

805: hand, the branching ratios are expected to be largest for CPES and smallest 

806: for doubly Cabibbo suppressed CPNES modes.  The general expectations are that 

807: for 

808: extraction of $\gamma$, doubly Cabibbo suppressed modes 

809: should be most efficient among the three types.

810: However, this is not guaranteed and all three methods should, for sure, be used,  

811: What is important, for the long run is to note that only two common decay modes 

812: of $D^0 \bar D^0$ are needed to give enough observables to algebraically solve 

813: for the CP-odd weak phase $\gamma$, the strong final states phase(s) as well as 

814: the  suppressed Br($B^- \to K^- \bar{D}^0$) that is very difficult to measure 

815: experimentally; indeed perhaps a dozen or so such modes are available. This 

816: should greatly help the analysis in extracting a precise value for $\gamma$ 

817: without discrete ambiguities.

818: 

819: For time dendent CP asymmetry \cite{atwoodthree} in $B^0, \bar B^0 \to K^0 D^0, 

820: \bar D^0$,

821: the discussion is analogous to the above. Again for extraction of

822: $\delta$ (as well as $\beta$) one needs only two common final states of

823: $D^0$, $\bar D^0$ from the many; whether they be CPNES, CPES doubly or singly 

824: Cabibbo 

825: suppressed

826: modes, that are available; however, both modes cannot be CPES.

827: 

828: Especially noteworthy is the fact that for clean extraction of the

829: angles, final states containing $D^0, \bar D^0$ in the decays of

830: $B^{\pm}, B^0, \bar B^0$ are involved and furthermore common final

831: states of $D^0,\bar D^0$ decay play a critical role and should aid in increasing

832: the efficiency of the analysis.

833: 

834: In passing we briefly note of the analogous methods involving

835: $B_s$ decays to $D_s$ $K^{\pm}$\cite{adk}  (or their 

836: vector counter-parts\cite{lss}) that can also give $\gamma$

837: very cleanly\cite{fleischer}.

838: 

839: 

840: \section{Exact Chiral Symmetry on the Lattice}

841: \subsection{Introduction}

842: 

843: In the past few years a significant development for lattice gauge computations 

844: has taken place.  For the first time, we have practically viable discretization 

845: methods that exhibit exact chiral symmetry on the lattice even at a finite lattice

846: spacing, i.e. even before the continuum limit is taken.  By now, not 

847: only the viability of these methods has been convincingly demonstrated, large 

848: scale simulations, with some success, have already been using them to address 

849: some outstanding problem in weak interaction phenomenology pertaining to 

850: $K\rightarrow 2\pi$ that were very difficult to address heretofore, as briefly 

851: reminded 

852: below.

853: 

854: \subsection{Difficulties of calculating weak matrix elements on the lattice with 

855: conventional discretizations}

856: 

857: Recall that conventionally there are two fermion discretizations: Wilson and 

858: Staggered (or Kogut-Susskind).  Wilson fermion explicitly break chiral 

859: symmetry whereas conventional staggered fermions while possessing some residual 

860: chiral symmetry break flavor symmetry.  The difficulties of maintaining chiral 

861: symmetry on the lattice is enunciated in the form of a no-go 

862: (Nielsen-Ninomiya\cite{hbniel}) theorem.

863: 

864: Although conventional wisdom says that these symmetries get restored on the 

865: lattice in the continuum limit, in practice,

866: in the study of hadronic weak decays, lack of chiral symmetry imposes an 

867: extremely serious if not an insurmountable limitation.

868: 

869: Lack of chiral symmetry leads to two types of significant 

870: difficulties:

871: 

872: 1)	Precise renormalization of 4-quark operations can become a difficult fine-

873: tuning problem.  The point is that, in the absence of chiral symmetry 

874: operators such as $O_{LL}\equiv[\bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})d]^{2}$, 

875: that are relevant to $K-\bar{K}$ oscillations and $B_{K}$ computation, mix 

876: under renormalization with wrong chirality operators \cite{cbern}, for example, 

877: with 

878: $O_{PP}\equiv(\bar{s}\gamma_{5}d)^{2}$.

879: 

880: The problem is that whereas $<K|O_{LL}|\bar{K}>$ is proportional to the quark 

881: mass and therefore vanishes in the chiral limit, $<K|O_{PP}|\bar{K}>$ goes to a 

882: constant in the chiral limit.  Thus even if the mixing coefficients of the wrong 

883: chirally operators are small you need to know them very accurately in order 

884: to 

885: precisely extract the matrix element of physical interest.

886: 

887: 2) Mixing with lower dimensional operators is even a worse problem.  This 

888: happens, for instance, when one considers the operators of the $\Delta S=1$ 

889: Hamiltonian (e.g. $\bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})u\bar{u}\gamma_\mu

890: (1-\gamma_{5})d$) relevant to $K\rightarrow 2\pi$.  Now such a dim-6 operation 

891: mixes with 

892: lower dimensional operations, for example, $\bar{s}d$, $\bar{s}\gamma_{5}d$, 

893: $\bar{s}\sigma_{\mu\nu} d G^{\mu\nu}\cite{npb262331}$.  The mixing coefficients are now 

894: power 

895: divergent, 

896: for 

897: example $\sim a^{-n}$ (n=3 for $\bar{s} d$ and $\bar{s}\gamma_{5}d$ and n = 1 

898: for $\bar{s}\sigma_{\mu\nu} d G^{\mu\nu})$.  So they become increasingly important 

899: in 

900: the continuum limit.  Non-perturbative methods (that respect chiral symmetry) 

901: are essential for handling them.  This was the main reason that early efforts

902: \cite{bernprl} to 

903: calculate $\Delta I = \frac{1}{2}$, $K\rightarrow 2{\pi}$ amplitudes on the 

904: lattice did not make much progress.

905: 

906: \subsection{Domain Wall Fermions}

907: In 1992, Kaplan \cite{dkapl} in a celebrated paper showed a simple method to 

908: attain exact 

909: chiral symmetry on the lattice even at finite lattice spacing.  This remarkable 

910: feat is accomplished by embedding the 4-dim theory on to 5-dim with a fermion 

911: mass-term that has the shape of a domain wall across the 4-dimensional boundary 

912: and switches sign.  The low lying mode bound to the walls then possesses exact 

913: chiral symmetry on the lattice in the limit that the length $(L_{S})$ of the 

914: 5th dimension has an infinite extent\cite{shamir}.  Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem \cite{hbniel} is 

915: evaded as 

916: in Kaplan's construction the number of fermionic degrees of freedom per (4-dim) 

917: site is no longer finite as assumed in the theorem, and in fact becomes infinite 

918: as $L_{S}\rightarrow \infty$.  Narayanan and Neuberger \cite{nn} gave an 

919: elegant flavor 

920: interpretation of this fifth dimension.

921: 

922: In 1997 1st (quenched) lattice QCD simulation done to test the practical 

923: viability of this approach showed very encouraging results \cite{tblum}.  In 

924: those numerical 

925: simulations for QCD actually the domain wall formulation of Shamir \cite{shamir} 

926: was  

927: used.  These early results showed that even with a modest extent of 

928: the 5th dimension, domain wall fermion possesses very good chiral behavior 

929: setting 

930: the stage for their use in large scale simulations.

931: 

932: Since DWF are continuum like their renormalization (perturbative and non-

933: perturbative) properties are fairly simple.  Also discretization errors tend to 

934: go as $O(a^{2})$ rendering them with very good scaling properties which tends to 

935: offset the cost of the extra-dimension.

936: 

937: Since in practice the extent of the 5th dimension is finite, the coupling 

938: between 

939: the two walls separated by $L_{S}$ causes a coupling between the light modes and 

940: gives them a residual mass, $m_{res}$.  This mass can be measured quite 

941: precisely \cite{blumtwo,ali}.  In low energy applications one can systematically 

942: include the effect 

943: of $m_{res}$ in the context of an effective chiral lagrangian \cite{blumthree}.

944: 

945: \subsection{Application to $B_{K}$}

946: 

947: CP-PACS \cite{alikh} and RBC\cite{blumone} collaborations have made   

948: considerable progress towards a precise calculation of $B_{K}$ with DWF.  Both 

949: results are in the range of 1-2$\sigma$ below the old result from JLQCD \cite{aokione}, 

950: $B_{K}$[2 GeV]=$0.628\pm0.042$.  CP-PACS and RBC central values for $B_{K}$ differ 

951: by about 5-10\%; most likely this difference is due to the fact that CP-PACS 

952: uses 1-loop lattice perturbation \cite{aokitwo,tblumtwo} theory for 

953: renormalization of the $\Delta S=2$ operators whereas RBC is using 

954: non-perturbative renormalization \cite{blumthree}.  

955: Efforts are now underway to 

956: repeat this calculation at weaker 

957: (quenched) coupling \cite{noakitwo} as well as 

958: with dynamical domain wall quarks \cite{izubuchi}.

959: 

960: 

961: 

962: %copy from ferns' file

963: 

964: \section{$\Delta I=1/2$ Rule and $\epe$: Progress and Outlook.}

965: 

966: 

967: \subsection{Introduction}

968: 

969: There have been two recent attempts by the CP-PACS \cite{noaki} and the

970: RBC \cite{blumone} collaborations, at attacking this old problem on the

971: lattice using the relatively new discretization method of domain wall

972: fermions (DWF) \cite{dkapl,shamir,nn}.

973: 

974: 

975: First lattice studies of $K\to\pi\pi$ by both CP-PACS \cite{noaki} and

976: RBC \cite{blumone} with DWF used the lowest order chiral perturbation

977: theory (ChPT) approach suggested by Bernard \etal \cite{prd322343}.  The

978: method then calls for using the lattice to compute matrix element of

979: 4-quark operators between $K\to\pi$ and $K\to{}$vacuum which are used

980: to obtain the corresponding desired $K\to 2\pi$ 

981: matrix elements\cite{stag}. While

982: this is a simple method which avoids technical (Maiani-Testa Theorem

983: \cite{plb245585}) and also practical, computational limitations, it is

984: nevertheless a severe approximation. In particular, at the leading

985: order in ChPT being used, final state interactions, which in reality are

986: very likely important \cite{npb592294} are necessarily absent.  Note

987: also that in this approximation the good chiral behavior of domain wall

988: fermions becomes crucial. For one thing in the absence of chiral symmetry, the

989: unphysical (cubically divergent) contribution from mixing with lower

990: dimensional operators to $\bra \pi |\theta^{8,1}|K\ket$ cannot be

991: subtracted away in a relatively simple way by using

992: $\bra0|\theta^{8,1}|K^0\ket$. Furthermore, the renormalization of

993: 4-quark operators also becomes vastly more complicated due to the

994: mixing of operators with the wrong chirality ones\cite{cbern}. Since

995: the $K\to\pi$ matrix elements of some of the operators go to a constant

996: in the chiral limit, whereas those of the right chirality tend to

997: vanish, subtraction of the unwanted contribution needs to be done at a

998: very high precision, i.e.\ it becomes a fine tuning problem. For these

999: reasons, as mentioned above,  earlier efforts \cite{bernprl} for computation of $K\to2\pi$

1000: and $\epe$ to the

1001: LO in ChPT by the use of $K\to\pi$ and $K\to0$ on the lattice with

1002: Wilson fermions, which explicitly break chiral symmetry, were able to make little headway.

1003: 

1004: Since chiral symmetry is so critical in the calculation of matrix

1005: elements for $K\to2\pi$ and since, due to the finite extent of the 5th

1006: dimension, rigorously speaking, domain wall quarks do not possess exact

1007: chiral symmetry, it is important to be able to take into account

1008: residual symmetry breaking effects in a systematic fashion.  For matrix

1009: element dominated by long-distance physics this can be accomplished by

1010: shifting the bare masses in ChPT by  $m_{res}$, where $m_{res}$ is the

1011: residual quark mass which the massless quarks on the lattice possess

1012: due to the coupling

1013: between the walls of the 5th dimension \cite{blumthree}. On the lattice

1014: we can calculate $m_{res}$ quite precisely \cite{blumtwo,ali} and the

1015: chiral limit is then taken by setting $(m_{quark} + m_{res})\to0$.

1016: 

1017: For operators such as $Q_6$ which receive power divergent (i.e.\ short

1018: distance) contributions that are not physical and have to be subtracted

1019: away, the symmetry breaking effect cannot be precisely described by

1020: $m_{res}$ \cite{blumone}. Fortunately, the LEC can still be computed

1021: accurately by taking the slope of the matrix elements with the

1022: $m_{quark}$ so long as $m_{res}$ is independent of $m_{quark}$ to a good 

1023: approximation \cite{blumone}; of course this does require that in actual 

1024: simulations

1025: the length of the 5th dimension is sufficiently long that $m_{res}<<

1026: m_{quark}$.

1027: 

1028: 

1029: Note also that for power divergent subtractions ChPT is taken into account to

1030: all orders \cite{blumone}.

1031: 

1032: Table~\ref{tabnine} gives the (subtracted) $K\to\pi$ matrix element of all of the

1033: 4-quark operators of interest for the $I=1/2$ and the $I=3/2$ channel.

1034: This can be used to obtain the $K\to2\pi$ amplitudes via eq.~(201) of

1035: Ref.~\cite{blumone}.

1036: 

1037: 

1038: \begin{table}[htb]

1039: \caption{The lattice values for the low energy, chiral perturbation

1040: theory constants decomposed by isospin for $Q_1$ to $Q_{10}$.  (Taken from 

1041: \cite{blumone})

1042: \label{tabnine}}

1043: \begin{center}

1044: \begin{tabular}{lcr}

1045: \hline

1046: \hline

1047: $i$  \qquad\qquad\qquad & $a^{(1/2)}_{i,{\rm lat}}$ &

1048: $a^{(3/2)}_{i,{\rm lat}}$ \\

1049: \hline

1050: 1 &  \qquad\qquad $-1.19(31)\times10^{-5}$ \qquad\qquad\qquad &

1051: $-1.38(6)\times10^{-6}$ \\

1052: 2 & $2.22(16)\times10^{-5}$ & $-1.38(6) \times10^{-6}$ \\

1053: 3 & $0.15(113) \times10^{-5}$ & 0.0 \\

1054: 4 & $3.55(96) \times10^{-5}$ & 0.0 \\

1055: 5 & $-2.97(100) \times10^{-5}$ & 0.0 \\

1056: 6 & $-8.12(98) \times10^{-5}$ & 0.0 \\

1057: 7 & $-3.22(16) \times10^{-6}$ & $-1.61(8) \times10^{-6}$ \\

1058: 8 & $-9.92(54) \times10^{-6}$ & $-4.96(27) \times10^{-6}$  \\

1059: 9 & $-1.85(16) \times10^{-5}$ & $-2.07(9) \times10^{-6}$ \\

1060: 10 & $1.55(31) \times10^{-5}$ & $-2.07(9) \times10^{-6}$ \\

1061: \hline\hline

1062: \end{tabular}

1063: \end{center}

1064: \end{table}

1065: 

1066: 

1067: Table~\ref{tabten} gives the full results for Re$A_0$, Re$A_2$,

1068: $\omega^{-1}\equiv \frac{{\rm Re}A_0}{{\rm Re}A_2}$ 

1069: and $\epe$ of RBC\cite{blumone}.  

1070: 

1071: \begin{table}[htb]

1072: \caption {Final values for physical quantities using 

1073: 1-loop full QCD

1074: extrapolations to the physical kaon mass and a value of

1075: $\mu=2.13$ GeV for the matching between the lattice and continuum; Taken from \cite{blumone}.  

1076: (Statistical errors only \label{tabten})}.  

1077: \begin{center}

1078: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c}

1079: \hline

1080: \hline

1081: & & This calculation \\

1082: Quantity & Experiment & (statistical errors only) \\

1083: \hline

1084: Re$A_0$(GeV) & $3.33\times10^{-7}$ & $(2.96\pm0.17)\times10^{-7}$ \\

1085: Re$A_2$(GeV & $1.50\times 10^{-8}$ & $(1.172\pm0.053)\times 10^{-8}$ \\

1086: $\omega^{-1}$ & 22.2 & $(25.3\pm1.8)$ \\

1087: Re$(\epe)$ & $(15.3\pm2.6)\times 10^{-4}$ (NA48) & $(-4.0\pm2.3) \times

1088: 10^{-4}$ \\

1089: & $(20.7\pm2.8)\times 10^{-4}$ (KTEV) & \\

1090: \hline\hline

1091: \end{tabular}

1092: \end{center}

1093: \end{table}

1094: 

1095: 

1096: 

1097: While both the groups \cite{noaki,blumone} use L0ChPT, DWF and the quenched

1098: approximation, there are some important differences in these two

1099: calculations as well. For one thing, RBC \cite{blumone} used the standard Wilson 

1100: gauge

1101: actions whereas CP-PACS \cite{noaki} used renormalization group improved 

1102: (Iwasaki)

1103: gauge action \cite{iwasaki}. Also in their extractions of Re$A_2$ (and

1104: $B_K$), RBC

1105: used the 1-loop quenched chiral perturbation theory \cite{jhep08023} to

1106: fit

1107: $\bra\pi|Q^{3/2}_{1,2}|K\ket$ whereas CP-PACS used a phenomenological

1108: fit.

1109: 

1110: \subsection{When the Dust Settles}

1111: 

1112: \begin{description}

1113: 

1114: \item[I.] Regarding Re $\epe$

1115: 

1116: \begin{description}

1117: 

1118: \item[a)] Key Contributions.

1119: 

1120: Listed below are the key contributions to  $\epe$ from $I=0$ and 2

1121: final states, all given in units of $10^{-4}$ resulting from\cite{blumone}. Recall, experiment finds

1122: (in this unit) \cite{prl8322,epjc22231} Re $\epe=17\pm2$. (Note

1123: contributions not shown are negligible in comparison).

1124: 

1125: \begin{center}

1126: \begin{tabular}{lll}

1127: Operator \qquad\qquad  & ~~$I=0$ & ~~$I=2$ \\ \\

1128: $Q_4$ &  $-4.8\pm1.1$ \qquad\qquad & \\

1129: $Q_6$ & $~14.2\pm1.9$ & \\

1130: $Q_8$ & $~1.48\pm.12$ & $-16.97\pm.84$ \\

1131: $Q_9$ & & $~1.56\pm.00$

1132: \end{tabular}

1133: \end{center}

1134: 

1135: \item[b)] $Q_6$ and $Q_8$ are not the only ones that matter.

1136: 

1137: Although, as widely expected \cite{rmp7265}--\cite{bardeen}, $Q_6$

1138: and $Q_8$

1139: are the dominant players, due to the cancellations between these two

1140: contributions, other operators (e.g.\ $Q_4$) seem to be making an

1141: appreciable difference to the final result.

1142: 

1143: \item[c)] Buras approximate formula \cite{hep9908395}.

1144: 

1145: In this context recall Buras' approximate formula

1146: 

1147: \be

1148: \epe \simeq \epe |_{6+8} \equiv \epe|_6 + \epe|_8 \label{buras}

1149: \ee

1150: 

1151: \noi From our lattice data one can see that the contribution of

1152: operators other than $Q_6$ and $Q_8$ is about 60\% of $\epe|_{6+8}$.

1153: 

1154: \item[d)] Cancellation {\it not\/} between large numbers.

1155: 

1156: While there is a cancellation between $Q_6$ and $Q_8$, in magnitude

1157: each of this contribution is comparable to the experimental number for

1158: $\epe$. Had it been that

1159: 

1160: \be

1161: \epe|_6, \quad \epe|_8 >> \epe|_{expt}. \label{cancel}

1162: \ee

1163: 

1164: \noi then the cancellation would have been between ``large numbers''

1165: (compared to the final result that one is seeking)

1166: and the prognosis for future improvements would have been even harder.

1167: 

1168: \item[e)] Unnatural Cancellations.

1169: 

1170: The substantial cancellation $(\sim 85\%)$ between contributions of 

1171: $Q_{6}$ and $Q_{8}$ to $\epsilon'$/$\epsilon$, in all 

1172: likelihood, is 

1173: not natural, i.e. not stable to perturbations.  Recall that these numbers emerge 

1174: after using at least 3 key (uncontrolled) approximations: lowest order chiral 

1175: perturbation theory, quench approximation and heavy charm quark.  It is 

1176: virtually impossible that these approximations affect $Q_{6}$ and 

1177: $Q_{8}$ in the same way.  Indeed there are good reasons to think that both 

1178: chiral perturbation theory and quench approximation are having a bigger effect 

1179: on $Q_{6}$ than on $Q_{8}$.  It seems reasonable therefore to expect 

1180: that in improved calculations of $\epsilon'$/$\epsilon$ these cancellations 

1181: between $Q_6$ and $Q_8$ will not remain. 

1182: 

1183: 

1184: \item[f)] Phenomenological bound.

1185: 

1186: To the extent that $\epe|_{I=2}<0$, there is a useful pheomenological

1187: bound,

1188: 

1189: \be

1190: \epe|_{I=0} > \epe|_{expt} \label{bound}

1191: \ee

1192: 

1193: \noi with which one can test the SM\null. For the purpose of this test

1194: the cancellations between the $I=0$ and $I=2$ contributions are not

1195: quite relevant.  Note that our current data gives left hand side of

1196: eqn.(16) of $\sim11\pm2$ whereas the RHS (from experiment) is

1197: $\sim17\pm2$. Clearly then $\epe|_{I=0}$ must increase appreciably as

1198: improvements in our lattice calculation are made if the SM's

1199: description of CP is to continue to hold.

1200: 

1201: These considerations suggest that tests of the SM with improvements in

1202: accuracy appear feasible.

1203: 

1204: \end{description}

1205: 

1206: 

1207: \item[II)] Repercussions for the origin of the $\Delta I=1/2$ Rule.

1208: 

1209: The octet enhancement, i.e.\ $\frac{{\rm Re}A_0}{{\rm Re}A_2} \sim 20

1210: >>1$, has been a long standing puzzle in Particle Physics. The lattice

1211: calculation with domain wall quarks, although not having sufficient

1212: control over all the systematic errors cannot at present give a reliable result for

1213: $\epe$, they do provide with a useful and unambiguous information for the

1214: $\Delta I=1/2$ enhancement.  The lattice result leads to an important

1215: and remarkable conclusion regarding the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule as can be

1216: seen from Table~\ref{tabnine}: The contribution of Re$A_2$ and

1217: especially

1218: of Re$A_0$ originate almost entirely from the aboriginal 4-fermi

1219: operator $Q_2$. Indeed, we find

1220: 

1221: \begin{center}

1222: \begin{tabular}{lcc}

1223: Operator & \qquad Re$A_0$ (GeV) \qquad  & Re$A_2$ (GeV) \\ \\

1224: $Q_1$ & \qquad $(3.48\pm.77)\times10^{-8}$ \qquad &

1225: $(-.363\pm.016)\times10^{-8}$ \\

1226: $Q_2$ & \qquad $(24.5\pm1.6)\times10^{-8}$ \qquad  &

1227: $(1.520\pm.068)\times10^{-8

1228: }$ \\

1229: $Q_6$ & \qquad $(0.050\pm0.006)\times10^{-8}$ \qquad  & \\

1230: \end{tabular}

1231: \end{center}

1232: 

1233: \noi These numbers should be compared to the experimental ones:

1234: Re$A_0^{expt}=33.30\times10^{-8}$ GeV, Re$A_2^{expt}=1.50\times10^{-8}$

1235: GeV\null. Clearly Re$A_0$ is completely dominated by $Q_2$, making about

1236: $\sim 80$--85\% contribution and $Q_1$ makes the remaining $\sim 15\%$

1237: contribution to Re$A_0$.  In particular the contribution of $Q_6$ to

1238: Re$A_0$ is completely negligible, being $\sim0.2\%$.  This is in

1239: sharp contrast to some model calculations for $\epe$ in which contribution of

1240: $Q_6$ to Re$A_0$ is typically almost 20--30\%

1241: \cite{rmp7265,hep0001235}. Note that while numbers given here for

1242: contribution of individual operators are based on calculations at

1243: $\mu\sim2$ GeV we have

1244: studied the $\mu$ dependence from $\sim 1.3$--2 GeV and the dependence

1245: is quite mild \cite{blumone}.

1246: 

1247: It must be emphasized that all these quantitative findings, in

1248: particular $Q_6$ vs $Q_2$ contributions to $K\to 2\pi(I=0)$, are based

1249: on LOChPT calculations and this could change as higher order

1250: corrections are included.

1251: 

1252: It is indeed interesting and ironical that the penguin operators

1253: \cite{npb120316} originally invoked to explain the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule

1254: seem to play little role therein, at least in the context 

1255: of our lattice calculation\cite{blumone}. However, the subsequent conjecture of

1256: their importance to rendering a largish $\epe$ \cite{prd202392} seems

1257: to be substantiated although significant theoretical progress still

1258: needs to be made before the repercussions of the precise experimental

1259: measurement can be fully assessed.

1260: 

1261: \end{description}

1262: 

1263: 

1264: \subsection{Approximations and Concerns}

1265: 

1266: There were several approximations made in the lattice of

1267: calculations \cite{noaki,blumone} using DWF that were recently completed.

1268: 

1269: \begin{enumerate}

1270: 

1271: \item The quenched approximation so that quark antiquark loops are

1272: ignored in the propagation of the gauge field (gluon).

1273: 

1274: \item Lowest order chiral perturbation theory (LOChPT), so that the

1275: matrix elements of the 4-quark operators are calculated in the leading

1276: order (LO) in this approximation. This means that operators

1277: [$Q_1$--$Q_6$, $Q_9$, $Q_{10}$] that transforms as (8,1) and/or (27,1)

1278: under SU(3)$_L\times$SU(3)$_R$ are calculated to $O(p^2)$ whereas those

1279: of $Q_7$, $Q_8$ which transform as (8,8) are to $O(p^0\to1)$ in the

1280: chiral expansion.

1281: 

1282: \item The charm quark is assumed to be very heavy and  

1283: integrated out.  The effective Hamiltonian \cite{npb408209,zpc68239},

1284: consequently consists of only 3 active flavors: $u$, $d$, $s$.

1285: 

1286: \end{enumerate}

1287: 

1288: These approximations are uncontrolled, i.e.\ we do not have a reliable

1289: estimate of  how inaccurate they are. While the quenched approximation

1290: seems to be accurate to 10--15\% in many spectrums and decay constant

1291: calculations, it may well be a lot worse for some hadronic matrix

1292: elements. In particular, comparison of the analytical formulas for $\bra

1293: \pi|Q^{3/2}_{7,8}|K\ket$ to NLO \cite{hep9912513} in full ChPT with the

1294: lattice data \cite{blumone} obtained using the quenched approximation

1295: shows that the logs of the full ChPT seem to be absent \cite{prd}. Also

1296: the matrix element of $Q_6$, which is of crucial importance to $\epe$

1297: is claimed to be very susceptible to quenching effects

1298: \cite{hep0108029}.

1299: 

1300: Although, in many low energy applications, LOChPT works fairly well,

1301: in $K\to2\pi$ there are reasons to be suspicious. First of all an

1302: important mass scale here is $m_K$ and not just $m_\pi$. Furthermore,

1303: in the $I=0$ channel the $\pi$-$\pi$ rescattering effects (FSI), which

1304: cannot occur in the LOChPT, are likely to be quite important

1305: \cite{npb592294}. Indeed for $\bra\pi\pi|Q_6|K\ket$ higher order chiral

1306: corrections may well be intertwined with a $O^{++}(\sigma)$ resonance

1307: in the $\pi$-$\pi$ channel \cite{isgur,cnpp20119}.

1308: 

1309: Since the mass of the charm quark is only $\sim 1.3$ GeV, integrating it

1310: out assuming it is very heavy (i.e.\ $>>\Lambda_{QCD}$) is very likely

1311: not a

1312: good approximation. Corrections from higher dimensional operators are

1313: likely to

1314: be sizeable \cite{jhep0010048}. Also in the 4-flavor theory, GIM

1315: cancellation forbids power-divergent mixing of dim-6 operators of the

1316: $I=0$, $H_{eff}$ with lower dim operators, so the 4 flavor theory is

1317: preferable over the 3 flavor theory for that reason too, although this

1318: advantage is only relevant in computation of Re$A_0$

1319: \cite{npb289505}--\cite{hep0011070}. In the calculation of Im$A_0$

1320: where (8,1) penguin operators, such as $Q_6$, become important which

1321: originate from integrating out the top quark, the top quark is so heavy

1322: compared to the lattice cut-off that integrating it out is

1323: unavoidable.

1324: 

1325: \subsection{Future Outlook}

1326: 

1327: While the above approximations used in the current lattice calculations

1328: are not controllable, systematic improvements are feasible and

1329: efforts at these are well underway.

1330: 

1331: First, recent studies of renormalization group-improved gauge actions in

1332: the context of domain wall fermions appear very promising in significant

1333: improvements in chiral symmetry (which was already remarkably good)

1334: \cite{hep0110074}. Efforts are also underway towards creating a large

1335: ensemble of gauge configurations with dynamical (2 flavor) domain wall

1336: quarks \cite{izubuchi} with lattice spacing $\sim(2$ GeV$^{-1})$. This

1337: should allow a first study of the quenching effects in $K\to2\pi$ matrix

1338: elements in another year or so. Also work is being done at finer

1339: lattice spacing $\sim (3$ GeV$^{-1})$ with the hope that this will allow

1340: a

1341: better treatment of the charm-quark and a calculation of the matrix

1342: elements in the effective theory with 4 active flavors ($u$, $d$, $s$,

1343: $c$) \cite{noakitwo}.

1344: 

1345: Note also that new calculations of the $K\to2\pi$ matrix elements have

1346: begun \cite{giusti} using another discretization (overlap fermions

1347: \cite{neuberger}) possessing excellent chiral symmetry.

1348: 

1349: Recent works also show how lattice computations of all the matrix

1350: elements relevant to $K\rightarrow 2{\pi}$ and $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ can be 

1351: obtained beyond the leading order in ChPT. In one method

1352: \cite{prd} matrix elements of all the relevant operators ($\Delta

1353: I=1/2$ or 3/2) can be obtained to NLO by using lattice computations of

1354: $K$-$\bar K$, $K\to\pi$, $K\to0$ and $K\to2\pi$ at the two unphysical

1355: kinematics ($m_K=m_\pi$ and $m_K=2m_\pi$) wherein Maiani-Testa Theorem

1356: \cite{plb245585}

1357: can be evaded. In another construction \cite{hep0110206} the $K\to2\pi$

1358: matrix elements for $\Delta I=\frac{3}{2}$ transitions can be obtained to NLO by 

1359: using lattice computations of

1360: $K\to2\pi$ with momentum insertion on one of the final state pions.

1361: 

1362: Indeed in a very interesting paper Lellouch and Luscher have also

1363: proposed a method wherein $K\to2\pi$ matrix elements may be directly

1364: calculated without using ChPT by relating them to finite volume

1365: correlation functions \cite{hep0003023}. There is also a proposed 

1366: method which makes use of dispersion relations to calculate

1367: physical $K \to \pi \pi$ amplitudes to all orders

1368: in ChPT\cite{disp}. We note that both of these methods make rather stringent demands

1369: on unitarity therefore their implementation, especially for the

1370: $\Delta I=1/2$ case, may need full QCD simulations. 

1371: 

1372: \section{Unitarity Triangle from $K$-Decays}

1373: 

1374: While determination of the unitarity triangle (UT)

1375: from $B$ decays has been receiving considerable attention and is much

1376: in the news, it is useful to note that not only an independent

1377: determination of the UT can also be made purely from $K$-decays but it

1378: is important to do so. In principle, 

1379: there are four physical processes that can 

1380: be

1381: useful here, whereas any three of them would be sufficient.

1382: 

1383: \begin{enumerate}

1384: 

1385: \item $\epsilon$, the indirect CP-violation parameter characterizing the

1386: CP-violation  in $K_L\to2\pi$.

1387: 

1388: \item The $Br(K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu)$, a determination of which has been

1389: underway for a long time and a crude measurement now exists thanks to

1390: the two candidate events that have been seen, $Br(K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar

1391: \nu) = (1.57^{+1.75}_{-.82})\times10^{-10}$ \cite{e787}.

1392: 

1393: \item There is considerable experimental interest in measuring the

1394: $Br(K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu)$. This is a very interesting mode which is

1395: CP violating \cite{llitt} and is theoretically extremely clean. 

1396: but

1397: clearly an

1398: extremely difficult experimental challenge.

1399: 

1400: \item The direct CP-violation parameter $\epe$. Although the

1401: experimental number is now quite precisely known

1402: \cite{prl8322,epjc22231}, it can only be useful in the context of the

1403: UT, if the theory can be brought under-control.  Renewed interest on

1404: the lattice, in light of recent progress in maintenance of chiral

1405: symmetry on the lattice (described briefly in preceding pages) gives one some 

1406: encouragement that

1407: perhaps

1408: a few

1409: years down the road we would be able to make use of the experimental

1410: result and translate it into the CP violation parameter $\eta$ of the CKM 

1411: paradigm.

1412: In the $\rho$-$\eta$ plane, $\epe$, when the numerical value of $\ep$

1413: is taken from experiment, would provide a horizontal line (actually a

1414: band due to the error in theory and in experiment).

1415: 

1416: As is well known transplanting $\epsilon$ to $\rho$, $\eta$ plane does

1417: require knowledge of the non-perturbative hadronic parameter, $B_K$.

1418: Fortunately as already mentioned, lattice calculations of $B_K$ are now

1419: quite mature. In fact several different discretization methods have

1420: been used to determine this important quantity. While the current

1421: accuracy is around 15\%, efforts with dynamical quarks are underway and

1422: in 3--5  years we should expect the accuracy to improve appreciably.

1423: 

1424: \end{enumerate}

1425: 

1426: The theory for $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ is also rather clean \cite{hep0101336}.

1427: The basic process $s\to d\nu\bar\nu$ is dominated by the top quark.

1428: Conversion of that to $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ can be done using isospin

1429: by relating it to the thoroughly studied charge current process $K\to

1430: \pi e\nu$.

1431: 

1432: The observed $Br$, deduced on the basis of the 2 events seen so far, is

1433: consistent with the expectation from the SM; our

1434: \cite{atwoodone} CKM fits give,

1435: $BR(K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu)=(0.67\pm0.10)\times 10^{-10}$. Experimental

1436: efforts are underway to improve this measurement in the near future at

1437: BNL and further down the road at FNAL \cite{skett}\null.

1438: 

1439: The decay $K^0_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$ is fascinating as it is CP

1440: violating. The theory \cite{hep0101336} in this case is even clearer

1441: then for the charged counter part and  $BR(K^0_L\to K^0\nu\bar\nu) =

1442: 1.5\times 10^{-3} A^4 \lambda^{10}\eta^2$. Our \cite{atwoodone} fit

1443: value

1444: is $BR(K_L\to\pi^0 \nu\bar\nu) = (.23\pm.07)\times 10^{-10}$. So an

1445: experimental measurement would give a clean determination of the CKM

1446: phase $\eta$. Note though that $(A\approx V_{cb})$ the current

1447: accuracy  in $A(\sim7\%)$ should be improved otherwise it introduces

1448: significant error on the $\eta$ determination. The

1449: $K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$ experiment is clearly very challenging and it

1450: is receiving attention at KEK (E391), at BNL (KOPIO) and at FNAL

1451: (CKM)\cite{skett}.

1452: 

1453: Given the intrinsic difficulties of this experiment and those of an

1454: accurate theoretical calculation of $\epe$ it would be interesting to

1455: see

1456: which of these is brought under control first.

1457: \bigskip

1458: 

1459: {\bf Acknowledgements} \\

1460: I thank the organizers for inviting me and for the useful

1461: and enjoyable meeting. This research was supported in part by

1462: USDOE grant \# DE-AC02-98CH10886.

1463: 

1464: 

1465: 

1466: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1467: 

1468: 

1469: \bibitem{ckm}

1470: 

1471: N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf10},

1472: 531 (1963); M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theo. Phys. {\bf 49}, 652

1473: (1973).  %8   %101

1474: 

1475: \bibitem{pristine} D. Atwood and A. Soni, hep-ph/021207.

1476: 

1477: \bibitem{dwein} D. Weingarten, Phys. Lett.{\bf B99},333 (1982); H. Hamber 

1478: and G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 47}, 1792 (1981).

1479: 

1480: \bibitem{dtous} D. Toussaint, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B106} (Proc. Suppl.), 111 

1481: (2002); T. Kaneko, {\it ibid} 133.

1482: 

1483: \bibitem{heplat} C. Bernard {\it \etal}(MILC), hep-lat/0209163.

1484: 

1485: \bibitem{aokione} S. Aoki {\it \etal} (JLQCD Collab.), Phys. Rev. Lett.

1486: {\bf 80}, 5271 (1998).   %17

1487: 

1488: \bibitem{kilcup} G. Kilcup, R. Gupta and S.R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. {\bf

1489: D57}, 1654 (1998).  %20

1490: 

1491: \bibitem{cbas88} C. Bernard, A. Soni,

1492: Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl.9:155-174,1989. 

1493: 

1494: \bibitem{ssharp} S. Sharpe, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B34} (Proc. Suppl.), 403 

1495: (1994).

1496: 

1497: \bibitem{becir} D. Becirevic {\it \etal} (SPQCDR Collab.),

1498: hep-lat/0209136. %21

1499: 

1500: \bibitem{tblum} T. Blum and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 174

1501: (1997); Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 3595 (1997).  %10

1502: 

1503: \bibitem{alikh} A. Ali Khan {\it \etal} (CP-PACS Collab.), Phys. Rev. {\bf

1504: D64}, 114506 (2001).   %16

1505: 

1506: \bibitem{blumone} T. Blum {\it \etal} (RBC Collab.), hep-lat/0110075.   %12

1507: 

1508: \bibitem{milc} T. DeGrand (MILC), hep-lat/0208054.

1509: 

1510: \bibitem{ngarr} N. Garron {\it \etal}, hep-lat/0212015.

1511: 

1512: \bibitem{izubuchi} T. Izubuchi {\it \etal} (RBC Collab.), hep-lat/0210011.  %98

1513: 

1514: \bibitem{bls} C. Bernard, J. Labrenz and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. {bf D49}, 

1515: 2536(1994).

1516: 

1517: \bibitem{nyam} N. Yamada, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B119} (Proc. Suppl.),93 (2003).

1518: 

1519: \bibitem{nucl} A. Soni, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B47} (Proc. Suppl.), 43(1996).

1520: 

1521: \bibitem{hepph} A. Soni, hep-ph/0003092.

1522: 

1523: \bibitem{co94} C. Bernard, {\it \etal} (MILC), {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 

1524: D66},094501(2002).

1525: 

1526: \bibitem{error} In quoting this error for Refs.\cite{heplat}

1527: and \cite{co94}, I have 

1528: taken the liberty to add linearly the error due to chiral extzapolertion to the 

1529: other errors which are (as usual) added in quadrature.

1530: 

1531: \bibitem{noaki} J.I. Noaki \etal [CP-PACS Collab.], hep-lat/0108013.

1532: %11

1533: 

1534: \bibitem{hep0101336} See, e.g., A. J. Buras, hep-ph/0101336.   %105

1535: 

1536: \bibitem{kpart} K. Hagiwara {\it \etal} (Particle Data Group Collaboration),  

1537: Phys. Rev. {\bf D66},010001(2002).

1538: 

1539: \bibitem{lepb} For LEP see, 

1540: http://lepborc.wel.cern.

1541: ch/LEPBOSC/LEPBOSC98/3; for SLD see K.Abe {\it \etal},  hep-ex/0012043;

1542: hep-ex/0011041.

1543: 

1544: \bibitem{bern} C. Bernard, T. Blum and A. Soni, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D58},

1545: 01401 (1998).   %27

1546: 

1547: \bibitem{buch} G. Buchalla {\it \etal}  Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 68}, 1125

1548: (1996).  %43

1549: 

1550: \bibitem{tinam} T. Inami and C.S. Lim, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 

1551: 65},1772,1981.

1552: 

1553: \bibitem{aelk} See e.g. A. El-Khadra {\it \etal}, Phys. Rev., {\bf D64}, 

1554: 014502 (2001).

1555: 

1556: \bibitem{atwoodone} D. Atwood and A. Soni,  hep-ph/0103197.   %5

1557: 

1558: \bibitem{ciuch} M. Ciuchini {\it \etal} hep-ph/0012308.    %3

1559: 

1560: \bibitem{hocker} A. Hocker {\it \etal} hep-ph/0104062.   %4

1561: 

1562: \bibitem{intmor} See, e.g. talks given by A. Soni at the Hadron Phenomenology 

1563: workshop at INT Seattle, 11/8/01 (http://mocha.phys.washington.edu/~ 

1564: int\_talk/Worskshops/int\_01\_3/People/Soni\_A)

1565: and at the Electroweak Session of 

1566: XXXVII Rencontres de Moriond, Les Arcs, March 9-16,2002 

1567: (http://moriond.in2p3.fr/EW/2002/transparencies/index.html)

1568: 

1569: \bibitem{aknon} A. Kronfeld and S. Ryan, hep-ph/0206058.

1570: 

1571: %\bibitem{heplat021) N. Yamada, hep_lat/0210035.

1572: 

1573: \bibitem{llellh} L. Lellouch, hep-ph/0211359.

1574: 

1575: \bibitem{belle} B. Aubert {\it \etal} (BABAR Collab), 

1576: hep-ex/0207042; K. Abe {\it 

1577: \etal} (BELLE Collab) hep-ex/0208025.

1578: 

1579: \bibitem{ynirh} See, e.g., Y. Nir, hep-ph/0208080.

1580: 

1581: \bibitem{ashlat} A. Soni, hep-lat/9510036.

1582: 

1583: \bibitem{dga} D. Atwood, G. Eilam and A. Soni, hep-ph/9409229.

1584: 

1585: \bibitem{ksw} A. Khodjamirian \etal, hep-ph/9506242; 

1586: Korchemsky \etal, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61},114510,2000;   

1587: Colangelo, F. De Fazio and G. Nardulli, hep-ph/9606219; C.Q. Geng, G. C. Lih and 

1588: W. M. Zhang, hep-ph/9710323; G. Eilam, I. Halperin and R. Mendel, hep-

1589: ph/9506264; S. Descotes-Genon and C. Sachrajda, hep-ph/0209216;

1590: E. Lunghi, D. Pirjol and D. Wyler, hep-ph/0210091; S. Bosch \etal,

1591: hep-ph/0301123.  

1592: 

1593: \bibitem{hsieh} 

1594: C. Bernard, P. Hsieh and A. Soni, hep-lat/9311010.

1595: 

1596: \bibitem{bufor} D. Buford {\it \etal} (UKQCD Collab) hep-lat/9503002; A. Abada 

1597: {\it \etal} (APE Collab) hep-lat/9503020; D. Becirevic, hep-ph/0211340.

1598: 

1599: \bibitem{ahmed} See also, A. Ali and A. Y. Parkhomenko, Eur. Phys. J.

1600: {\bf C23}, 89(2002). 

1601: 

1602: \bibitem{blak} D. Atwood, B. Blok and A. Soni, hep-ph/9408373.

1603: 

1604: \bibitem{scidac} http://www.osti.gov/scidac/henp/index.html.

1605: 

1606: \bibitem{atwhep} D. Atwood {\it \etal}, hep-ph/0006032.

1607: 

1608: \bibitem{gronone}  M. Gronau and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. {\bf B265},

1609: 172 (1991).  %33

1610: 

1611: \bibitem{atwoodtwo} D. Atwood, I. Dunietz and A. Soni, Phys. Rev.

1612: Lett. {\bf78}, 3257 (1997); Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 036005 (2001).

1613: %31

1614: 

1615: \bibitem{ygross} Y. Grossman, G. Ligeti and A. Soffer, hep-ph/0210433.

1616: 

1617: \bibitem{sand} A.I. Sanda, hep-ph/0108031.   %36

1618: 

1619: \bibitem{bran} G. Branco, L. Lavora and J. Silva, in``CP Violation'',

1620: Oxford University Press (1999).   %34

1621: 

1622: \bibitem{kays} B. Kayser and D. London, hep-ph/9905561.   %35

1623: 

1624: \bibitem{atwoodthree} D. Atwood and A. Soni, hep-ph/0206045.  %32

1625: 

1626: \bibitem{adk}

1627: R. Aleksan, I. Dunietz and B. Kayser, Z. Phys. {\bf C54},

1628: 653(1992).

1629: 

1630: \bibitem{lss}

1631: D. London, N. Sinha and R. Sinha, Phys. Rev. Lett.

1632: {\bf 85}, 1807(2000).

1633: 

1634: \bibitem{fleischer} See also R. Fleischer hep-ph/0301255.

1635: 

1636: \bibitem{hbniel} H.B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, Phys. Lett. {\bf 

1637: B105},219('81).

1638: 

1639: \bibitem{cbern}  G. Martinelli, Phys. Lett.{\bf B41} 395(94);

1640: C. Bernard, T. Draper and A. Soni, Phys. Rev.{\bf D36}, 

1641: 3224(1987). 

1642: 

1643: \bibitem{npb262331} M. Bochicchio {\it \etal} Nucl. Phys. {\bf B262},

1644: 331 (1985).   %75

1645: 

1646: \bibitem{bernprl} C. Bernard {\it \etal} Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55},

1647: 2770 (1985)   %76

1648: 

1649: \bibitem{dkapl} D. Kaplan, hep-lat/9206013.

1650: 

1651: \bibitem{shamir} Y. Shamir, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B406}, 90 (1993); V.

1652: Furman and Y. Shamir, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B439}, 54 (1995).

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{nn}

1655: R. Narayanan and 

1656: H. Neuberger. Phys. Lett. {\bf B302},62(1993); Nucl. Phys. {\bf 

1657: B443}, 305(1995).

1658: 

1659: \bibitem{blumtwo} T. Blum {\it \etal} (RBC Collab.), hep-lat/0007038.   %13

1660: 

1661: \bibitem{ali} A. Ali Khan {\it \etal} (CP-PACS Collab.), Phys. Rev. {\bf

1662: D63}, 114504 (2001).   %14

1663: 

1664: \bibitem{blumthree} T. Blum {\it \etal} (RBC Collab.) Phys. Rev. {\bf D66},

1665: 014504 (2002).  %15

1666: 

1667: \bibitem{aokitwo} S. Aoki, T. Izubuchi, Y. Kuramashi and Y. Taniguchi,

1668: Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 094505 (1999); S. Aoki and Y. Kuramashi, Phys.

1669: Rev. {\bf D63}, 054504 (2001).   %18

1670: 

1671: \bibitem{tblumtwo} T. Blum, A. Soni and M. Wingate, Phys. Rev. {\bf

1672: D60}, 114507 (1999).   %19

1673: 

1674: \bibitem{noakitwo} J.-I. Noaki {\it \etal} (RBC Collab.)

1675: hep-lat/0211013.  %99

1676: 

1677: \bibitem{prd322343} C. Bernard {\it \etal} Phys. Rev. {\bf D32} 2343

1678: (1985).  %72

1679: 

1680: \bibitem{stag} For efforts at computing $K \to \pi \pi$

1681: on the lattice using staggered fermions see: D. Pekurovsky and 

1682: G. Kilcup, Phys.\  Rev.\ D {\bf 64},

1683: 074502 (2001); T. Bhattacharya, G.T. Fleming, G. Kilcup, R.

1684: Gupta, W. Lee, S. Sharpe, Nucl.Phys. Proc. Suppl. 106 (2002) 311-313.

1685: 

1686: \bibitem{plb245585} L. Maiani and M. Testa, Phys. Lett. {\bf B245},

1687: 585 (1990).  %73

1688: 

1689: \bibitem{npb592294} See, e.g. E. Pallante and A. Pich, Nucl. Phys.

1690: {\bf B592}, 294 (2001).  %74

1691: 

1692: \bibitem{iwasaki} Y. Iwasaki, unpublished, UTHEP-118(1983).  

1693: 

1694: \bibitem{jhep08023} M. Golterman and E. Pallante, (JHEP) {\bf08}, 023

1695: (2000).  %78

1696: 

1697: \bibitem{prl8322} A. Alavi-Harari {\it \etal} (KTeV Collab.), Phys. Rev.

1698: Lett.{\bf 83}, 22 (1999).  %79

1699: 

1700: \bibitem{epjc22231} A. Lai {\it \etal} (NA48 Collab.), Eur. Phys. J. {\bf

1701: C22}, 231 (2001).   %80

1702: 

1703: \bibitem{rmp7265} S. Bertolini, M. Fabbrichesi and J.O. Eeg, Rev.

1704: Mod. Phys. {\bf72}, 65 (2000).  %81

1705: 

1706: \bibitem{hep0001235} S. Bertolini, hep-ph/0001235.   %82

1707: 

1708: \bibitem{hep9908395} A.J. Buras, hep-ph/9908395.   %83

1709: 

1710: \bibitem{bardeen} See also, T. Hambye et al, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58},

1711: 14017, 1998; J. Bijnens and J. Prades, JHEP 0001, 002, 2000.

1712: 

1713: 

1714: 

1715: \bibitem{npb120316} M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. 

1716: Phys. {\bf B120}, 316 (1977).

1717: 

1718: \bibitem{prd202392} F.J. Gilman and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. {\bf B83},

1719: 83 (1979); Phys. Rev. {\bf D20}, 392 (1979).  %85

1720: 

1721: \bibitem{npb408209} A. Buras, M. Jamin and M.E. Lautenbacher, Nucl.

1722: Phys. {\bf B408}, 209 (1993).   %86

1723: 

1724: \bibitem{zpc68239} M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, L. Reina and

1725: L. Silvestrini, Z. Phys.\ {\bf C68}, 239 (1995).  %87

1726: 

1727: \bibitem{hep9912513} V. Cirigliano and E. Golowich, hep-ph/9912513;

1728: hep-ph/0109265.  %88

1729: 

1730: \bibitem{prd} J. Laiho and A. Soni, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D65}, 114020, 2002;

1731: see also hep-lat/0306035.    %89

1732: 

1733: \bibitem{hep0108029} M. Golterman and E. Pallante, hep-let/0108029.

1734: %90

1735: 

1736: \bibitem{isgur} N. Isgur, K. Maltman, J. Weinstein and T. Barnes,

1737: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf64}, 161 (1990).   %91

1738: 

1739: \bibitem{cnpp20119} U.-G. Meissner, Comments on Nucl. \& Particle

1740: Physics, {\bf 20}, 119 (1991).  %92

1741: 

1742: \bibitem{jhep0010048} V. Cirigliano, J. Donoghue and E. Golowich, (JHEP)

1743: {\bf0010}, 048 (2000).  %93

1744: 

1745: \bibitem{npb289505} L. Maiani, G. Martinelli, G.C. Rosti and M. Testa,

1746: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B289}, 505 (1987).   %94

1747: 

1748: \bibitem{npb4883} C. Bernard, T. Draper, G. Hockney and A. Soni, Nucl.

1749: Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf4}, 883 (1988).  %95

1750: 

1751: \bibitem{hep0011070}  S. Capitani and L. Giusti, hep-lat/0011070.  %96

1752: 

1753: \bibitem{hep0110074} K. Orginos \etal [RBC Collab.], hep-lat/0110074.

1754: %97

1755: 

1756: \bibitem{giusti}  L. Giusti,hep-lat/0212012.   %100

1757: 

1758: \bibitem{neuberger} H. Neuberger, Phys. Lett. {\bf B417}, 141 (1998); 

1759: Phys. Rev. {\bf D57},5417(1998). 

1760: 

1761: \bibitem{hep0110206} P. Boucaud {\it \etal} (SPQCDR Collab.),hep-lat/0110206; 

1762: C.J.D. Lin, G. Martinelli, E. Pallante, C. Sachrajada and G. Villadoro, hep-

1763: lat/0208007.   %102

1764: 

1765: \bibitem{hep0003023} L. Lellouch and M. Luscher, hep-lat/0003023;

1766: C. J. D. Lin \etal, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B619}, 467 (2001).    %103

1767: 

1768: \bibitem{disp}

1769: M. Buechler \etal, Phys. Lett. {\bf B521}, 22 (2001).

1770: 

1771: \bibitem{e787} S. Adler {\it \etal} (E787 Collab.),Phys. Rev.

1772: Lett. {\bf 88}, 041803 (2002).  %104

1773: 

1774: \bibitem{llitt} L. Littenberg, Phys. Rev.{\bf D39},3322(1989).

1775: 

1776: \bibitem{skett} S. Kettell, hep-ex/0205029.

1777: 

1778: 

1779: %\bibitem{higu} T. Higuchi \etal [BELLE Collab.], hep-ex/0205020.   %1

1780: 

1781: %\bibitem{raven} G. Raven \etal [BABAR Collab.], hep-ex/0205045.   %2

1782: 

1783: %\bibitem{affold} T. Affolder \etal [CDF Collab.], Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf

1784: %D61}, 072005 (2000).   %6

1785: 

1786: %\bibitem{acken} K. Ackenstaff \etal [OPAL Collab.], Eur.\ Phys.\

1787: %Jour.\ {\bf C5}, 379 (1998); R. Barate \etal [ALEPH Collab], Phys.\

1788: %Lett.\ {\bf B492}, 259 (2000).   %7

1789: 

1790: %\bibitem{donog} J.F. Donoghue, E. Golowich and B.R. Holstein, Phys.\

1791: %Lett.\ {\bf B119}, 412 (1982).  %22

1792: 

1793: %\bibitem{bard} W.A. Bardeen, A.J. Buras and J.-M. Gerard, Phys.\ Lett.\

1794: %{\bf B211}, 343 (1998).  %23

1795: 

1796: %\bibitem{bert} S. Bertolini, J.O. Eeg and M. Fabbrichesi,

1797: %hep-ph/0002234; S. Bertolini, J.O. Eeg, M. Fabbrichesi and E.I. Lashi,

1798: %hep-ph/9705244,  %24

1799: 

1800: %\bibitem{renis} S. Renis and E. De Rafael, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B358},

1801: %311 (1991).  %25

1802: 

1803: %\bibitem{bijn} S. Bijnens and J. Prades, hep-ph/9911392.   %26

1804: 

1805: %\bibitem{lell} L. Lellouch and C.-J.D. Lin [UKQCD Collab.],

1806: %hep-ph/0011086.  %28

1807: 

1808: %\bibitem{becir} D. Becirevic \etalcom  Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B618}, 214

1809: %(2001).  %29

1810: 

1811: %\bibitem{yama} N. Yamada \etal [JLQCD Collab.], hep-ph/0104136   %30

1812: 

1813: %\bibitem{grontwo} M. Gronau and D. London, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf65},

1814: %3381 (1990).   %37

1815: 

1816: %bibitem{snyd} E. Snyder and H.R. Quinn, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D48}, 2139

1817: %1993); H.R. Quinn and J.P. Silva, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62}, 054002

1818: %1990).  %38

1819: 

1820: %bibitem{atwoodfour} D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B516},

1821: %39 (2001).  %39

1822: 

1823: %bibitem{atwoodfive} D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys.\ Rev. {\bf D65},

1824: %73018 (2002).   %40

1825: 

1826: %bibitem{bene} M. Beneke \etalcom  Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B591}, 313 (2000).

1827: %41

1828: 

1829: %bibitem{keum} Y.Y. Keum \etalcom  Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B504}, 6 (2001).

1830: %42

1831: 

1832: %bibitem{atwoodsix} D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf79},

1833: %5206 (1997).   %44

1834: 

1835: %bibitem{atwoodseven} D. Atwood and A. Soni,  Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B405},

1836: %150 (1998).   %45

1837: 

1838: %bibitem{hou} W.-S. Hou and B. Tseng, Phys.\ Rev.\ lett.\ {\bf80}, 434

1839: %(1998).  %46

1840: 

1841: %\bibitem{london} D. London and A. Soni,  Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B407}, 61

1842: %(1997).  %47

1843: 

1844: %\bibitem{grossone} Y. Grossman and M.P. Worah, hep-ph/9707280.  %48

1845: 

1846: %\bibitem{flei} R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B511},

1847: %240 (2001).  %49

1848: 

1849: %\bibitem{datta} A. Datta, D. London and C.-S. Kim, hep-ph/0111266.  %50

1850: 

1851: %\bibitem{forty}    %51

1852: 

1853: %\bibitem{fortyone}      %52

1854: 

1855: %\bibitem{nir} Y. Nir, hep-ph/0109090.   %53

1856: 

1857: %\bibitem{silva} J. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D63},

1858: %056001 (2001).  %54

1859: 

1860: %\bibitem{ball} P. Ball, J.-M. Fr\'ere and J. Matias, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf

1861: %B572}, 3 (2000).   %55

1862: 

1863: %\bibitem{note} Note though that $a_{CP}(\psi K_s)$ as well as other

1864: %important experimental constraints can be readily accomodated in a more

1865: %general version of LR model, see K. Kiers \etalcom\   hep-ph/0205082.

1866: %56

1867: 

1868: %\bibitem{das} A. Das and C. Kao, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B372}, 106 (1996).

1869: %57

1870: 

1871: %\bibitem{kiersone} K. Kiers, A. Soni and G.-H. Wu, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf

1872: %D59}, 096001 (1999).   %58

1873: 

1874: %\bibitem{wu} G.-H. Wu and A. Soni, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62}, 056005,

1875: %(2000).  %59

1876: 

1877: %\bibitem{abe} K. Abe \etal [BELLE Collab.], hep-ex/0103042.  %60

1878: 

1879: %\bibitem{chen} S. Chen \etal [CLEO Collab.], hep-ex/0108032.   %61

1880: 

1881: %\bibitem{chet} K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. Munz, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf

1882: %B400}, 206 (1997).   %62

1883: 

1884: %\bibitem{soar} J. Soares, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B1367}, 575 (1991).  %63

1885: 

1886: %\bibitem{kierstwo} K. Kiers, A. Soni and G.-H. Wu, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf

1887: %D59}, 096001 (1999).  %64

1888: 

1889: %\bibitem{kagan} A. Kagan and M. Neubert, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D58}, 094012

1890: %1998).  %65

1891: 

1892: %\bibitem{borz} F. Borzumati and C. Greub, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D58},

1893: %74004 (1998).  %66

1894: 

1895: %\bibitem{grosstwo} Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B313},

1896: %26 (1993).   %67

1897: 

1898: %\bibitem{aokithree} M. Aoki, G.-C. Cho and N. Oshimo, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf

1899: %60}, 035004 (1999).  %68

1900: 

1901: %\bibitem{chua} C.-K. Chua, X.-G. He and W.-S. Hou, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf

1902: %D60}, 014003 (1999).   %69

1903: 

1904: %\bibitem{kim} Y.G. Kim, P. Ko and J.S. Lee, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B544},

1905: %64 (1999).   %70

1906: 

1907: %\bibitem{okada}  Okada    %71

1908: 

1909: \end{thebibliography}

1910: \end{document}

1911: