1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % New LateX2e command
3: %
4: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
5: \usepackage{epsfig,psfrag}
6: \usepackage{citesort}
7: %
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: % Text Dimensions
10: \topmargin -10.mm % distance to headers
11: \headheight 5.0mm % height of header box
12: \headsep 8.0mm % distance to top line
13: \textheight 225mm % height of text
14: \footskip 8.0mm % distance from bottom line
15: \oddsidemargin -2mm % Horizontal alignment
16: %\evensidemargin 4.2mm % Horizontal alignment
17: \textwidth 165mm % Horizontal alignment
18: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
19: \date{\today}
20: %
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: %
23: %\def\unit{\leavevmode\hbox{\small1\kern-3.6pt\normalsize1}}
24: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1} \normalsize
25: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.8}
26: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.8}
27: % shortcuts
28: \newcommand{\bmat}{\left(\begin{array}}
29: \newcommand{\emat}{\end{array}\right)}
30: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
31: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
32: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
33: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
34: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}
35: \newcommand{\lsime} {\buildrel < \over {_\sim}}
36: \newcommand{\gsime} {\buildrel > \over {_\sim}}
37: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
38: \def\lsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}}
39: \def\gsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}}
40: \def\Frac#1#2{\frac{\displaystyle{#1}}{\displaystyle{#2}}}
41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
42: \def\no{\nonumber\\}
43: \def\slash#1{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$#1$}}
44: \def\ep{\eta^{\prime}}
45: \def\jp{J/\psi}
46: \def\jpp{B_s \to \jp \phi}
47: \def\jpk{B_d \to J/\psi K_S}
48: \def\dG{\Delta\Gamma_{s}}
49: \def\dM{\Delta M_s}
50: \def\sm{\mbox{\tiny SM}}
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
52: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% JOURNALS {\bf No} {Year} {Page} %%%%%%%%
53: \def\arnps#1#2#3{{\it Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.\/} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
54: \def\epjc#1#2#3{{\it Eur. Phys. J.\/} {\bf C #1} (#2) #3}
55: \def\ijmpa#1#2#3{{\it Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys.\/}~{\bf A #1} (#2) #3}
56: \def\ibid#1#2#3{\emph{ibid.} {\bf #1} (#2) #3}
57: \def\ib#1#2#3{{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
58: \def\jphg#1#2#3{{\it J.~Phys.}~{\bf G #1} (#2) #3}
59: \def\mpla#1#2#3{{\it Mod.~Phys.~Lett.\/}~{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
60: \def\nc#1#2#3{{\it Nuovo Cim.}~{\bf#1} (#2) #3}
61: \def\npb#1#2#3{{\it Nucl.~Phys.\/}~{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
62: \def\npps#1#2#3{{\it Nucl.~Phys.~(Proc.~Suppl.)\/}~{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
63: \def\plb#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Lett.\/}~{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
64: \def\pr#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Rev.\/}~{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
65: \def\prd#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Rev.\/}~{\bf D#1} (#2) #3}
66: \def\prl#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Rev.~Lett.\/}~{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
67: \def\prep#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Rep.\/}~{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
68: \def\ptp#1#2#3{{\it Prog. Theor.~Phys.\/}~{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
69: \def\rmp#1#2#3{{\it Rev. Mod. Phys.\/} {\bf #1} (#2) #3}
70: \def\zpc#1#2#3{{\it Z.~Phys.\/}~{\bf C #1} (#2) #3}
71: \def\hpph#1{{\tt hep-ph/#1}}
72: \def\hpth#1{{\tt hep-th/#1}}
73: \def\hpex#1{{\tt hep-ex/#1}}
74: \def\hplat#1{{\tt hep-lat/#1}}
75: \def\jhep#1#2#3{{\it J.~High Energy Phys.}~{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
77: \begin{document}
78: %
79: \begin{titlepage}
80: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
81: \rightline{IPPP-03-61} \rightline{DCPT-03-122} \rightline{UCL-IPT-03-18}
82: \vspace{.3cm}
83: {\Large
84: \begin{center}
85: {\bf $B_s^0 - \overline{B}_s^0$ Mixing and the $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$
86: Asymmetry in Supersymmetric Models}
87: \end{center}}
88: \vspace{.3cm}
89:
90: \begin{center}
91: P. Ball$^{1}$, S. Khalil$^{1,2}$ and E. Kou$^{1,3}$\\
92: \vspace{.3cm}
93: $^1$\emph{IPPP, Physics Department, University of Durham, DH1 3LE,
94: Durham, UK}
95: \\
96: $^2$ \emph{Ain Shams University, Faculty of Science, Cairo, 11566,
97: Egypt}
98: \\
99: $^3$ \emph{Institut de Physique Th\'{e}orique, Universit\'{e} Catholique de
100: Louvain, Chemin Cyclotron~2, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium}
101:
102: \vskip2cm
103:
104: %{\em Version of \today}
105:
106: \end{center}
107:
108:
109: \vspace{.3cm}
110: %\hrule \vskip 0.3cm
111: \begin{center}
112: \small{\bf Abstract}\\[3mm]
113: \end{center}
114: We analyse
115: supersymmetric contributions to $B_s$
116: mixing and their impact on mixing-induced
117: CP asymmetries, using
118: the mass insertion approximation.
119: We discuss in particular the correlation of SUSY effects in
120: the CP asymmetries of $B_s\to J/\psi \phi$
121: and $B_d\to \phi K_S$ and find that the mass insertions
122: dominant in $B_s$ mixing and $B_d\to \phi K_S$ are
123: $(\delta_{23}^d)_{LL, RR}$ and $(\delta_{23}^d)_{LR, RL}$, respectively.
124: We show that models with dominant $(\delta_{23}^d)_{LR, RL}$ can
125: accomodate a negative value of $S_{\phi K_S}$, in agreement with
126: the Belle measurement of that observable,
127: but yield a $B_s$ mixing phase too small
128: to be observed. On the other hand, models with dominant
129: $(\delta_{23}^d)_{LL, RR}$ predict sizeable SUSY
130: contributions to both $\dM$ and the mixing phase, but do
131: not allow the asymmetry in $B_d\to \phi K_S$
132: to become negative, except for small values of
133: the average down squark mass, which, in turn, entail a value of $\dM$
134: too large to be observed at the Tevatron and the LHC.
135: We conclude that
136: the observation of $B_s$ mixing at hadron machines,
137: together with the confirmation of a negative value of
138: $S_{\phi K_S}$, disfavours models with a single dominant mass insertion.
139: \begin{minipage}[h]{14.0cm}
140: \end{minipage}
141: \vskip 0.3cm
142: %\hrule
143: \vfill
144: %\centerline{\em To be submitted to Physical Review D}
145:
146: \end{titlepage}
147: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
148: %
149: \section{{\large \bf Introduction}}
150: %
151: The impressive performance of the $B$ factory experiments BaBar and Belle
152: provides the basis for scrutinizing tests of
153: the standard model (SM) picture of flavour structure and
154: CP violation in the quark sector, and opens the possibility to probe
155: virtual effects from new physics at low energies.
156: %In particular, measurements of $\Delta M_{B_{d,s}}$, the mass differences in
157: %$B_{d,s}-\bar{B}_{d,s}$ systems and the CP asymmetries in the $B_d \to
158: %J/\psi K_s , \phi K_s, \eta' K_s$ and $B_s\to J/\psi \phi$ processes can be
159: %used to impose stringent constraints on the SUSY contributions.
160: In the supersymmetric extension of the SM,
161: a new source of flavour violation arises from the fact that, in
162: general, the rotation that translates flavour eigenstates into
163: mass eigenstates will not be the same for quark and squark fields, which
164: implies the appearance of a new squark mixing matrix or,
165: alternatively, that of off-diagonal squark mass terms in a basis where
166: the quarks are mass-eigenstates and
167: both quark and squark fields have undergone the same rotation -- the
168: so-called super-CKM basis.
169: A convenient tool for studying the impact
170: of this new source of flavour violation is the
171: mass-insertion approximation (MIA), which was first introduced in
172: \cite{MIA} and since then has been widely used as a largely
173: model-independent tool for analysing and constraining SUSY effects in
174: $B$ physics. In the super-CKM basis the couplings of fermions and their
175: SUSY partners to neutral gauginos are flavour-diagonal and
176: flavour-violating SUSY effects are encoded in the nondiagonal entries of
177: the sfermion mass matrix. The sfermion propagators are expanded
178: in a series in $\delta = \Delta^2/\tilde m^2_{\tilde q}$, where $\Delta^2$ are
179: the off-diagonal entries and $\tilde m_{\tilde q}$ is the average sfermion
180: mass. We assume $\Delta^2\ll \tilde m^2_{\tilde q}$, so that the first term
181: in the expansion is sufficient, and also that the diagonal sfermion
182: masses are nearly degenerate.
183:
184: Flavour-changing box and penguin
185: processes as observed at the $B$ factories
186: are very sensitive to flavour-violating effects beyond the SM,
187: and the constraints on or measurement of
188: nondiagonal squark masses will help to discriminate among various soft
189: SUSY breaking mechanisms.
190: In summer 2002, BaBar and Belle reported the first measurements of
191: the mixing-induced CP asymmetry $S_{\phi K_S}$ in $B_d\to \phi K_S$,
192: which at the quark level is $b\to s\bar s s$ and thus
193: a pure penguin process, which is expected to exhibit, in the SM, the same
194: mixing-induced CP
195: asymmetry as observed in $\jpk$ \cite{Nir}.
196: The experimental results, however, updated in summer 2003, paint a
197: slightly different picture:
198: \bea
199: S_{J/\psi K_S} &=& \phantom{-}0.736 \pm 0.049\quad \mbox{~(BaBar \&
200: Belle})~\cite{BaBar1,Belle1}\\[5pt]
201: S_{\phi K_S} &\stackrel{2002}{=}& -0.39\phantom{6} \pm 0.41~
202: \cite{BaBar2,Belle2}~\stackrel{2003}{=}~\left\{
203: \begin{array}{l@{\quad}l}
204: -0.96 \pm 0.50^{+0.09}_{-0.11}&\mbox{Belle~~~}\cite{Belle3} \\
205: +0.45 \pm 0.43 \pm 0.07 &\mbox{BaBar~}\cite{BaBar3}
206: \end{array}
207: \right.
208: \eea
209: Although the experimental situation in $B_d\to \phi K_S$ is not yet
210: conclusive, the deviation of $S_{\phi K_S}$ from $S_{J/\psi K_S}$
211: may constitute a first potential glimpse at physics
212: beyond the SM, and it is both worthwile and timely to pursue any
213: interpretion of these results in terms of new physics and to analyse
214: their impact on future measurements to be performed at the $B$
215: factories or at the Tevatron and the LHC, see e.g.\
216: \cite{KK-phk,KK-etak,BdBd-th1,phiks-th}.
217:
218: In the framework of MIA, the measurement of $S_{J/\psi K_S}$, which is
219: in agreement with the SM expectation, indicates
220: that $(\delta_{13}^d)_{AB}$, $A,B=L,R$, is small \cite{BdBd-th0},
221: whereas the result for $S_{\phi K_S}$ indicates
222: a relatively large $(\delta_{23}^d)_{AB}$. Furthermore, by including the
223: constraints on $(\delta_{23}^d)_{AB}$ from $b\to s\gamma$,
224: it was found \cite{KK-phk} that, for average
225: squark masses of order $500\,$GeV, only models with dominant
226: $(\delta_{23}^d)_{LR, RL}$ can
227: accomodate a negative value of $S_{\phi K_S}$.
228:
229: $\delta^d_{23}$ insertions also determine the size of SUSY
230: contributions to $B_s$ mixing and, as a consequence, the
231: mixing-induced CP asymmetries in tree-level dominated decays
232: like e.g.\ $B_s\to J/\psi \phi$, which is one of the benchmark
233: channels to be studied at hadron machines. Within the SM, the
234: $B_s$ mixing phase is very small, and consequently $S_{J/\psi \phi}$
235: expected to be of ${\cal O}(10^{-2})$.
236: In SUSY, on the other hand,
237: the third-to-second generation ($b\to s$) box diagram
238: may carry a sizeable CP violating phase, which
239: is described in terms of the same mass insertion
240: $(\delta_{23}^d)_{AB}$ governing the CP asymmetry $S_{\phi K_S}$.
241: It is therefore both important and instructive to analyse
242: all $b\to s$ transitions in the same framework, paying
243: particular attention to the correlations between observables.
244: This is the subject of this paper.
245:
246: Our paper is organised as follows: in Section 2, we recall the master
247: formulas determining $B_s$ mixing and the CP asymmetry in $\jpp$ and
248: discuss the SM expectations for the
249: $B_s$ mixing parameters and the experimental reach for
250: $B_s$ mixing at hadron colliders.
251: In Section 3, we discuss the dominant SUSY contributions
252: to $B_s$ mixing in the framework of the mass insertion approximation.
253: In Section 4, we present numerical results and discuss the correlation
254: between the constraints from $b\to s\gamma$ and $S_{\phi K_S}$, obtained
255: previously in Ref.~\cite{KK-phk}, and $B_s$ mixing.
256: Section 5 contains a summary and
257: conclusions.
258:
259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
260: %
261: \section{{\large \bf\boldmath $B_s$ Mixing and the
262: Mixing-Induced CP Asymmetry in $\jpp$}}
263: \subsection{Master Formulas and New Physics Effects}
264:
265: Let us begin by recalling
266: \footnote{Here we use the convention
267: $|B_{s}\rangle_1 =p|B_s^0\rangle +q|\overline{B}_s^0\rangle$ and
268: $|B_{s}\rangle_2 =p|B_s^0\rangle -q|\overline{B}_s^0\rangle$
269: where we define {\bf CP}$|P \rangle = + |P\rangle$
270: and $\dM =M_2-M_1$ and
271: $\dG=\Gamma_1-\Gamma_2$.}
272: %\footnote{A more
273: % detailed discussion can be found e.g.\ in Ref.~\cite{Gros}.}
274: the master formulas for $B_s$ mixing and the
275: resulting mixing-induced asymmetry in $\jpp$.
276: Like for $B_d$, the mixing angles $p$ and $q$ between the flavour and
277: mass eigenstates in the $B_s$ system can be expressed in terms
278: of the $B^0_s-\bar B^0_s$ transition matrix element $M_{12}$:
279: \be
280: \frac{q}{p}=\sqrt{\frac{M_{12}^*}{M_{12}}}, \label{eq:11}
281: \ee
282: where we have used $\dG \ll \dM$ and $\dG \ll \Gamma^{tot}_{s}$.
283: The resulting mass and width differences between mass eigenstates are
284: given by
285: \bea
286: \dM&=&-2 M_{12}, \quad
287: \dG=2\Gamma_{12}\cos\zeta_B,\label{eq:13}
288: \eea
289: where $\zeta_B\equiv \arg(\Gamma_{12}/M_{12})$.
290: $\Gamma_{12}$ can be computed from diagrams with two insertions
291: of the $\Delta B = 1$ Hamiltonian and is dominated by the tree
292: contribution. SUSY effects are very small, so to very good accuracy one can set
293: \be
294: \Gamma_{12}=\Gamma_{12}^{\sm}.
295: \ee
296: In the SM, $M_{12}$ is dominated by top quark exchange;
297: the mixing phase is given by
298: \be
299: {\rm arg}\, M_{12}^{\rm SM} = 2 {\rm arg}\,(
300: V_{tb}V_{ts}^*) = -2\lambda^2\eta = {\cal O}(10^{-2}).
301: \label{eq:15}
302: \ee
303: In SUSY, there are new contributions to $M_{12}$ induced by e.g.\
304: gluino and chargino box diagrams, which potentially carry a large
305: phase and which we parametrise as
306: \be
307: \sqrt{\frac{M_{12}}{M_{12}^{\sm}}}\equiv r_s e^{i\beta_s}, \label{eq:17}
308: \ee
309: which entails
310: \be\label{xyz}
311: \dM =r_s^2 \dM^{\sm}, \qquad \dG \simeq \dG^{\sm}\cos
312: 2\beta_s,
313: \ee
314: assuming $\beta_s\gg \arg M_{12}^{\sm}$.
315: The above
316: result implies that new physics contributions will always lead to a
317: decrease of $\dG$,
318: as was first discussed in Ref.~\cite{Gros}.
319:
320: Let us now discuss the effect of SUSY on the mixing-induced CP
321: asymmetry in the tree-dominated decay $B_s\to J/\psi \phi$, which is
322: expected to be very small in the SM and hence highly susceptible to
323: large or even moderate new CP violating phases. Although
324: the final state $\jp \phi$ is not a CP eigenstate,
325: but a superposition of CP odd and even states which can be
326: disentangled by an angular analysis of their decay products
327: \cite{DDLR,jpph-th}, the advantage of that channel over the
328: similar process $B_s\to J/\psi\eta(')$ is the comparatively
329: clean, although still challenging
330: reconstruction of the $\phi$ via $\phi\to K^+K^-$, whereas the $\eta(')$ is
331: even more elusive. Once the CP-waves have been identified,
332: the analysis of $\jpp$ proceeds largely along the same lines as that of
333: $\jpk$, except for the fact that, in contrast to $B_d$ mixing,
334: the width difference $\dG$
335: cannot be neglected and entails a slight modification of the formula
336: for the asymmetry. Without a separation of the final state CP-waves,
337: the mixing asymmetry still
338: depends on hadronic parameters describing the polarisation
339: amplitudes $A_{0,\parallel,\perp}$
340: characteristic for the
341: final state ($A_{0,\parallel}$ for CP-even and $A_\perp$ for CP-odd).
342: One finds, assuming no direct CP-violation,
343: \bea
344: S_{\jp \phi}\,\sin\dM t
345: &=& \frac{\Gamma (\overline{B}^0_s\to \jp \phi)-\Gamma (B^0_s\to \jp \phi)}
346: {\Gamma (\overline{B}^0_s\to \jp \phi)+\Gamma (B^0_s\to \jp \phi)}\nonumber \\
347: &=&\frac{D\ \mbox{Im}\left[\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho}_{\rm odd}\right]
348: +\mbox{Im}\left[\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho}_{\rm even}\right]}
349: {D\ F_{\rm odd}(t)+F_{\rm even}(t)}
350: \sin\dM t
351: \label{eq:1}
352: \eea
353: where
354: \be
355: F_{\rm odd, even}(t)=\cosh\left(\frac{\dG}{2}t\right)
356: +\mbox{Re}\left[\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho}_{\rm odd, even}\right]
357: \sinh\left(\frac{\dG}{2}t\right)
358: \ee
359: %&=&\frac{\mbox{Im}\left[\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho}\right]\sin\dM t}
360: %{\cosh\left(\frac{\dG}{2}t\right)-\mbox{Re}\left[\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho}\right]
361: %\sinh\left(\frac{\dG}{2}t\right)} \label{eq:1}
362: and $D$ encodes the polarisation amplitudes:
363: \be
364: D\equiv \frac{|A_{\perp}|^2}{|A_{\parallel}|^2+|A_{0}|^2}.
365: \ee
366: $D$, as a hadronic quantity, comes with a certain theoretical
367: uncertainty. Ref.~\cite{BF}, for instance, quotes $D\approx 0.3\pm
368: 0.2$.
369:
370: The parameter $\overline{\rho}$ is defined as
371: \be
372: \overline{\rho}_{\rm odd, even}
373: =\frac{A(\overline{B}^0_s\to \jp \phi)_{\rm odd, even}}
374: {A(B^0_s\to \jp \phi)_{\rm odd, even}}
375: \ee
376: and can be computed from the $\Delta B=1$ effective Hamiltonian,
377: yielding
378: \be
379: \overline{\rho}_{\rm odd, even}= \mp
380: \frac{V_{cb}V_{cs}^*}{V_{cb}^*V_{cs}}=\xi_{\rm odd, even}
381: \ee
382: with $\xi_{\rm even}=+1$ and $\xi_{\rm odd}=-1$. Accordingly, we have
383: \be
384: \frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho}_{\rm odd, even}\simeq\xi_{\rm odd, even}
385: e^{-2i\beta_s}.
386: \ee
387:
388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
389: \subsection{Estimate of $\dM^{\sm}$ and $\dG^{\sm}$}
390: %Now let us give estimates of $\dM^{\sm}$ and $\dG^{\sm}$.
391: In order to estimate $\dM^{\sm}$, one usually uses the ratio
392: $\dM^{\sm}/\Delta M_d^{\sm}$, in which
393: all short-distance effects cancel:
394: \be
395: \frac{\dM^{\sm}}{\Delta M_d^{\sm}}=\frac{M_{B_s}}{M_{B_d}}
396: \frac{B_{B_s}f^2_{B_{s}}}{B_{B_d}f^2_{B_{d}}}\frac{|V_{ts}|^2}{|V_{td}|^2}.
397: \label{eq:24-1}
398: \ee
399: The remaining ratio of hadronic parameters has been calculated on
400: the lattice yielding \cite{lat1}
401: $$\frac{B_{B_s}(m_b)f^2_{B_{s}}}{B_{B_d}(m_b)f^2_{B_{d}}} =
402: (1.15\pm 0.06 ^{+0.07}_{-0.00})^2,$$
403: where the asymmetric error is due to the effect of chiral logarithms in the
404: quenched approximation.
405: In many SUSY models the dominant new contributions to $B_d$ mixing
406: involve transitions between the third and the first generation and are
407: thus suppressed by the corresponding CKM matrix elements, so that
408: $B_d$ mixing is saturated by
409: the SM contribution
410: \cite{GK,BdBd-th0,BdBd-th1,BdBd-th2} and we can
411: assume
412: $\Delta M_d=\Delta M_d^{\sm}$.
413: $\Delta M_d$ is measured from the time-dependence
414: of $B_d$ mixing and is rather precisely known \cite{PDG}:
415: $$(\Delta M_d)_{\rm exp}=(0.489\pm0.008)\,{\rm ps}^{-1}.$$
416: As for $|V_{ts}|^2/|V_{td}|^2$,
417: one has to use a value that is not contaminated by new physics.
418: Stated differently, one needs a measurement of the angle $\alpha^{\sm}$ or
419: $\gamma^{\sm}$ from pure SM processes. Various strategies for a clean
420: determination of these angles have been proposed, see
421: Ref.~\cite{gamma-th}, and are expected to yield stringent constraints in
422: the near future. For the time being, however, one has to resort to a
423: different method and exploit the very basic fact that a triangle is
424: completely determined by three parameters, which in our case are the
425: base, of length 1,
426: the left side, which is determined by $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$, and the
427: angle $\beta^{\sm}$ between the base and the right side.
428: The essential assumptions that enter here are (i) that the determination
429: of $|V_{cb}|$ and $|V_{ub}|$ from semileptonic decays is free of new
430: physics, which is a model-independent assumption as these are
431: tree-processes, and that (ii) $\beta$ as measured from $B_d\to J/\psi K_S$
432: is actually
433: $\beta^{\sm}$ -- which, as mentioned above, is indeed the case in many SUSY
434: models, but is a more model-dependent statement than (i).
435: Using
436: \bea
437: \sin 2\beta&=& 0.736 \pm 0.049\quad \cite{BaBar1,Belle1}\\
438: |V_{ub}/V_{cb}|&=& 0.090\pm0.025\quad \cite{PDG},
439: \eea
440: one obtains an allowed region for the position of the apex of the unitarity
441: triangle which is shown as shaded area in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a). The
442: allowed values of $\gamma^{\sm}$ are
443: $45^{\circ}< \gamma^{\sm}< 100^{\circ}$.
444: $|V_{ts}/V_{td}|$ can be read off the figure as a function of $\gamma^{\sm}$
445: from the right side of the triangle and translated into an allowed
446: region for $\dM^{\sm}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(b), where we also
447: include the error from $B_{B_s}f^2_{B_{s}}/(B_{B_d}f^2_{B_{d}})$.
448: \begin{figure}[t]\vspace{-0.5cm}\begin{center}
449: \psfrag{ex}[l][l][0.8]{Current exp.\ bound $>$ 13 ps$^{-1}$}
450: \psfrag{dMs}[l][l][1]{$\dM^{\sm}\ {\rm ps}^{-1}$}
451: \psfrag{gamma}[l][l]{$\gamma^{\sm}$}
452: \psfrag{g}[l][l][0.75]{$\gamma$}
453: \psfrag{b}[l][l][0.75]{$\beta$}
454: \psfrag{Vub}[l][l][0.75]{$V_{ub}$}
455: \psfrag{max}[l][l][0.8]{$\dM^{\sm}$ max.}
456: \psfrag{min}[l][l][0.8]{$\dM^{\sm}$ min.}
457: \psfrag{maximum}[l][l]{$\dM^{\sm}$ maximum}
458: \psfrag{minimum}[l][l]{$\dM^{\sm}$ minimum}
459: \psfrag{rho}[l][l]{$\overline{\rho}$}
460: \psfrag{eta}[l][l]{$\overline{\eta}$}
461: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{fig1new.eps}
462: \caption{(a) Allowed region (shaded area)
463: for the apex of the SM unitarity triangle,
464: using the constraints from $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ and $\sin 2\beta$. (b)
465: $\dM^{\sm}$ as function of $\gamma^{\sm}$ as determined from (a).}
466: \label{fig:1}
467: \vspace{-0.5cm}
468: \end{center}\end{figure}
469: As can be seen from this figure, the current experimental bound
470: $\Delta M_{s}>13\mbox{ps}^{-1}$ \cite{PDG}
471: does not yet exclude any value of
472: $\gamma^{\sm}$ between $45^{\circ}$ and $100^{\circ}$.
473:
474: Let us now turn to $\Delta \Gamma^{\sm}_{s}$. A recent estimate
475: including NLO QCD corrections
476: and lattice results for the hadronic parameters yields \cite{dG}
477: \be
478: %\Delta \Gamma^{\sm}=\left(\frac{f_{B_s}}{210 \mbox{MeV}}\right)^2
479: %[0.024^{+0.007}_{-0.014}\pm (\mbox{lattice error})] \times 10^{-12} \mbox{GeV}.
480: \frac{\dG^{\sm}}{\Gamma^{tot}_{s}}=(0.12\pm 0.06). \label{eq:23}
481: \ee
482: At present, there is no experimental bound.
483:
484: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
485: \subsection{Observability of the $B_s^0-\overline{B_s}^0$ Oscillation}
486:
487: A convenient measure of the frequency of the oscillation is the
488: parameter $x_s$, defined as
489: $$
490: x_s\equiv \frac{\dM}{\Gamma_{B_s}}\,;
491: $$
492: $x_s$ indicates the observability of the oscillation, which is
493: governed by $\sin (x_s t/\tau_s)$; it is evident that the experimental
494: resolution of
495: rapid oscillations with $x_s\gg 1$ is extremely difficult.
496: The current experimental lower bound is $x_s>19$;
497: %The parameter $x_s$ corresponds to the frequency of the oscillation.
498: % and thus, the time resolution of the experiments.
499: recent studies of the experimental reach of the BTeV \cite{BTeVr}
500: and the LHC \cite{LHCr}
501: experiments indicate that $x_s$ can be measured up to values $x_s
502: \approx 90$
503: (note that the corresponding parameter in the $B_d$
504: system, $x_d$ has been measured to be 0.73).
505: The performance of ATLAS, CMS and LHCb in analysing
506: $B_s\to J/\psi \phi$ has also been studied, which allows the
507: determination of the correlation between
508: the new physics mixing phase $\sin 2\beta_s$ and the frequency $x_s$
509: \cite{LHCr}.
510: Although the sensitivity to $\sin 2\beta_s$ gets worse as $x_s$ increases,
511: values of $\sin 2\beta_s$ as
512: small as $\mathcal{O}(10^{-2})$ are within experimental reach for
513: moderate $x_s<40$.
514:
515: Let us now discuss the correlation between
516: $2\beta_s$ and $x_s$ in terms of contributions from beyond SM.
517: \begin{figure}[t]\vspace{-0.5cm}\begin{center}
518: \psfrag{R=0.3}[l][l][0.8]{$|R|=0.3$}
519: \psfrag{R=0.5}[l][l][0.8]{$|R|=0.5$}
520: \psfrag{R=0.8}[l][l][0.8]{$|R|=0.8$}
521: \psfrag{R=1}[l][l][0.8]{$|R|=1$}
522: \psfrag{R=2}[l][l][0.8]{$|R|=2$}
523: \psfrag{R=3}[l][l][0.8]{$|R|=3$}
524: \psfrag{R=4}[l][l][0.8]{$|R|=4$}
525: \psfrag{R=5}[l][l][0.8]{$|R|=5$}
526: \psfrag{0to}[l][l][0.8]{$\arg [R]=0\to \pi$}
527: \psfrag{pito}[l][l][0.8]{$\arg [R]=\pi \to 2\pi$}
528: \psfrag{x}[l][l][1.1]{$x_s$}
529: \psfrag{tb}[l][l][1.1]{$2\beta_s$}
530: \psfrag{g}[l][l][1.1]{$\dG/\dG^{\sm}$}
531: \psfrag{argR}[l][l][1.1]{$\arg [R]$}
532: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{fig2new.eps}
533: %\includegraphics[width=6.75cm]{xs.eps}~~~~~~
534: %\includegraphics[width=6.75cm]{gams.eps}
535: \caption{(a) Correlation between $x_s$ and $2\beta_s$ for
536: $|R|\in\{0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1, 3, 5\}$ and $\arg R\in[0, 2\pi]$, where $R$
537: parametrises
538: the new physics contributions to $M_{12}$, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:25}), (\ref{eq:26}).
539: The numbers in the figure represent the values of $|R|$
540: and the circles and triangles
541: indicate $\arg R =0$ and $\pi$, respectively. The value of
542: $\arg R$ increases in the direction of the arrow.
543: The perpendicular line is the current experimental lower bound of $x_s$.
544: (b) New physics in
545: $\dG$. The numbers in the figure represent the value of $|R|$.
546: $|\dG|$ is always reduced by new physics
547: and can even become zero.}
548: \label{fig:2}
549: \vspace{-0.5cm}
550: \end{center}\end{figure}
551: For later convenience, we parametrise the new physics contributions as
552: \be R\equiv \frac{M_{12}^{\mbox{\tiny NP}}}{M_{12}^{\sm}}\,,\label{eq:25}\ee
553: which implies
554: \be 2\beta_s=\arg [1+R], \ \ \ \ \ x_s=
555: \frac{\Delta M_s^{\sm}}{\Gamma_{s}}\left|1+R\right|.
556: \label{eq:26}\ee
557: In Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(a) we plot the correlation between $2\beta_s$
558: and $x_s$ for different values of $|R|\in$\{0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1, 3, 5\}
559: varying the
560: phase $\arg R$ between 0 and $2\pi$.
561: %(starting from right most and turning anti-clockwise).
562: The value of $\Delta M_s^{\sm}$ is chosen to be $25{\rm ps}^{-1}$.
563: The figure shows that the current experimental bound on
564: $x_s$ has already excluded some phase region for $0.5<|R|<1$.
565: In view of the limitation of the experimental resolution, $x_s<90$, it
566: is clear that new physics can only be resolved if it is not too large,
567: i.e.\ $|R|<4$.
568: As for the mixing phase, $2\beta_s$, small $|R|\ll 1$ will result in
569: small $2\beta_s$ that cannot be distinguished from the SM expectation,
570: unless $\arg R$ is very close to zero or $\pi$.
571: For large SUSY contributions $|R|>1$, on the other hand,
572: $\sin 2\beta_s \simeq 1$ is very possible.
573:
574: Let us now discuss new physics effects on $\Delta \Gamma_{s}$.
575: As discussed in \cite{DDLR,Gros}, $\Delta\Gamma_s$ is always reduced
576: by new physics due to the factor $\cos 2\beta_s$ in Eq.~(\ref{xyz}).
577: In Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(b), we plot $\dG/\dG^{\sm}$ in terms of $\arg R$
578: for different values of $|R|$.
579: As can be seen from this figure, $\Delta\Gamma_s$ can even become
580: zero for large values of $|R|$ and $\arg R=\pm \pi /2 $.
581: \begin{figure}[ht]\vspace{-0cm}\begin{center}
582: \psfrag{z}[l][l]{zoom in}
583: \psfrag{t}[l][l]{$t\,$[ps]}
584: \psfrag{a}[l][l]{$S_{J/\psi \phi}$}
585: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig3.eps}
586: \caption{The time-dependent asymmetry of $B_s\to J/\psi \phi$ acc.\ to
587: Eq.~(\ref{eq:1}); parameters as given in the text.}
588: \label{fig:3}
589: \vspace{-0.5cm}
590: \end{center}\end{figure}
591:
592: Finally, let us discuss the effect of $\Delta\Gamma_{s}$ on the
593: time-dependent asymmetry Eq.~(\ref{eq:1}). In Fig.~\ref{fig:3}
594: we show the time-dependent asymmetry of $B_s\to J/\psi \phi$ for
595: the parameter set $\dM = 25\, {\rm ps}^{-1}$,
596: $\dG^{\sm}/\Gamma_{s}^{tot} = 0.12 $, $D=0.33$, $|R|=1$ and $\arg R=\pi/2$.
597: Note that the maxima of the $\sin\Delta M_s t$ curve slowly decreases
598: with $t$, which is the effect of the denominator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:1}).
599: Although this effect is rather small, it may be used to determine
600: $\Delta\Gamma_{s}$ once experimental data become available in
601: a sufficiently large range of $t$.
602: %Linearly fitting the slope at small $t$, say $| t | < 1\ ps$, we obtain
603: %\be
604: %\left.\frac{d}{dt}\ \frac{1}{\cosh\left(\frac{\dG}{2}t\right)-\mbox{Re}\left[\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho}\right]
605: %\sinh\left(\frac{\dG}{2}t\right)}\right|_{t=0}=\frac{\Delta\Gamma_{B_s}^{\sm}}{2\Gamma_{tot}}
606: %\cos^2 2\beta_s
607: %\ee
608:
609: %Thus, using the value in Eq. (\ref{eq:23}), the maximum slope of the sign curve is
610: %$0.06\pm 0.03\ ps^{-1}$ at $| t | < 1\ ps$.
611:
612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
613: %
614: \section{\large \bf\boldmath
615: SUSY Contributions to $B_s$ Mixing}
616: %
617: The mass difference in the $B_s$
618: system and the time-dependent asymmetry $S_{J/\psi \phi}$ depend
619: essentially on $M_{12}$ which can be computed from the effective
620: $\Delta B=2$ Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\Delta B=2}$.
621: In supersymmetric theories
622: $H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\Delta B=2}$ is generated by the SM box diagrams
623: with $W$ exchange and box diagrams mediated by
624: charged Higgs, neutralino, gluino and chargino exchange. The
625: Higgs contributions are suppressed by the quark masses and can be neglected.
626: Neutralino diagrams are also heavily suppressed compared
627: to the gluino and chargino ones, due to the electroweak
628: neutral couplings to fermion and sfermions.
629: Thus, the
630: $B^0$--$\bar B^0$ transition matrix element is to good accuracy given by
631: \be
632: M_{12} = M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}} + M_{12}^{\tilde{g}}+
633: M_{12}^{\tilde{\chi}^+},
634: \ee
635: where $M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}$, $M_{12}^{\tilde{g}}$ and
636: $M_{12}^{\tilde{\chi}^+}$
637: indicate the SM, gluino and chargino contributions, respectively.
638: The SM contribution
639: is known at NLO accuracy in QCD \cite{buras1} and is given by
640: \begin{equation}
641: M_{12}^{\sm}= \left(\frac{G_F}{4\pi}\right)^2(V_{tb}^*V_{ts})^2
642: S_0(x_t) \eta_{2B}[\alpha_s(\mu)]^{-6/23}\left[1+\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}
643: {4\pi}J_5\right] \left(-\frac{4}{3}m_{B_s}f_{B_s}^2B_1(\mu)\right),
644: \end{equation}
645: where $S_0(x_t)$ is given by
646: \begin{equation}
647: S_0(x_t)=\frac{4x_t-11x_t^2+x_t^3}{4(1-x_t)^2}-\frac{3x_t^3\ln x_t}{2(1-x_t)^3}
648: \end{equation}
649: with $x_t=(m_t/m_W)^2$. Contributions from virtual $u$ and $c$ quarks
650: are suppressed by the GIM mechanism.
651: The short-distance QCD corrections are encoded in $\eta_{2B}$ and
652: $J_5$, with $\eta_{2B}=0.551$ and $J_5=1.627$ \cite{buras1}.
653:
654: Including gluino and
655: chargino exchanges, $H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\Delta B=2}$ takes the form
656: \be
657: H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\Delta B=2} = \sum_{i=1}^5 C_i(\mu) Q_{i}(\mu) +
658: \sum_{i=1}^3 \tilde{C}_i(\mu) \tilde{Q}_i(\mu) + h.c. ,
659: \ee
660: where $C_i(\mu)$, $\tilde{C}_i(\mu)$, $Q_i(\mu)$ and $\tilde{Q}_i(\mu)$ are
661: the Wilson-coefficients and effective
662: operators, respectively, normalised at the scale $\mu$, with
663: \bea
664: Q_1 &=& \bar{s}^{\alpha}_L \gamma_{\mu} b_L^{\alpha}~ \bar{s}^{\beta}_L
665: \gamma^{\mu} b_L^{\beta},\nonumber\\
666: Q_2 &=& \bar{s}^{\alpha}_R b_L^{\alpha}~ \bar{s}^{\beta}_R
667: b_L^{\beta},\nonumber\\
668: Q_3 &=& \bar{s}^{\alpha}_R b_L^{\beta}~ \bar{s}^{\beta}_R
669: b_L^{\alpha},\nonumber\\
670: Q_4 &=& \bar{s}^{\alpha}_R b_L^{\alpha}~ \bar{s}^{\beta}_L
671: b_R^{\beta},\nonumber\\
672: Q_5 &=& \bar{s}^{\alpha}_R b_L^{\beta}~ \bar{s}^{\beta}_L
673: b_R^{\alpha}.
674: \eea
675: The operators $\tilde{Q}_{1,2,3}$ are obtained from $Q_{1,2,3}$ by
676: exchanging $L \leftrightarrow R$.
677:
678: In MIA, the gluino contributions to the
679: Wilson-coefficients at the SUSY scale $M_S$ are given by
680: \cite{masiero}
681: \bea
682: C_1^{\tilde{g}}(M_S)\!&=&\!-\frac{\alpha_s^2}{216 m_{\tilde{q}}^2}
683: \left[ 24 x f_6(x) + 66 \tilde{f}_6(x) \right] (\delta_{23}^d)^2_{LL} \\
684: C_2^{\tilde{g}}(M_S)\! &=&\!-\frac{\alpha_s^2}{216 m_{\tilde{q}}^2}
685: 204 x f_6(x) (\delta_{23}^d)^2_{RL} \\
686: C_3^{\tilde{g}}(M_S)\! &=&\!-\frac{\alpha_s^2}{216 m_{\tilde{q}}^2} 36 x f_6(x)
687: (\delta_{23}^d)^2_{RL} \\
688: C_4^{\tilde{g}}(M_S)\! &=&\!-\frac{\alpha_s^2}{216 m_{\tilde{q}}^2} \left\{
689: \left[ 504 x f_6(x) -72
690: \tilde{f}_6(x) \right] (\delta_{23}^d)_{LL}(\delta_{23}^d)_{RR} -132
691: \tilde{f}_6(x) (\delta^d_{23})_{LR} (\delta^d_{23})_{RL} \right\} \\
692: C_5^{\tilde{g}}(M_S)\! &=&\!-\frac{\alpha_s^2}{216 m_{\tilde{q}}^2} \left\{
693: \left[ 24 x f_6(x) +120 \tilde{f}_6(x) \right] (\delta_{23}^d)_{LL}
694: (\delta_{23}^d)_{RR} -180 \tilde{f}_6(x) (\delta^d_{23})_{LR}
695: (\delta^d_{23})_{RL} \right\}.
696: \eea
697: where $x=m_{\tilde{g}}^2/m_{\tilde{q}}^2$ and $m_{\tilde{q}}$ is the average
698: down squark mass.
699: Explicit expressions for $f_6(x)$ and $\tilde{f}_6(x)$
700: can be found in \cite{masiero}. The Wilson-coefficients
701: $\tilde{C}_{1,2,3}$ are obtained by
702: interchanging $L\leftrightarrow R$ in the mass insertions appearing
703: in $C_{1,2,3}$.
704: Note that the coefficient of the mass insertion
705: $(\delta^d_{23})_{LL} (\delta^d_{23})_{RR}$ in $C_4^{\tilde{g}}$
706: is much larger than the coefficients of the other mass insertions,
707: which renders $\Delta M_{B_s}$ and $S_{J/\psi \phi}$ very sensitive to
708: these insertions.
709:
710:
711: The chargino contributions to the relevant Wilson-coefficients, at leading
712: order in MIA, next-to-leading order in the
713: Wolfenstein parameter $\lambda$ and including the
714: effects of a potentially light right-stop, are given by \cite{GK}
715: \bea
716: C_1^{\tilde{\chi}^+}(M_S) &=& \frac{\alpha^2}{48 m_{\tilde{q}}^2}
717: \sum_{i,j}
718: \Big\{ \vert V_{i1}\vert^2 \vert V_{j1}
719: \vert^2 \Big[(\delta^u_{32})_{LL}^2 + 2 \lambda (\delta^u_{31})_{LL}
720: (\delta^u_{32})_{LL} \Big]
721: L_{2}(x_i,x_j)\nonumber\\
722: &&-2 Y_t \vert V_{i1} \vert^2 V_{j1} V_{j2}^*
723: \Big[(\delta^u_{32})_{LL}
724: (\delta^u_{32})_{RL}
725: + \lambda (\delta^u_{32})_{LL} (\delta^u_{31})_{RL} \Big] R_2(x_i, x_j,z)
726: \nonumber\\
727: &&+ Y_t^2 V_{i1} V_{i2}^* V_{j1} V_{j2}^* \Big[(\delta^u_{32})_{RL}^2
728: + 2 \lambda
729: (\delta^u_{32})_{RL} (\delta^u_{31})_{RL} \Big]\tilde{R}_2(x_i,x_j,z)\Big\},\\
730: C_3^{\tilde{\chi}^+}(M_S) & = & \frac{\alpha^2}{12 m_{\tilde{q}}^2}
731: \sum_{i,j} U_{i2} U_{j2} V_{j1} V_{i1}
732: \Big[ (\delta^u_{32})_{LL}^2 + 2 \lambda (\delta^u_{32})_{LL}
733: (\delta^u_{31})_{LL} \Big] L_{0}(x_i,x_j),
734: \eea
735: where $x_i=m^2_{\chi_i^+}/m^2_{\tilde{q}}$,
736: $z=m^2_{\tilde{t}_R}/m^2_{\tilde{q}}$ and the functions
737: $R_2(x,y,z)$, $\tilde{R}_2(x,y,z)$, $L_0(x,y)$ and $L_2(x,y)$ are given in
738: \cite{GK}. $U_{i,j}$ and $V_{i,j}$ are the unitary matrices that
739: diagonalise the chargino mass matrix and $Y_t$ is the top
740: Yukawa coupling (for more details, see \cite{GK}).
741: Note that, neglecting the effect of the Yukawa couplings
742: of the light quarks, the chargino contributions to
743: $C_4$ and $C_5$ are negligible and that charginos do not contribute to
744: $C_2(M_S)$ and $\tilde{C}_2(M_S)$ due to the colour structure of the
745: diagrams;
746: nonzero values at lower scales are however induced by QCD mixing effects.
747:
748: To obtain the Wilson-coefficients at the scale $\mu\sim m_b$ one has
749: to solve the corresponding renormalisation group equations, which
750: to LO accuracy was done in Ref.~\cite{BdBd-th0}, with the result
751: \be
752: C_r(\mu) = \sum_{i} \sum_{s} (b_i^{(r,s)} + \eta c_i^{(r,s)})
753: \eta^{a_i} C_{s}(M_S),
754: \ee
755: where $\eta = \alpha_s(M_S)/\alpha_s(\mu)$. The coefficients $b_i^{(r,s)}$,
756: $c_i^{(r,s)}$ and $a_i$ are given in Ref.~\cite{BdBd-th0}.
757:
758: In order to calculate $M_{12}$, we also need the matrix elements of
759: the effective operators $Q_i$ and $\tilde{Q}_i$ over $B_s$ meson
760: states. As usual, the matrix elements are expressed in terms of the
761: decay constant $f_{B_s}$, using the vacuum insertion approximation;
762: terms neglected in this approximation are included in a bag factor
763: $B_i$ which is expected to be of order one.
764: One has
765: \bea
766: \langle \overline{B_s}^0 \vert Q_1 \vert B_s^0 \rangle &\equiv& -\frac{1}{3} m_{B_s} f_{B_s}^2 B_1(\mu),\\
767: \langle \overline{B_s}^0\vert Q_2 \vert B_s^0 \rangle &\equiv& \frac{5}{24} \left(\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_b(\mu)+
768: m_s(\mu)}\right)^2 m_{B_s} f_{B_s}^2 B_2(\mu),\\
769: \langle \overline{B_s}^0 \vert Q_3 \vert B_s^0 \rangle &\equiv& - \frac{1}{24} \left(\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_b(\mu)+
770: m_s(\mu)}\right)^2 m_{B_s} f_{B_s}^2 B_3(\mu),\\
771: \langle \overline{B_s}^0 \vert Q_4 \vert B_s^0 \rangle &\equiv& - \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_b(\mu)+
772: m_s(\mu)}\right)^2 m_{B_s} f_{B_s}^2 B_4(\mu),\\
773: \langle \overline{B_s}^0 \vert Q_5 \vert B_s^0 \rangle &\equiv& - \frac{1}{12} \left(\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_b(\mu)+
774: m_s(\mu)}\right)^2 m_{B_s} f_{B_s}^2 B_5(\mu);
775: \eea
776: the matrix elements of $\tilde{Q}_i$ are the same as for $Q_i$.
777: The hadronic parameters $f_{B_s}$ and $B_i$ have been calculated on
778: the lattice, yielding \cite{lat2}\footnote{
779: The overall sign is different from the one in \cite{lat2}, which is
780: due to the different sign choice of the CP transformation; we chose
781: {\bf CP}$|P^0\rangle = +|\overline{P}^0 \rangle$. }
782: $B_1(m_b) = 0.86(2)(^{+5}_{-4})$, $B_2(m_b)=0.83(2)(4),\ B_3(m_b) =
783: 1.03(4)(9),\
784: B_4(m_b)=1.17(2)(^{+5}_{-7})$, and $B_5(m_b)=1.94(3)(^{+23}_{-7})$; as
785: we shall see in the next section, we do not need a numerical value for
786: $f_{B_s}$.
787:
788:
789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
790: \section{{\large \bf Numerical Analysis and Discussion}}
791: %
792: Let us now proceed to the numerical analysis of the impact of SUSY
793: effects on $\Delta M_{B_s}$ and $\sin 2 \beta_s$, which is most
794: conveniently done by studying the ratio $R$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:25}),
795: of intrinsically supersymmetric to SM contributions to $M_{12}$.
796: We start with the gluino contributions, which, as discussed in
797: the previous section, depend on the average down
798: squark mass and on the ratio $x=(m_{\tilde{g}}/m_{\tilde{q}})^2$.
799: In terms of the mass-insertion parameters $\delta^d_{23}$,
800: $R$ can be written as
801: \bea
802: R_{\tilde g} \equiv
803: \frac{M_{12}^{\tilde{g}}}{M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}} &\simeq& a_1(m_{\tilde{q}},x)
804: \left[(\delta^d_{23})_{LL}^2 + (\delta^d_{23})_{RR}^2 \right] +
805: a_2(m_{\tilde{q}},x) \left[(\delta^d_{23})_{LR}^2 + (\delta^d_{23})_{RL}^2
806: \right] \nonumber\\
807: && +a_3(m_{\tilde{q}},x) \left[(\delta^d_{23})_{LR} (\delta^d_{23})_{RL}
808: \right] + a_4(m_{\tilde{q}},x) \left[(\delta^d_{23})_{LL}
809: (\delta^d_{23})_{RR}\right] \label{eq:Rg}
810: \eea
811: %--------------
812: \begin{figure}[t]
813: \begin{center}
814: \psfrag{a}[l][l]{$a_i(m_{\tilde{q}},x)$}
815: \psfrag{a1}[l][l]{$a_1$}
816: \psfrag{a2}[l][l]{$a_2$}
817: \psfrag{a3}[l][l]{$a_3$}
818: \psfrag{a4}[l][l]{$a_4$}
819: \psfrag{x}[l][l]{$x=(m_{\tilde{g}}/m_{\tilde{q}})^2$}
820: \epsfig{file=fig4.eps,width=12cm,height=6cm}\\
821: \caption[]{$a_i(m_{\tilde{q}},x)$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Rg})
822: as function of
823: $x=(m_{\tilde{g}}/m_{\tilde{q}})^2$ for $m_{\tilde{q}}=500\,$GeV (solid lines)
824: and 300 GeV (dashed lines).}
825: \label{fig:4}
826: \end{center}
827: \end{figure}
828: %---------------------------------------
829: with $x=m_{\tilde g}^2/m_{\tilde q}^2$. The
830: coefficients $a_i(m_{\tilde{q}},x)$ depend implicitly on the
831: Wilson-coefficients and matrix elements defined in the previous
832: section. Let us pause here for a moment and consider what range of
833: values for $\delta^d_{23}$ we actually do expect. Although our analysis
834: is model-independent, we may nevertheless get some guidance for what
835: to expect by looking at
836: various SUSY models. For instance, with $m_{\tilde{q}}\sim m_{g}
837: \sim 500\,$GeV,
838: the minimal supergravity model gives
839: $(\delta^d_{23})_{LL} \simeq 0.009+ 0.001~ i$ and
840: $(\delta^d_{23})_{RR, LR, RL} \simeq 0$, while the SUSY SO(10) model
841: predicts $(\delta^d_{23})_{RR}\simeq 0.5 + 0.5~ i $ and
842: $(\delta^d_{23})_{LL, LR, RL} \simeq 0$ \cite{BdBd-th1}.
843: Models with nonuniversal A-terms lead to
844: $(\delta^d_{23})_{LR}\simeq 0.002+ 0.005~ i$ and
845: $(\delta^d_{23})_{LL, RR, RL} \simeq 0$ \cite{Khalil}.
846: We thus see that, although this is not expected to be true in general,
847: a single mass insertion is dominant in many models.
848: This implies that, for
849: $(\delta^d_{23})_{LL, RR}$ ($(\delta^d_{23})_{LR, LR}$)
850: dominated models, only the term proportional to
851: $a_1(m_{\tilde{q},x})$ ($a_2(m_{\tilde{q},x})$) contributes to $R$.
852: We would also like to mention that
853: $(\delta^d_{23})_{AB}$ is already constrained by
854: $B(b\to s \gamma)$, which
855: yields $|(\delta^d_{23})_{LL, RR}|<1$ and
856: $|(\delta^d_{23})_{LR, RL}|<\mathcal{O}(10^{-2})$ \cite{bsgamma}.
857:
858: Numerical results for the $x$ dependence of
859: $a_i(m_{\tilde{q}},x)$ are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:4},
860: for two representative values of the down squark mass,
861: $ m_{\tilde{q}}=\{300, 500\}$ GeV.
862: In order to obtain this result, we have set $M_S=m_{\tilde{q}}$ and
863: used the following input parameters:
864: \bea
865: &&V_{ts}=0.0412, \quad m_t=(174 \pm
866: 5)\,\mbox{GeV},\quad\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.119,\nonumber \\
867: &&m_b(m_b)=4.2\ \mbox{GeV},\quad
868: \mu=m_b,\quad m_s(2\ \mbox{GeV})=(100\pm 20)\,\mbox{MeV}.\nonumber
869: \eea
870: %The errors in these parameters also lead to theoretical uncertainty for
871: %$a_i(m_{\tilde{q}},x)$.
872: The impact of the theoretical uncertainties of $m_t$ and $m_s$ on
873: $a_i$ is very small, and also the variation with $\mu\sim m_b$ does
874: not exceed a few percent.
875: The main source of uncertainty of $a_i(m_{\tilde{q}},x)$ comes from the
876: $B_i$ parameters: although the factor $B_1$ cancels in $a_1$, the
877: other $a_i$ carry a $\sim 20$\% uncertainty from $B_i/B_1$. Note that
878: $R_{\tilde g}$ is independent of $f_{B_s}$.
879:
880: Let us continue with the discussion of the results depicted in
881: Fig.~\ref{fig:4}. The solid and dashed lines refer to
882: $m_{\tilde{q}}=500\,$GeV and 300 GeV, respectively.
883: We see that all $a_i$ are monotonically decreasing functions in $x$
884: and
885: are by about a factor 3 larger for $m_{\tilde{q}}=300$ GeV
886: than for $m_{\tilde{q}}=500\,$GeV.
887: Note also that $a_1(m_{\tilde{q}},x)$ becomes
888: negative for large values of $x$.
889: It is also evident that $a_4(m_{\tilde{q}},x)$ is
890: largest, in agreement with the remark in the previous section, so that
891: the dominant contribution to
892: $B_s$ mixing through gluino exchange is expected to be due to
893: $LL$ and $RR$ mass insertions.
894: Although $a_{2,3}(m_{\tilde{q}},x) \sim\mathcal{O}(10)$ are also
895: large, the constraint from $B(b \to s \gamma)$ on the helicity-flip
896: mass insertions $(\delta^d_{23})_{LR,RL}$ renders their contributions to
897: $B_s$ mixing negligible.
898:
899: As an explicit example for the relative size of the $a_i$, we choose
900: $m_{\tilde{q}}=500$ GeV and $x=1$, which yields
901: \bea
902: %\frac{M_{12}^{\tilde{g}}}{M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}}
903: R_{\tilde{g}}
904: (m_{\tilde{q}}=500 \mbox{GeV}, x=1)&\simeq& 1.44 \left[
905: (\delta^d_{23})_{LL}^2 + (\delta^d_{23})_{RR}^2 \right] + 27.57 \left[
906: (\delta^d_{23})_{LR}^2 + (\delta^d_{23})_{RL}^2 \right]
907: \nonumber\\
908: &&{} -44.76 \left[(\delta^d_{23})_{LR} (\delta^d_{23})_{RL}\right] -
909: 175.79\left[(\delta^d_{23})_{LL} (\delta^d_{23})_{RR}\right].
910: \eea
911: Using the constraints from $b\to s\gamma$,
912: $|(\delta^d_{23})_{LR(RL)}|< 10^{-2}$ and $|(\delta^d_{23})_{LL(RR)})|< 1$,
913: it is evident that helicity-flipping mass insertions contribute
914: $\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$ to $R_{\tilde{g}}$, whereas
915: single $LL$ or $RR$ mass insertions
916: can yield $\mathcal{O}(1)$ contributions.
917:
918: In Sec.~2, we have already discussed the dependence of $\dM$ and
919: $\sin 2\beta_s$ on $R$, cf.\ Fig.\ref{fig:2}(a).
920: The constraint from $b\to s\gamma$ implies that
921: $LR$ and $RL$ mass insertions alone cannot generate a value of
922: $2\beta_s$ larger than $\sim\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$,
923: which is too small to be observed at the Tevatron or the LHC.
924: $LL$ and $RR$ mass insertions, on the other hand, can result in
925: sizeable -- and measurable -- values of the $B_s$ mixing phase:
926: for instance, $(\delta^d_{23})_{LL}=1\times e^{i\pi/4}$ yields
927: $\dM/\dM^{\sm}=1.75$ and $\sin 2\beta_s=0.82$, while
928: for $(\delta^d_{23})_{LL}\simeq (\delta^d_{23})_{RR}=
929: 0.1\times e^{i\pi/10}$ one finds
930: $\dM/\dM^{\sm}=1.12$ and $\sin 2\beta_s=-0.93$.
931: Note
932: that for the same mass insertion, {\it i.e.}
933: $(\delta^d_{23})_{LL}=1\times e^{\pi/4}$,
934: the smaller squark mass,
935: $m_{\tilde{q}}=300$ GeV, accompanied by $x=1$ gives
936: about 3 times larger $|R|$,
937: {\it i.e.} $|R|>4$, which is beyond the experimental reach at the
938: LHC, as discussed in Sec.~2.
939:
940: Let us now turn to the chargino contributions.
941: The chargino mediated processes depend on five relevant SUSY low energy
942: parameters: $m_{\tilde{q}}$, $m_{\tilde{t}_R}$, $M_2$, $\mu$ and $\tan \beta$.
943: With $m_{\tilde{t}_R}=150\,$GeV, $m_{\tilde{q}}=200\,$GeV,
944: $M_2=\mu =300\,$GeV and $\tan \beta=5$, we find
945: \bea
946: \frac{M_{12}^{\tilde{\chi}^+}}{M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}} &\simeq& 10^{-4} (\delta^u_{31})_{LL} (\delta^u_{32})_{LL}
947: + 2\times 10^{-4} (\delta^u_{32})_{LL}^2 + 9.8 \times 10^{-8} (\delta^u_{32})_{LL} (\delta^u_{31})_{RL}
948: \nonumber\\
949: &&+2\times 10^{-7} (\delta^u_{32})_{LL} (\delta^u_{32})_{RL}
950: +2.4 \times 10^{-7} (\delta^u_{31})_{RL} (\delta^u_{32})_{RL} +
951: 5.4 \times 10^{-7} (\delta^u_{32})_{RL} ,\label{eq:44}
952: \eea
953: which is obviously much smaller than the gluino contribution.
954: Even though the chargino contributions are very sensitive to the value of
955: $\tan\beta$, an increase of $\tan \beta$ to 50 only entails an enhancement
956: of the the first two terms in (\ref{eq:44}) from $10^{-4}$ to
957: $10^{-2}$ -- still not large enough to distinguish
958: $\dM$ and $\sin 2 \beta_s$ from the SM prediction.
959:
960: Let us finally discuss the implication of the experimental data of
961: the CP asymmetry
962: in the $B_d \to \phi K_s$ process,
963: $S_{\phi K_s}$. As the underlying quark-level process is a $b\to s$
964: transition, it is clear that this process is governed by the same mass
965: insertions, $(\delta^d_{23})_{AB}$. Since a possible
966: hint of new physics may already have been seen in this mode, it is very
967: interesting to analyse the implications of the experimental data on
968: $S_{\phi K_s}$ for $B_s$ mixing.
969: Let us first recall the main result of the supersymmetric contributions
970: to $S_{\phi K_S}$ previously obtained in Ref.~\cite{KK-phk}:
971: the mixing CP asymmetry is given by
972: \begin{eqnarray}
973: S_{\phi K_S} = \Frac{\sin 2 \beta + 2 R_{\phi} \cos \delta \sin(\theta_{\phi} + 2 \beta) +
974: R_{\phi}^2 \sin (2 \theta_{\phi} + 2 \beta)}{1+ 2 R_{\phi} \cos \delta \cos\theta_{\phi} +
975: R_{\phi}^2},
976: \end{eqnarray}
977: where $\delta$ is the difference of the strong phase between SM and SUSY,
978: but assumed to be $\delta=0$ in the following
979: (see \cite{KK-etak} for a more detailed discussion).
980: $R_{\phi}$ is the absolute value of the ratio between SM and SUSY decay
981: amplitude
982: and $\theta_{\phi}$ is its phase, that is
983: \be
984: R_{\phi} e^{i\theta_{\phi}}\equiv\left(\frac{A^{SUSY}}{A^{SM}}\right)_{\phi K_S}.
985: \ee
986: For $m_{\tilde{g}}\simeq m_{\tilde{q}}=500~ \mathrm{GeV}$, we obtain
987: \be
988: R_{\phi} e^{i\theta_{\phi}}
989: \simeq 0.23 (\delta_{LL}^d)_{23} +
990: 97.4 (\delta_{LR}^d)_{23} + 97.4 (\delta_{RL}^d)_{23} + 0.23 (\delta_{RR}^d)_{23}.
991: \label{aa1}
992: \ee
993: Considering the same constraint from $b\to s\gamma$, we arrive at the
994: conclusion that the $LR$ or $RL$ mass insertion gives the largest contribution
995: to $S_{\phi K_s}$ while the $LL$ or $RR$ contribution is subdominant.
996: In Ref.~\cite{KK-phk},
997: we found that it is very difficult to get a negative $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ from
998: $LL$ or $RR$ mass insertion dominated models without decreasing
999: $m_{\tilde{q}}$.
1000: %
1001: \begin{table}[t]
1002: \begin{center}
1003: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline \hline
1004: \multicolumn{7}{|c|}{$m_{\tilde{q}}=m_{\tilde{g}}=500$\ GeV} \\ \hline \hline
1005: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Mass insertion sets} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Results}
1006: \\ \hline
1007: $\delta_{LL(RR)}$ & $\delta_{RR(LL)}$ & $\delta_{LR(RL)}$ & $\delta_{RL(LR)}$ &
1008: $\Delta M_s$ [ps$^{-1}]$ &$\sin 2\beta_s$ & $S_{\phi K_S}$
1009: \\ \hline
1010: $1\times e^{-i\pi /2}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 10.7 & 0 & \phantom{-}0.50 \\ \hline
1011: $1\times e^{-i\pi /4}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 43.5 & -0.82 & \phantom{-}0.59 \\ \hline
1012: 0 & 0 & $0.01\times e^{-i\pi /2}$ & 0 & 24.9 & 0 & -0.36 \\ \hline
1013: 0 & 0 & $0.01\times e^{-i\pi /4}$ & 0 & 25.0 & -$2.8\times 10^{-3}$ &\phantom{-}0.19 \\
1014: \hline
1015: $1\times e^{-i\pi /2}$ & $1\times e^{-i\pi /2}$ & 0 & 0 & $4.39 \times 10^3$ &0 &
1016: \phantom{-}0.25 \\ \hline
1017: $0.1\times e^{-i\pi /4}$ & $0.1\times e^{-i\pi /4}$ & 0 & 0 & 50 & 0.87 & \phantom{-}0.70 \\
1018: \hline \hline
1019: \multicolumn{7}{|c|}{$m_{\tilde{q}}=m_{\tilde{g}}=300$\ GeV} \\ \hline \hline
1020: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Mass insertion sets} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Results}
1021: \\ \hline
1022: $\delta_{LL(RR)}$ & $\delta_{RR(LL)}$ & $\delta_{LR(RL)}$ & $\delta_{RL(LR)}$ &
1023: $\Delta M_s$ [ps$^{-1}$] &$\sin 2\beta_s$ & $S_{\phi K_S}$
1024: \\ \hline
1025: $1\times e^{-i\pi /2}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 87.6 & 0 & \phantom{-}0.05 \\ \hline
1026: $1\times e^{-i\pi /4}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 115 & -0.98 & \phantom{-}0.37 \\ \hline
1027: 0 & 0 & $0.01\times e^{-i\pi /2}$ & 0 & 24.8 & 0 & -0.76 \\ \hline
1028: 0 & 0 & $0.01\times e^{-i\pi /4}$ & 0 & 25.0 & -$8.3 \times 10^{-3}$ & -0.15 \\
1029: \hline
1030: $1\times e^{-i\pi /2}$ & $1\times e^{-i\pi /2}$ & 0 & 0 & $1.26 \times 10^4$ &0 &
1031: -0.52 \\ \hline
1032: $0.1\times e^{-i\pi /4}$ & $0.1\times e^{-i\pi /4}$ & 0 & 0 & 128 & 0.98 & \phantom{-}0.65 \\
1033: \hline \hline
1034: \end{tabular}
1035: \caption{Numerical results for $\Delta M_{B_s}$, $\sin 2\beta_s$ and
1036: $S_{\phi K_s}$ for some representative values of $(\delta^d_{32})_{AB}$ ($A,B=
1037: L,R$) for $m_{\tilde{q}}= m_{\tilde{g}}\in\{300, 500\}\,$GeV.}
1038: \end{center}
1039: \end{table}
1040: %
1041:
1042: The most interesting result we would like to emphasize
1043: here is that
1044: $B_s$ mixing and $S_{\phi K_{S}}$
1045: are dominated by
1046: different mass insertions: $LL, RR$ and $LR, RL$, respectively.
1047: In Table 1, we present our results for $\Delta M_{B_s}$, $\sin 2 \beta_s$ and
1048: $S_{\phi K_s}$ for various sets of the mass insertions with
1049: $m_{\tilde{q}}=m_{\tilde{g}}=\{300 \mbox{GeV}, 500 \mbox{GeV}\}$
1050: \footnote{In this table,
1051: the phases are chosen to be negative so that $S_{\phi K_S}$
1052: becomes less than $S_{J/\psi K_S}$ (see the more detailed discussion
1053: in \cite{KK-phk}).}.
1054: As we have mentioned above, the $LL$ and $RR$ mass
1055: insertions may lower the value of $S_{\phi K_s}$ and make it comparable to
1056: experiment if the SUSY
1057: masses are light enough.
1058: In this case, however, $\Delta M_s$ becomes so large that it cannot
1059: be resolved experimentally.
1060: On the other hand, although
1061: $LR$ or $RL$ dominated models can explain the experimental data
1062: of $S_{\phi K_s}$
1063: and also predict $\dM \sim \dM^{\sm}$, which is good news for
1064: the experimental side,
1065: in this case $\sin 2 \beta_s$ is too small to be observed.
1066: Thus, once the oscilation is seen with a large amplitude
1067: at the Tevatron or the LHC, {\em all models with a
1068: single dominant mass insertion
1069: will be excluded.}
1070: If the $B_s$ oscillations are resolved experimentally with $x_s<90$,
1071: the only surviving models
1072: predicting a negative
1073: $S_{\phi K_s}$ and an observable $\sin 2 \beta_s$ and $\Delta M_s$,
1074: are SUSY models
1075: with combined mass insertions effects. An
1076: example of this class of models could result in, for instance, the following
1077: mass insertions $(\delta_{32}^d)_{AB}$:
1078: \bea
1079: && \vert (\delta_{23}^d)_{LL} \vert \simeq 0.02 , \nonumber\\
1080: && \vert (\delta_{23}^d)_{RR} \vert \simeq 0.5 , \nonumber\\
1081: && \vert (\delta_{23}^d)_{LR} \vert \simeq \vert (\delta_{32})_{RL}
1082: \vert \simeq 0.005 , \nonumber\\
1083: && \mathrm{arg}[(\delta_{23}^d)_{LL}] \simeq \mathrm{arg}[ (\delta_{23}^d)_{RR}]
1084: \simeq -\frac{\pi}{4} , \nonumber\\
1085: && \mathrm{arg}[(\delta_{23}^d)_{LR}] \simeq \mathrm{arg}[ (\delta_{23}^d)_{RL}]
1086: \simeq -\frac{\pi}{2} , \nonumber
1087: \eea
1088: which lead to:
1089: \bea
1090: && \Delta M_s \simeq 40\, {\rm ps}^{-1},\nonumber\\
1091: && \sin 2 \beta_s \simeq 0.86, \nonumber\\
1092: && S_{\phi K_S} \simeq -0.7. \nonumber
1093: \eea
1094: Such nonuniversal soft SUSY breaking terms
1095: ($LR$ and $RL$ of order $10^{-3}$ and large $RR$)
1096: are possible in models derived from string theory, as discussed in,
1097: for instance,
1098: Ref.~\cite{Khalil}.
1099:
1100:
1101:
1102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1103: \section{Conclusions}
1104: We have studied supersymmetric contributions to $B_s$
1105: mixing and the mixing-induced CP asymmetry of $B_s\to J/\psi \phi$ in
1106: the mass insertion approximation, including constraints from other
1107: $b\to s$ processes, in particular $b\to s\gamma$ and $B_d\to \phi K_s$.
1108: The SM predictions for these quantities are
1109: $S_{J/\psi \phi}\simeq 10^{-2}$ and $\dM = (10 - 30)\,{\rm ps}^{-1}$,
1110: depending on the value of $\gamma$.
1111: We have shown that in SUSY these predictions can change quite
1112: drastically, which is mainly due to gluino exchange contributions,
1113: whereas the chargino contributions to these processes are negligible.
1114: We find that values
1115: $S_{J/\psi \phi}\simeq \mathcal{O}(1)$ and $\dM = (10-10^4)\,{\rm
1116: ps}^{-1}$
1117: are quite possible.
1118: We also
1119: find that unlike their effects on the CP asymmetry of $B_d \to \phi K_s$,
1120: the mass insertions $(\delta_{23}^d)_{LR(RL)}$ do not provide significant
1121: contributions to these processes, whereas
1122: $(\delta_{23}^d)_{LL(RR)}$ imply a
1123: large $\dM$ and $\sin 2 \beta_s$.
1124: We have argued that a clean measurement of
1125: the $B^0_s-\overline{B}^0_s$ oscillation
1126: and a significant deviation of $S_{\phi K_s}$ from $S_{J/\psi K_s}$
1127: would exclude SUSY models with a single dominant mass insertion,
1128: which predict either small oscillation and negative $S_{\phi K_s}$ or large
1129: oscillation and $S_{\phi K_s} \simeq S_{J/\psi K_s}$.
1130:
1131:
1132:
1133: \vspace{1cm}
1134: \noindent
1135: {\large \bf Acknowledgements}\\
1136: We would like to thank U. Egede and T. Nakada for providing
1137: useful information on the experimental reach of LHCb.
1138: This work was partly supported by the Belgian
1139: Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs through the
1140: Interuniversity Attraction Pole P5/27.
1141:
1142:
1143: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1144:
1145: \bibitem{MIA}
1146: L.J.~Hall, V.A.~Kostelecky and S.~Raby,
1147: %``New Flavor Violations In Supergravity Models,''
1148: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 267} (1986) 415.
1149: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B267,415;%%
1150: %
1151: \bibitem{Nir}
1152: Y.~Nir,
1153: %``CP violation: The CKM matrix and new physics,''
1154: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 117} (2003) 111
1155: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208080].
1156: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208080;%%
1157: %
1158: \bibitem{BaBar1}
1159: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1160: %``Measurement of the CP-violating asymmetry amplitude sin 2beta. ((B)),''
1161: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 201802
1162: [arXiv:hep-ex/0207042].
1163: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207042;%%
1164: %
1165: \bibitem{Belle1}
1166: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
1167: %``Measurement of CP-violation parameter sin(2phi(1)) with 152 million B anti-B pairs,''
1168: arXiv:hep-ex/0308036.
1169: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0308036;%%
1170: %
1171: \bibitem{BaBar2}
1172: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1173: %``Measurement of sin(2beta) in B0 $\to$ Phi K0(S). ((B)),''
1174: arXiv:hep-ex/0207070.
1175: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207070;%%
1176: %
1177: \bibitem{Belle2}
1178: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
1179: %``An improved measurement of mixing-induced CP violation in the neutral B meson system. ((B)),''
1180: arXiv:hep-ex/0207098.
1181: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207098;%%
1182: %
1183: \bibitem{Belle3}
1184: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
1185: %``Measurement of time-dependent CP-violating asymmetries in B0 $\to$ Phi K0(S), K+ K- K0(S), and eta' K0(S) decays,''
1186: arXiv:hep-ex/0308035.
1187: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0308035;%%
1188: %
1189: \bibitem{BaBar3}
1190: S.M.\ Spanier [BABAR Collaboration],
1191: BABAR-PLOT-0056,
1192: %$ https://oraweb.slac.stanford.edu:8080/pls/slacquery/BABAR_DOCUMENTS.DetailedIndex?P_BP_ID=3594$
1193: {\it Contributed to 21st International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies(LP 03), Batavia, Illinois, 11-16 Aug 2003}.
1194: %
1195: \bibitem{KK-phk}
1196: S.~Khalil and E.~Kou,
1197: %``On supersymmetric contributions to the CP asymmetry of the B $\to$ Phi K(S),''
1198: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 055009
1199: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212023].
1200: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212023;%%
1201: %
1202: \bibitem{KK-etak}
1203: S.~Khalil and E.~Kou,
1204: %``A possible supersymmetric solution to the discrepancy between B $\to$ Phi K(S) and B $\to$ eta' K(S) CP asymmetries,''
1205: arXiv:hep-ph/0303214 (to be published in Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.).
1206: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303214;%%
1207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1208: \bibitem{BdBd-th1}
1209: D.~Chang, A.~Masiero and H.~Murayama,
1210: %``Neutrino mixing and large CP violation in B physics,''
1211: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 075013
1212: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205111].
1213: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205111;%%
1214: %
1215: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
1216: \bibitem{phiks-th}
1217: M.~Tanimoto {\it et al.}, %K.~Hirayama, T.~Shinmoto and K.~Senba,
1218: %``The CP Violation Of The B $\to$ K Phi Decay At Upsilon (4s) In The Nonstandar
1219: %d Models,''
1220: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 48} (1990) 99;
1221: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C48,99;%%
1222: %
1223: E.~Lunghi and D.~Wyler,
1224: %``Complex flavour couplings in supersymmetry and unexpected CP violation in th
1225: %e decay B $\to$ Phi K,''
1226: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 521} (2001) 320;
1227: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0109149].
1228: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109149;%%
1229: %
1230: T.~Moroi,
1231: %``CP violation in B/d $\to$ Phi K(S) in SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos,'
1232: %'
1233: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 493} (2000) 366;
1234: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0007328].
1235: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007328;%%
1236: %
1237: X.G.~He {\it et al.}, %, J.P.~Ma and C.Y.~Wu,
1238: %``B $\to$ Phi K and B $\to$ Phi X/s in the heavy quark limit,''
1239: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 094004;
1240: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0008159].
1241: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008159;%%
1242: %
1243: G.~Hiller,
1244: %``First hint of non-standard CP violation from B $\to$ Phi K(S) decay,''
1245: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 071502;
1246: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0207356].
1247: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207356;%%
1248: %
1249: M.~Ciuchini and L.~Silvestrini,
1250: %``Direct CP violation in B $\to$ Phi K(S) and new physics,''
1251: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 231802;
1252: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0208087].
1253: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208087;%%
1254: %
1255: M.~Raidal,
1256: %``CP asymmetry in B $\to$ Phi K(S) decays in left-right models and its implica
1257: %tions on B/s decays,''
1258: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 231803;
1259: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0208091].
1260: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208091;%%
1261: %
1262: A.~Datta,
1263: %``R-parity-violating SUSY and CP violation in B $\to$ Phi K(S),''
1264: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 071702;
1265: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0208016].
1266: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208016;%%
1267: %
1268: B.~Dutta {\it et al.}, %, C.S.~Kim and S.~Oh,
1269: %``A consistent resolution of possible anomalies in B0 $\to$ Phi K(S) and B+ $\to$ eta' K+ decays,''
1270: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90} (2003) 011801;
1271: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0208226].
1272: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208226;%%
1273: %
1274: R.~Harnik {\it et al.}, %D.T.~Larson, H.~Murayama and A.~Pierce,
1275: %``Atmospheric neutrinos can make beauty strange,''
1276: arXiv:hep-ph/0212180;
1277: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212180;%%
1278: %
1279: M.~Ciuchini {\it et al.}, % E.~Franco, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,
1280: %``b $\to$ s transitions: A new frontier for indirect SUSY searches,''
1281: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 075016
1282: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 079901];
1283: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0212397],
1284: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212397;%%
1285: %
1286: S.~Baek,
1287: %``CP violation in B $\to$ Phi K(S) decay at large tan(beta),''
1288: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 096004;
1289: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0301269],
1290: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301269;%%
1291: %
1292: A.~Kundu and T.~Mitra,
1293: %``Simultaneous solution to B $\to$ Phi K CP asymmetry and B $\to$ eta' K, B $\to$ eta K* branching ratio anomalies from R-parity violation,''
1294: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 116005;
1295: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0302123],
1296: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302123;%%
1297: %
1298: J.~Hisano and Y.~Shimizu,
1299: %``GUT relation in neutrino induced flavor physics in SUSY SU(5) GUT,''
1300: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 183;
1301: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0303071],
1302: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303071;%%
1303: %
1304: K.~Agashe and C.D.~Carone,
1305: %``Supersymmetric flavor models and the B $\to$ Phi K(S) anomaly,''
1306: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 035017;
1307: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0304229],
1308: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304229;%%
1309: %
1310: G.L.~Kane {\it et al.}, % P.~Ko, H.B.~Wang, C.~Kolda, J.H.~Park and L.T.~Wang,
1311: %``B/d $\to$ Phi K(S) CP asymmetries as an important probe of supersymmetry,''
1312: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90} (2003) 141803;
1313: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0304239],
1314: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304239;%%
1315: %
1316: A.K.~Giri and R.~Mohanta,
1317: %``New physics effects on the CP asymmetries in B $\to$ Phi K(S) and B $\to$ eta' K(S) decays,''
1318: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 014020;
1319: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0306041],
1320: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306041;%%
1321: %
1322: D.~Chakraverty {\it et al.}, % E.~Gabrielli, K.~Huitu and S.~Khalil,
1323: %``Chargino contributions to the CP asymmetry in B $\to$ Phi K(S) decay,''
1324: arXiv:hep-ph/0306076;
1325: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306076;%%
1326: %
1327: J.F.~Cheng {\it et al.}, %, C.S.~Huang and X.H.~Wu,
1328: %``Neutral Higgs boson contributions to CP asymmetry of B $\to$ Phi K(S) in MSSM,''
1329: arXiv:hep-ph/0306086;
1330: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306086;%%
1331: %
1332: T.~Goto {\it et al.}, % Y.~Okada, Y.~Shimizu, T.~Shindou and M.~Tanaka,
1333: %``Exploring flavor structure of supersymmetry breaking from rare B decays and unitarity triangle,''
1334: arXiv:hep-ph/0306093;
1335: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306093;%%
1336: %
1337: S.~Khalil and V.~Sanz,
1338: %``Can the CKM phase be the only source of CP violation,''
1339: arXiv:hep-ph/0306171;
1340: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306171;%%
1341: %
1342: R.~Arnowitt {\it et al.}, %, B.~Dutta and B.~Hu,
1343: %``B0 $\to$ Phi K(S) in SUGRA models with CP violations,''
1344: arXiv:hep-ph/0307152;
1345: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307152;%%
1346: %
1347: M.~Ciuchini {\it et al.}, %A.~Masiero, L.~Silvestrini, S.K.~Vempati and O.~Vives,
1348: %``Grand unification of quark and lepton FCNCs,''
1349: arXiv:hep-ph/0307191;
1350: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307191;%%
1351: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1352: \bibitem{BdBd-th0}
1353: D.~Becirevic {\it et al.},
1354: %``B/d anti-B/d mixing and the B/d $\to$ J/psi K(S) asymmetry in general SUSY models,''
1355: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 634} (2002) 105
1356: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112303].
1357: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112303;%%
1358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1359: \bibitem{Gros}
1360: Y.~Grossman,
1361: %``The B/s width difference beyond the standard model,''
1362: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 380} (1996) 99
1363: [arXiv:hep-ph/9603244].
1364: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603244;%%
1365: %
1366: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1367: \bibitem{DDLR}
1368: A.S.~Dighe {\it et al.}, % I.~Dunietz, H.J.~Lipkin and J.L.~Rosner,
1369: %``Angular distributions and lifetime differences in $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ decays,''
1370: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 369} (1996) 144
1371: [arXiv:hep-ph/9511363].
1372: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511363;%%
1373: %
1374: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1375: \bibitem{jpph-th}
1376: A.S.~Dighe, I.~Dunietz and R.~Fleischer,
1377: %``Extracting CKM phases and B/s anti-B/s mixing parameters from angular distributions of non-leptonic B decays,''
1378: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 6} (1999) 647
1379: [arXiv:hep-ph/9804253];
1380: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804253;%%
1381: R.~Fleischer,
1382: %``Extracting CKM phases from angular distributions of B/d,s decays into admixtures of CP eigenstates,''
1383: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 073008
1384: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903540];
1385: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903540;%%
1386: I.~Dunietz, R.~Fleischer and U.~Nierste,
1387: %``In pursuit of new physics with B/s decays,''
1388: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 114015
1389: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012219].
1390: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012219;%%
1391: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1392: %
1393: \bibitem{BF}
1394: P.~Ball and R.~Fleischer,
1395: %``An analysis of B/s decays in the left-right symmetric model with spontaneous CP violation,''
1396: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 475} (2000) 111
1397: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912319].
1398: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912319;%%
1399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1400: %
1401: %\bibitem{BS}
1402: %I.I.~Bigi and A.I.~Sanda,
1403: %%``CP Violation,''
1404: %Cambridge Monogr.\ Part.\ Phys.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ Cosmol.\ {\bf 9} (2000) 1.
1405: %%%CITATION = CMPCE,9,1;%%
1406: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1407: \bibitem{lat1}
1408: N.~Yamada {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration],
1409: %``B meson B-parameters and the decay constant in two-flavor dynamical QCD,''
1410: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 106} (2002) 397
1411: [arXiv:hep-lat/0110087];
1412: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0110087;%%
1413: %
1414: D.~Becirevic {\it et al.}, % V.~Gimenez, G.~Martinelli, M.~Papinutto and J.~Reyes,
1415: %``B-parameters of the complete set of matrix elements of Delta(B) = 2 operators from the lattice,''
1416: JHEP {\bf 0204} (2002) 025
1417: [arXiv:hep-lat/0110091];
1418: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0110091;%%
1419: %
1420: S.M.~Ryan,
1421: %``Heavy quark physics from lattice QCD,''
1422: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 106} (2002) 86
1423: [arXiv:hep-lat/0111010].
1424: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0111010;%%
1425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1426: %
1427: \bibitem{GK}
1428: E.~Gabrielli and S.~Khalil,
1429: %``Constraining supersymmetric models from B/d - anti-B/d mixing and the B/d $\to$ J/psi K(S) asymmetry,''
1430: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 015008
1431: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207288].
1432: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207288;%%
1433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1434: %
1435: \bibitem{BdBd-th2}
1436: P.~Ko, J.H.~Park and G.~Kramer,
1437: %``B0 - anti-B0 mixing, B $\to$ J/psi K(S) and B $\to$ X/d gamma in general MSSM,''
1438: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25} (2002) 615
1439: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206297];
1440: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206297;%%
1441: %
1442: P.~Ko and J.H.~Park,
1443: %``CP violations in the K and B meson systems in the SUSY models with S(3)**3 flavor symmetry,''
1444: JHEP {\bf 0209} (2002) 017
1445: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207016].
1446: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207016;%%
1447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1448: %
1449: %
1450: \bibitem{PDG}
1451: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
1452: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''
1453: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 010001.
1454: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
1455: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1456: \bibitem{gamma-th}
1457: %
1458: D.~Atwood and A.~Soni,
1459: %``The possibility of large direct CP violation in B $\to$ K pi like modes due to long distance rescattering effects and implications for the
1460: %angle gamma,''
1461: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 036005;
1462: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9712287];
1463: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712287;%%
1464: %
1465: N.~Sinha and R.~Sinha,
1466: %``Determination of the angle gamma using B $\to$ D* V modes,''
1467: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80} (1998) 3706;
1468: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9712502].
1469: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712502;%%
1470: %
1471: R.~Fleischer,
1472: %``Controlling rescattering effects in constraints on the CKM angle gamma arising from B $\to$ pi K decays,''
1473: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 435} (1998) 221;
1474: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9804319].
1475: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804319;%%
1476: %
1477: R.~Fleischer,
1478: %``Constraining penguin contributions and the CKM angle gamma through B/d $\to$ pi+ pi-,''
1479: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 16} (2000) 87;
1480: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0001253].
1481: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001253;%%
1482: %
1483: A.J.~Buras and R.~Fleischer,
1484: %``Constraints on the CKM angle gamma and strong phases from B $\to$ pi K decays,''
1485: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 16} (2000) 97;
1486: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0003323].
1487: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003323;%%
1488: %
1489: Z.J.~Xiao and M.P.~Zhang,
1490: %``Extraction of the CKM angle gamma from the new 'mixed' system of B+ $\to$ pi+ K0 and B/d0 $\to$ pi0 K0 decays,''
1491: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 114017;
1492: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0203004].
1493: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203004;%%
1494: %
1495: W.M.~Sun,
1496: %``Constraints on the CKM angle gamma from B $\to$ K(*)+- pi-+,''
1497: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 573} (2003) 115.
1498: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0307212].
1499: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307212;%%
1500: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1501: %
1502: \bibitem{dG}
1503: M.~Beneke {\it et al.}, %G.~Buchalla, C.~Greub, A.~Lenz and U.~Nierste,
1504: %``Next-to-leading order {QCD} corrections to the lifetime difference of B/s mesons,''
1505: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 459} (1999) 631
1506: [arXiv:hep-ph/9808385];
1507: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808385;%%
1508: %
1509: U.~Nierste,
1510: %``QCD corrections to lifetime differences of B/s mesons,''
1511: arXiv:hep-ph/0009203.
1512: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009203;%%
1513: %
1514: %\cite{Anikeev:2001rk}
1515: \bibitem{BTeVr}
1516: K.~Anikeev {\it et al.},
1517: %``B physics at the Tevatron: Run II and beyond,''
1518: arXiv:hep-ph/0201071.
1519: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201071;%%
1520: %
1521: \bibitem{LHCr}
1522: P.~Ball {\it et al.},
1523: %``B decays at the LHC,''
1524: arXiv:hep-ph/0003238.
1525: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003238;%%
1526: %
1527: %\bibitem{BTeVr}
1528: %K.~Anikeev {\it et al.},
1529: %``B physics at the Tevatron: Run II and beyond,''
1530: %arXiv:hep-ph/0201071.
1531: %%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201071;%%
1532: %
1533: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1534: \bibitem{buras1}
1535: %
1536: G.~Buchalla, A.J.~Buras and M.E.~Lautenbacher,
1537: %``Weak Decays Beyond Leading Logarithms,''
1538: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 68} (1996) 1125
1539: [arXiv:hep-ph/9512380];
1540: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512380;%%
1541: %
1542: A.J.~Buras,
1543: %``Flavor dynamics: CP violation and rare decays,''
1544: arXiv:hep-ph/0101336.
1545: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101336;%%
1546: %-------------------------------------------------
1547: \bibitem{masiero}
1548: F.~Gabbiani {\it et al.}, % E.~Gabrielli, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,
1549: %``A complete analysis of FCNC and CP constraints in general SUSY extensions of the standard model,''
1550: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 477} (1996) 321
1551: [arXiv:hep-ph/9604387].
1552: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604387;%%
1553: %-------------------------------------------------
1554: %
1555: \bibitem{lat2}
1556: D.~Becirevic {\it et al.}, %V.~Gimenez, G.~Martinelli, M.~Papinutto and J.~Reyes,
1557: %``B-parameters of the complete set of matrix elements of Delta(B) = 2 operators from the lattice,''
1558: JHEP {\bf 0204} (2002) 025
1559: [arXiv:hep-lat/0110091].
1560: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0110091;%%
1561: %----------------------------------------
1562: \bibitem{Khalil}
1563: S.~Khalil,
1564: %``Phenomenological Implications Of Type I String Models,''
1565: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 28} (2002) 2207.
1566: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G28,2207;%%
1567: S.~Khalil, T.~Kobayashi and O.~Vives,
1568: %``EDM-free supersymmetric CP violation with non-universal soft terms,''
1569: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 580}, 275 (2000);
1570: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0003086]
1571: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003086;%%
1572: S.~Khalil and T.~Kobayashi,
1573: %``Supersymmetric CP violation epsilon'/epsilon due to asymmetric A-matrix,''
1574: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 460}, 341 (1999);
1575: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9906374];
1576: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906374;%%
1577: S.~Khalil, T.~Kobayashi and A.~Masiero,
1578: %``CP violation in supersymmetric model with nondegenerate A-terms,''
1579: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 075003 (1999).
1580: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9903544].
1581: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903544;%%
1582: %
1583: %\cite{Causse:2000xv}
1584: \bibitem{bsgamma}
1585: M.~B.~Causse and J.~Orloff,
1586: %``Supersymmetric penguin contributions to the decay b $\to$ s gamma with non-universal squarks masses,''
1587: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 749
1588: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012113].
1589: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 00121
1590: %-------------------------------------------------
1591:
1592: \end{thebibliography}
1593: \end{document}
1594:
1595: