1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: %\documentclass[aps]{revtex4}
5: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
6: %\setlength{\topmargin}{0in}
7: %\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
8: %\setlength{\textheight}{9.1in}
9: \oddsidemargin -0.29cm
10: \textwidth 16.5cm
11: \textheight 21.5cm
12: \topmargin -0.5cm
13:
14: \def\sint{\int \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{p}}
15: \def\sintex{\int \!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{p}}
16: \def\tr{\mbox{tr}\,}
17: \def\Tr{\mbox{Tr}\,}
18: \def\dag{^\dagger}
19: \def\res{\mbox{Res}}
20: \def\re{\mbox{Re}\,}
21: \def\bddpmin{B^-\to D_s^- D^0\pi^0}
22: \def\dcbar{\,\, {\rule{0pt}{13pt}}^{\!\!\mbox{\tiny {(--)}}}\!\!\!\!\!\!}
23: \def\bddp{B^\pm\to D_s^\pm\dcbar D^0\pi^0}
24: \def\bddptit{B^\pm\to D_s^\pm\,\,
25: {\rule{0pt}{17pt}}^{\!\!\mbox{\scriptsize {(--)}}}\!\!\!\!\!\! D^0\pi^0}
26: \def\bddpabs{B^\pm\to D_s^\pm\,\,
27: {\rule{0pt}{11pt}}^{\!\!\mbox{\tiny {(--)}}}\!\!\!\!\!\! D^0\pi^0}
28:
29: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
30: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
31: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
32: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
33: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
34: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
35:
36: \begin{document}
37: \thispagestyle{empty}
38: %\begin{titlepage}
39: \begin{center}
40: \vspace*{-1cm}
41: %\hfill TAN-FNT-00$-$02
42: %\vspace*{2cm} \\
43: {\Large \bf Looking for nonstandard CP violation \\
44: in $\bddptit$ decays}
45: \vspace*{1.2cm} \\
46: { \sc L.N. Epele, D. G\'omez Dumm, A. Szynkman}
47: \vspace*{0.4cm} \\
48: {\em IFLP, Depto.\ de F\'{\i}sica, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, \\
49: C.C. 67, 1900 La Plata, Argentina}
50: \vspace*{0.7cm} \\
51: {\sc R. M\'endez--Galain}
52: \vspace*{0.4cm} \\
53: {\em Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Facultad de Ingenier\'{\i}a, Univ. de la
54: Rep\'ublica, \\
55: C.C.\ 30, CP 11000 Montevideo, Uruguay}
56: \vspace*{1cm}
57: \begin{abstract}
58: We study the possibility of measuring nonstandard CP violation effects
59: through Dalitz plot analysis in \mbox{$\bddpabs$} decays. The accuracy in
60: the extraction of CP violating phases is analyzed by performing a
61: Monte Carlo simulation of the decays, and the magnitude of possible new
62: physics effects is discussed. It is found that this represents a hopeful
63: scenario for the search of new physics.
64: \end{abstract}
65: \vspace*{.7cm}
66: %\vfill
67: \end{center}
68: PACS numbers: 11.30.Er, 12.60.-i, 13.25.Hw
69: %\end{titlepage}
70: %\newpage
71: %\pagestyle{plain}
72: %\pagenumbering{arabic}
73:
74: \vspace{1cm}
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77:
78: The origin of CP violation in nature is presently one of the most
79: important open questions in particle physics. Indeed, the main goal of the
80: experiments devoted to the study of $B$ meson decays is either to confirm
81: the picture offered by the Standard Model (SM) or to provide evidences of
82: CP violation mechanisms originated from new physics. Among the various
83: CP-odd observables in $B$ physics, attention is mostly concentrated in the
84: ``gold-plated'' channel $B \to J/\Psi\,K_S$. According to the SM picture,
85: from the analysis of a time-dependent CP asymmetry observed in these
86: decays it is possible to get a ``clean'' measurement of $\sin 2\beta$,
87: where $\beta$ is one of the angles of the so-called unitarity triangle
88: \cite{Nir94}. Recent measurements by BELLE and BaBar Collaborations,
89: together with previous results from Aleph, Opal and CDF, lead to the
90: (averaged) value $\sin 2\beta=0.734\pm 0.054$, which is in good agreement
91: with the constraints imposed by other measured CP-conserving and
92: CP-violating observables \cite{Nir02}.
93:
94: In fact, the common belief is that the SM is nothing but an effective
95: manifestation of some underlying fundamental theory. In this way, all
96: tests of the standard mechanism of CP violation, as well as the
97: exploration of signatures of nonstandard physics, become relevant. One
98: important characteristic of the SM is that it includes only one source of
99: CP violation, namely a complex phase in the quark mixing matrix $V_{CKM}$.
100: In general, since overall phases of transition amplitudes are not
101: observable, one has to deal with interference effects in order to search
102: for measurable CP-violating quantities. Within the SM, there are some
103: specific processes in which the amplitude is either dominated by a single
104: contribution, or in which several contributions are significant, all of
105: them carrying the same weak phase. In these situations, weak SM phases are
106: unobservable, and asymmetries between CP conjugated processes are expected
107: to be vanishingly small. This offers an attractive window to search for
108: evidences of new physics, and is the main motivation for this work.
109:
110: We show here that three body decays $B^+\to D_s^+ \bar D^0\pi^0$ and
111: $B^-\to D_s^- D^0\pi^0$ provide an interesting scenario to look for such
112: effects. For these processes, the main contributions to the decay
113: amplitude in the SM carry a common weak phase, therefore the measurement
114: of relative CP-violating phases, leading to an asymmetry between $B^+$ and
115: $B^-$ decays, would represent a signal of new physics. We discuss here the
116: possibility of performing these measurements by means of a Dalitz plot
117: (DP) fit analysis. In general, three body decays of mesons proceed through
118: intermediate resonant channels, and the DP fit analysis allows a direct
119: experimental access to the amplitudes and phases of the main
120: contributions~\cite{DP}. The usage of this technique for a clean
121: extraction of CP-odd phases has already been proposed in the
122: literature~\cite{Bed98} in relation with other CP-violating observables,
123: more precisely, to get clean measurements of the weak angle $\gamma$
124: within the SM. From the experimental point of view, the usage of charged
125: $B$ mesons has the advantage of avoiding flavor--tagging difficulties. In
126: addition, the processes $\bddp$ appear to be statistically favored, in
127: view of their relatively high branching ratios of about 1\%.
128:
129: In order to evaluate the experimental perspectives, we perform a Monte
130: Carlo simulation of the actual processes, applying the DP fit technique to
131: evaluate the error in the extraction of possible CP-violating phases.
132: Then we perform a rough theoretical analysis, discussing the expected
133: magnitude of CP violation effects that could arise beyond the SM.
134: According to our results, the considered channels offer a promising
135: scenario to obtain a clear signature of new physics. In the worst case,
136: the lack of evidences would allow to improve the present bounds on the
137: parameters of the model under consideration.
138:
139: The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.\ II we describe the general
140: framework, introducing the CP-violating observables. In Sect.\ III we
141: detail the DP fit procedure and present the results of our simulations.
142: Sect.\ IV is devoted to the theoretical discussion of new physics effects,
143: while in Sect.\ V we summarize our main results.
144:
145: \section{CP-violating phases and Dalitz plot fit technique}
146:
147: In this section we describe how the DP fit technique can be applied to
148: disentangle possible effects of new physics in $\bddp$ decays. In
149: principle, these processes are expected to proceed through various
150: intermediate resonances, as well as through a direct, nonresonant channel.
151: The total branching ratio will result from the interference of all these
152: contributions. The Dalitz plot maximum likelihood technique is a powerful
153: tool to get a clean disentanglement of the relevant contributing channels,
154: allowing to measure the ratios between the different partial amplitudes
155: {\it together with their relative phases}. This can be used to perform a
156: clean extraction of CP-violating phases, avoiding many theoretical
157: uncertainties.
158:
159: Let us begin by summarizing the main steps of this procedure. More details
160: on these ideas can be found in Refs.\ \cite{Bed98}. In general, for a
161: given three body decay, in the DP fitting analysis of experimental data
162: one defines a fitting function ${\cal F} (m_1^2,m_2^2)$, where $m_1^2$ and
163: $m_2^2$ are the usual DP phase space variables. In our case this function
164: can be written as
165: \begin{equation}
166: {\cal F}_{B\to D_s D^0 \pi^0} (m^2_{1},m^2_{2}) =
167: | \Sigma_j \alpha_j e^{i\theta_j} A_j(m^2_1,m^2_2) |^2 \hskip 0.1 cm ,
168: \label{fit}
169: \end{equation}
170: where $m^2_1=(p_{\pi^0} + p_{\scriptscriptstyle D^0})^2$,
171: $m^2_2=(p_{\pi^0} + p_{\scriptscriptstyle D_s})^2$, $A_j$ are definite
172: functions corresponding to each partial channel, and $\alpha_j$ and
173: $\theta_j$ are real parameters that emerge as outputs from the fit. The
174: index $j$ labels the intermediate resonant channels, as well as the
175: nonresonant one. For the resonant channels, the main phase space
176: dependence of the functions $A_j$ is given by the Breit-Wigner (BW) shape
177: characterizing the resonances, together with definite angular functions
178: which depend on the spin of the corresponding resonant state (we come back
179: to this issues in the next section). The nonresonant decay amplitude is
180: assumed to be constant in most experimental analyses. This fitting
181: technique has proven to be successful to describe e.g.\ three body decays
182: of $D$ mesons \cite{D-decays}. In those analyses the phases $\theta_j$
183: have been extracted with combined statistical and systematic errors as
184: small as a few degrees, in experiments with a few thousands reconstructed
185: events.
186:
187: In general, the phases $\theta_j$ can be written as the sum of a
188: ``strong'' (CP-conserving) phase $\delta_j$ and a ``weak'' (CP-violating)
189: phase $\varphi_j$. These cannot be measured separately by a single fit.
190: Nevertheless, comparing the outputs from the CP-conjugated $B^+$ and $B^-$
191: decay experiments one can extract both phases $\delta_j$ and $\varphi_j$
192: simply from
193: \begin{eqnarray}
194: %\begin{mathletters}
195: \delta_j & = & \frac12\, (\theta_j^+ + \theta_j^-)
196: \label{strong} \\
197: \varphi_j & = & \frac12\, (\theta_j^+ - \theta_j^-) \;,
198: %\end{mathletters}
199: \end{eqnarray}
200: where $\theta_j^+\,(\theta_j^-)$ stands for the phases measured from the
201: $B^+$ ($B^-$) decays. It is worth to notice that weak phases can be
202: extracted even in the limit where strong phases $\delta_j$ are vanishingly
203: small ---which is expected to be the case in many $B$ decays, owing to the
204: large $b$ quark mass. This represents a remarkable advantage with respect
205: to most proposals of measuring CP asymmetries in charged $B$ decays. In
206: general, in order to get a sizable asymmetry, one requires the presence of
207: strong FSI phases, which introduce a significant theoretical uncertainty.
208: In our case, however, strong phases are already supplied by the resonance
209: widths in the BW functions~\cite{Atw94}, and no theoretical estimation of
210: FSI phases is needed. Moreover, the latter can be independently obtained
211: from the fit by means of Eq.~(\ref{strong}).
212:
213: It is important to notice that for the fitting procedure to apply, it is
214: necessary that the decay amplitude receives contributions from at least
215: two intermediate channels carrying different CP violating phases. Indeed,
216: an overall phase is physically meaningless, and the DP fit only allows the
217: measurement of relative phases between different channels.
218:
219: Let us now analyze the case of the decays $\bddp$ in the framework of a
220: theory including physics beyond the SM. For each intermediate channel, it
221: is natural to assume that new physics occurs at a relatively high energy
222: scale, therefore its effects can be decoupled from the resonance BW
223: functions, the angular functions, and other possible form factors in
224: $A_j(m_1^2,m_2^2)$ arising from low-energy hadronic interactions.
225: Accordingly, the fitting function ${\cal F}$ will be still of the form
226: proposed in Eq.\ (\ref{fit}), with the same functions $A_j$, and now the
227: complex weights $\alpha_j\, e^{i\theta_j}$ will include the effects of new
228: physics:
229: \begin{equation}
230: \alpha_j^{\pm(exp)}\; e^{i \theta_j^{\pm(exp)}} =
231: \alpha^{SM}_j\;e^{i(\delta^{SM}_j \pm \varphi^{SM}_j)} +
232: \alpha^{NP}_j\;e^{i(\delta^{NP}_j \pm \varphi^{NP}_j)}\;.
233: \label{ampgen}
234: \end{equation}
235: Here the index $(exp)$ refers to the experimentally measurable quantities
236: (outputs of the DP fit), whereas $SM$ and $NP$ denote Standard Model and
237: new physics contributions respectively. The $\pm$ signs correspond to
238: decays of $B^\pm$ mesons.
239:
240: Within the SM, the short-distance effective Hamiltonian relevant for the
241: decays $\bddp$ has been studied in detail \cite{Buch96}, including the
242: effects of strong and electroweak penguin operators. The situation is
243: similar as in the ``gold-plated'' channel $B\to J/\Psi K_S$, in the sense
244: that the main contributions (both tree and penguin) to the effective
245: operators carry the same weak phase. In this way, this phase is expected
246: to factorize, being common to all (resonant and nonresonant) channels
247: contributing to the decay. One could thus conventionally set
248: $\varphi_j^{SM}=0$ for all $j$, and no CP asymmetry should be observed
249: between $B^+$ and $B^-$ decay patterns in absence of new
250: physics\footnote{Within the SM, one expects in fact a tiny CP asymmetry in
251: the decay rates. This has been analyzed in Ref.~\cite{Gir01} for the
252: process $B^-\to D^0 D_s^-$, where the effect is found to be about 0.2\%.}.
253: On the contrary, if new physics is present, the situation may be
254: different. To simplify the analysis, let us assume that only two
255: intermediate channels contribute, namely those mediated by resonances
256: \mbox{$\dcbar D^{\ast 0}$} and $D_s^{\ast\pm}$ ---say channels 1 and 2,
257: respectively. This is a natural assumption, since in fact they are
258: expected to largely dominate the decay (in any case, if other intermediate
259: channels were shown to provide significant contributions, the procedure we
260: describe here can still be followed on the same grounds). In this
261: two-channel case, only the relative phases between both contributions 1
262: and 2 can be measured. From Eq.\ (\ref{ampgen}), one has
263: \begin{equation}
264: \theta^{\pm(exp)} \equiv \theta_1^{\pm(exp)}-\theta_2^{\pm(exp)}
265: = \arg\; \left[ \frac{\alpha^{SM}_1 +
266: \alpha^{NP}_1\;e^{ i (\delta_1^{NP}-\delta_1^{SM}\pm \varphi_1^{NP}) }}
267: {\alpha^{SM}_2 + \alpha^{NP}_2\;e^{ i (\delta_2^{NP}-
268: \delta_2^{SM}\pm \varphi_2^{NP}) }} \right]
269: + \delta_1^{SM} - \delta_2^{SM}\;.
270: \label{diff}
271: \end{equation}
272:
273: The theoretical framework can be simplified by introducing some natural
274: assumptions. First, it is reasonable to think that the resonance
275: hadronization and decay processes ---which are governed by strong
276: interactions in the nonperturbative regime--- can be disentangled from the
277: effects of new physics, the latter taking place at a high energy scale. In
278: addition, it is usual to assume that strong FSI are the main source for
279: strong phases $\delta_j$, since high energy contributions to CP-conserving
280: phases arising from absorptive parts of QCD and electroweak loop diagrams
281: are shown to be suppressed \cite{Ger91}. In this way, for each resonant
282: channel strong phases should factorize out, i.e.\ $\delta^{NP}_j =
283: {\delta^{SM}_j} \equiv \delta_j$. On the other hand, in most scenarios of
284: new physics ---as well as in the SM \mbox{itself---,} CP-violating phases
285: are essentially determined by the flavor content of the quarks entering
286: the diagrams that dominate the $b$ quark decay. If this is the case, since
287: both resonant states $D^{\ast 0} D_s$ and $D^0 D_s^\ast$ have the same
288: quark content, one expects that the new CP-violating phases obey
289: $\varphi^{NP}_1 = \varphi^{NP}_2 \equiv \varphi^{NP}$, remaining constant
290: along the phase space. Once these assumptions have been taken into
291: account, the measurable complex weights in Eq.\ (\ref{ampgen}) can be
292: written as
293: \begin{equation}
294: \alpha_j^{(exp)}\; e^{i \theta_j^{\pm(exp)}} =
295: ( \alpha^{SM}_j +
296: \alpha^{NP}_j\;e^{ \pm i \varphi^{NP})}) \; e^{i \delta_j}
297: \;,\quad j=1,\,2\; .
298: \label{ampgenred}
299: \end{equation}
300: We have dropped here the $\pm$ signs in $\alpha_j^{(exp)}$, since the
301: assumption $\delta_j^{NP}=\delta_j^{SM}$ implies $\alpha_j^{+(exp)} =
302: \alpha_j^{-(exp)}$ \footnote{In principle, this last relation could be
303: experimentally checked through the comparison between the fits for $B^+$
304: and $B^-$ decays, providing a consistency test for our assumptions on the
305: strong phases.}. The expression for the relative phases
306: $\theta^{\pm(exp)}$ in Eq.\ (\ref{diff}) simplifies now to
307: \begin{equation}
308: \theta^{\pm(exp)} = \arg\; \left ( \frac{\alpha^{SM}_1 +
309: \alpha^{NP}_1\;e^{ \pm i \varphi^{NP}}}{\alpha^{SM}_2 + \alpha^{NP}_2\;e^{
310: \pm i \varphi^{NP}}} \right ) + \delta_1 - \delta_2\;.
311: \end{equation}
312:
313: As stated, we are interested in the difference between the relative phases
314: for the CP-conjugated decays $B^+$ and $B^-$, which is an observable of CP
315: violation. This is given by
316: \begin{equation}
317: \Delta \theta^{(exp)} \equiv \theta^{+(exp)} - \theta^{-(exp)} = \arg \left
318: ( \frac{\alpha^{SM}_1 + \alpha^{NP}_1\;e^{+ i \varphi^{NP}}}{\alpha^{SM}_2
319: + \alpha^{NP}_2\;e^{+ i \varphi^{NP}}} \right ) - \arg \left (
320: \frac{\alpha^{SM}_1 + \alpha^{NP}_1\;e^{- i \varphi^{NP}}}{\alpha^{SM}_2 +
321: \alpha^{NP}_2\;e^{- i \varphi^{NP}}} \right )\;.
322: \label{CPV}
323: \end{equation}
324: Finally, assuming that new physics contributions are small when compared
325: to SM amplitudes, i.e., $\alpha^{NP}_j \ll \alpha^{SM}_j$, we end up with
326: \begin{equation}
327: \Delta \theta^{(exp)} \simeq 2 \, \sin \varphi^{NP} \left(
328: \frac{\alpha^{NP}_1}{\alpha^{SM}_1} - \frac{\alpha^{NP}_2}{\alpha^{SM}_2}
329: \right )\,.
330: \label{relphase}
331: \end{equation}
332: Notice that this quantity is independent of any CP-conserving phase. It
333: only depends on the (in principle, unknown) real amplitudes
334: $\alpha_j^{SM}$ and $\alpha_j^{NP}$, and on the (also unknown)
335: CP-violating phase $\varphi^{NP}$.
336:
337: As we have discussed above, $\Delta \theta^{(exp)}$ vanishes in the
338: absence of new physics. This is a convenient situation for the search of
339: clean effects of physics beyond the SM, provided that the factors in the
340: r.h.s.\ of Eq.\ (\ref{relphase}) are large enough to allow a clear
341: experimental signature. The perspectives in this sense are addressed in
342: the next sections.
343:
344: \section{Experimental perspectives}
345:
346: In this section we make an estimate of the precision that may be
347: reached in the measurement of the phase difference $\Delta \theta^{(exp)}$
348: in $\bddp$ decays. This will indicate, according to the result in Eq.\
349: (\ref{relphase}), the minimum size of new physics contributions to the
350: decay amplitudes needed to yield a distinguishable experimental
351: signal.
352:
353: One important reason for which the channels considered here deserve
354: special attention is their relatively high statistics. Since the branching
355: ratios for $\bddp$ are as large as $\sim$ 1\%, after a couple of years of
356: full run of LHCb, and assuming a 20\% reconstruction efficiency, one
357: should end up with some $10^5$ reconstructed events in each $B^+$ and
358: $B^-$ Dalitz plots. This is a large number, taking into account that DP
359: fits performed for $D$ meson decays with much less events have led to the
360: measurement of relative phases with statistical errors of just a few
361: degrees \cite{DP}. However, the processes considered here are very
362: different from those. Indeed, even if such a large number of events will
363: certainly give a very precise measurement of the branching fractions for
364: each partial channel ---i.e., the quantities $\alpha_j^{(exp)}$---, a
365: precise measurement of phases requires not only large statistics but also
366: a large interference region between the different intermediate channels.
367: It is not obvious that this will be the case for $\bddp$ decays, since the
368: involved resonances are very narrow, their widths laying below 1
369: MeV~\cite{PDG}.
370:
371: In order to evaluate the actual experimental feasibility of our proposal,
372: we have carried out a Monte Carlo simulation of the decays. Our goal is to
373: generate $10^5$ events in the Dalitz plot, and then to perform a Dalitz
374: plot fit analysis in order to determine if the phases can be successfully
375: extracted with a small statistical error. Clearly, this simulation does
376: not account for the details concerning the detectors. The possible impact
377: of systematic errors will be discussed below.
378:
379: We have generated $10^5$ events using a decay amplitude of the form in
380: Eq.~(\ref{fit}). As a first guess, we include in the decay only three
381: channels, namely those mediated by the resonances $\dcbar D^{\ast 0}$ and
382: ${D_s^\ast}^\pm$, and the direct nonresonant decay $B^\pm\to (D_s^\pm
383: \dcbar D^0\pi^0)_{NR}$. The form of the functions $A_j$ for the resonances
384: $j=1,2$ is \cite{DP}
385: \begin{equation}
386: A_j = BW_{j}(m_{j}^2)\, (\vec p_B \cdot \vec p_\pi)\, F_j(m^2_j)\;,
387: \label{ampl}
388: \end{equation}
389: where the invariant masses $m_j^2$ are defined as in Eq.\ (\ref{fit}),
390: $F_j(m_j^2)$ is a form factor, and $BW_j(s)$ is the Breit-Wigner function
391: \begin{equation}
392: BW_j(s) = \frac{1}{m_{R_j}^2 - s - i m_{R_j} \Gamma_{R_j}(s)}\;,
393: \label{BW}
394: \end{equation}
395: $m_{R_j}$ being the resonance masses ($R_1=\dcbar D^{\ast 0}$,
396: $R_2={D_s^\ast}^\pm$). For each $j$, the $B$ and $\pi$ meson three-momenta
397: in Eq.\ (\ref{ampl}) are evaluated in the rest frame of the corresponding
398: intermediate resonance.
399:
400: We have taken the usual expressions~\cite{cg-3pi} for the form
401: factors\footnote{The actual shape of the form factors in $B$ decays is in
402: general unknown. We have considered expressions similar to those used for
403: $D$ decays, finding that their incidence is not relevant to the discussion
404: in this work.} and for the momentum-dependent width $\Gamma_{R_j}(s)$. The
405: latter is given by
406: \begin{equation}
407: \Gamma_{R_j}(s) = \Gamma_{R_j}\; \frac{m_{R_j}}{\sqrt{s}}
408: \left|\frac{\vec p\,(s)}{\vec p\,(m_{R_j}^2)} \right|^3\;,
409: \end{equation}
410: where $\Gamma_{R_j}$ is the on-shell resonance width, and $\vec p\,(q^2)$
411: stands for the three-momentum of the resonance decay products when the
412: resonance mass is $\sqrt{q^2}$. The shape of the nonresonant decay
413: amplitude, which is in general unknown~\cite{Bed97}, has been taken ---as
414: it is usually done--- as a constant function. In any case, as it is
415: discussed below, this assumption has a negligible impact on our results.
416:
417: In order to carry out the generation of events, we need to introduce as
418: input data the values for the physical quantities $\alpha_j$, $\theta_j$
419: and the resonance widths. The expected relative weights $\alpha_j$ of the
420: two resonant channels can be obtained from the known branching ratios
421: $BR(B^- \to D^{\ast 0} D_s^-)$, $BR(D^{\ast 0} \to D^0 \pi^0)$, $BR(B^-
422: \to {D_s^\ast}^- D^0)$ and $BR({D_s^\ast}^- \to D_s^- \pi^0)$. We
423: have~\cite{PDG}
424: \begin{equation}
425: \frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_2} = \sqrt{\frac{BR(B^- \to D^{\ast 0}
426: D_s^-)\,\times\, BR(D^{\ast 0} \to D^0 \pi^0)} {BR(B^- \to {D_s^\ast}^-
427: D^0)\,\times\, BR({D_s^\ast}^- \to D_s^- \pi^0)}}\; \sim \; 4\; .
428: \end{equation}
429: On the other hand, the nonresonant decay amplitude is uncertain; it is
430: just expected to be smaller than the resonant channels. Taking into
431: account that only the relative values between the three coefficients
432: $\alpha_j$ have a physical meaning in the simulation, we have taken
433: $\alpha_1 = 1$ and $\alpha_2 = 0.25$, while for $\alpha_{NR}$ we have
434: considered different values, ranging from 0 to 0.1. Concerning the phases
435: $\theta_j$, one expects CP-conserving parts to be relatively small,
436: whereas the CP-violating SM phase is essentially the same for all
437: amplitudes and can be factorized out. Thus, assuming that SM contributions
438: dominate, it is reasonable to choose all phases $\theta_j$ in our
439: numerical simulation to be small numbers. In fact, it will be seen that
440: this assumption is not relevant to our conclusions.
441:
442: Finally, other relevant inputs in our simulation are the on-shell widths
443: $\Gamma_{R_j}$ of both resonances: events coming from a narrow resonance
444: should be concentrated in a given region of the plot, hence the
445: interference region between both resonances is expected to be relatively
446: small. Present measurements of $\dcbar D^{\ast 0}$ and ${D_s^\ast}^\pm$
447: widths are not conclusive, giving in both cases only upper bounds of about
448: 2 MeV. For our simulations, we have chosen to consider values ranging from
449: 0.01 to 1 MeV. The recent measurement of the ${D^\ast}^+$ width, which is
450: found to be around 0.1 MeV \cite{Cin01}, can be thought as a hint of the
451: expected orders of magnitude.
452:
453: \begin{figure}[htb]
454: \centerline{
455: \includegraphics[height=5truecm]{figu1.ps}
456: }
457: \caption{Dalitz plot for the $\bddpmin$ decay}
458: \end{figure}
459:
460: As an example, we show in Fig.\ 1 the Dalitz plot generated with
461: $\alpha_{NR}=0.1$, $\theta_1=0$, $\theta_2=20^\circ$,
462: $\theta_{NR}=10^\circ$, and equal widths of 1 MeV for both resonances
463: (besides the already given values of $\alpha_1=1$ and $\alpha_2=0.25$).
464: One observes that, even if both resonances are quite narrow, the events
465: appear to be spread out in a large region of the plot. This is the
466: consequence of a purely kinematic effect, due to the fact that both
467: resonances are located very close to the threshold of the phase space.
468: This effect compensates the narrow width suppression, and brings a good
469: hope to extract the relative phases successfully.
470:
471: After carrying out this simulation of the decay, we have performed a fit
472: of the data according to the fitting function given in Eq.\ (\ref{fit}),
473: where now the coefficients $\alpha_j$ and $\theta_j$ are left as free
474: parameters. In fact, as explained above, the fit provides only {\em
475: relative} values for both amplitudes and phases \cite{DP}, therefore we
476: have kept fixed the reference values $\alpha_1=1$ and $\theta_1=0$. The
477: result of the fit is given in Table \ref{tab1}. The method allows to
478: extract the phase $\theta_2$ with a statistical error as small as
479: $1.4^\circ$.
480:
481: \begin{table}[htb]
482: \begin{center}
483: \hfill \\
484: \begin{tabular}{c||c|c}
485: % \hline
486: channel & $\alpha_j$ & $\theta_j$ \\
487: \hline
488: $D^{\ast 0} D_s$ & fixed & fixed \\
489: $D^0 D_s^\ast$ & $0.2514\pm 0.0017$ & $(20.7\pm 1.4)^\circ$ \\
490: nonresonant & $0.1007\pm 0.0020$ & $(9.1\pm 1.2)^\circ$
491: % \hline
492: \end{tabular}
493: \caption[]{Fitting results of the Monte Carlo sample. The events have
494: been generated with $\alpha_2=0.25$,
495: $\theta_2=20^\circ$, $\alpha_{NR}=0.1$, $\theta_{NR}=10^\circ$, and
496: $\Gamma_{D^{\ast 0}}=\Gamma_{D_s^\ast} = 1$ MeV.}
497: \label{tab1}
498: \end{center}
499: \end{table}
500:
501: We have performed a systematic study of the results of the fit allowing
502: reasonable ranges of variation for the unknown quantities used to generate
503: the Monte Carlo sample, namely the resonance widths, the weight
504: $\alpha_{NR}$ and the relative phases $\theta_j$. As a first outcome of
505: this analysis, it is found that the statistical errors are independent of
506: the initial values of the phases. Secondly, the errors for both the
507: extracted amplitude and phase of the $D_s^\ast$ mediated decay (channel 2)
508: are independent of the weight $\alpha_{NR}$ of the nonresonant channel,
509: {\it even in the limit $\alpha_{NR}=0$}. This shows that the interference
510: between the two resonant channels is not mediated by the nonresonant one,
511: but arises from the above mentioned spread out of the events corresponding
512: to resonance-mediated decays. Finally, as expected, it is found that the
513: errors in the extracted weights $\alpha_j$ are independent of the
514: resonance widths; on the contrary, the values of the widths do affect the
515: quantity we are interested in, i.e.\ the error in the extracted relative
516: phase $\theta_2 - \theta_1$. This dependence is illustrated by the results
517: in Table~\ref{tab2}, where we have considered several simulations in which
518: the amplitudes and phases $\alpha_j$, $\theta_j$ have been taken as in the
519: previously described example. We quote in the Table the errors obtained in
520: the extraction of $\theta_2 - \theta_1$ for different values of
521: $\Gamma_{D^{\ast 0}}$ and $\Gamma_{D_s^\ast}$. In the first five rows of
522: the Table we have assumed equal ${D^\ast}^0$ and $D_s^\ast$ widths, while
523: in the last row we have taken $\Gamma_{D^{\ast 0}} = 100$ KeV,
524: $\Gamma_{D_s^\ast} = 10$ KeV (in fact, a relative suppression of the
525: $D_s^\ast$ width could be expected since the strong decay
526: ${D_s^\ast}^\pm\to D_s^\pm \pi^0$ violates isospin). We see here that for
527: a width as narrow as 10 KeV the phase difference can still be extracted
528: with relatively low statistical error.
529:
530: \begin{table}[htb]
531: \begin{center}
532: \begin{tabular}{c c||c}
533: % \hline
534: $\Gamma_{D^{\ast 0}}\,;\Gamma_{D_s^\ast}$ & \hspace{-.5cm} (MeV) & Error \\
535: \hline
536: 1 & & $1.4^\circ$ \\
537: 0.5 & & $1.5^\circ$ \\
538: 0.1 & & $1.7^\circ$ \\
539: 0.05 & & $2.3^\circ$ \\
540: 0.02 & & $5.1^\circ$ \\
541: $\;\;0.1\; ;\; 0.01$ & & $4.0^\circ$
542: % \hline
543: \end{tabular}
544: \caption[]{Errors in the extracted value of $\theta_2-\theta_1$, for
545: different values of resonance widths. Input amplitudes and phases for
546: the event generation are same as in Table I.} \label{tab2}
547: \end{center}
548: \end{table}
549:
550: Before ending this section let us say a few words about systematic
551: (experimental) errors in the extraction of phases. The evaluation of these
552: errors is in general a quite difficult task. In order to carry out the
553: complete analysis, one should perform a full numerical simulation of the
554: experiment including the detector, which is out of the scope of this
555: paper. Nevertheless, in order to have an estimate we can take into account
556: the results from recent DP analyses \cite{cg-3pi,cg-kpipi}. The latter
557: suggest that the systematic error in the measurement of phases for
558: intermediate channels with large branching fractions should not be above a
559: few degrees, i.e.\ of the same order of those quoted in Table~\ref{tab2}.
560:
561: \section{Expected size of new physics effects}
562:
563: Let us now turn back to Eq.\ (\ref{relphase}) and analyze the theoretical
564: expectations for the size of $\Delta\theta^{(exp)}$ in the context of a
565: theory beyond the SM, in order to evaluate if this observable has
566: potential chances to provide experimental evidences of new physics. To
567: carry out the theoretical analysis we take into account the low-energy
568: effective Hamiltonian relevant for the processes under consideration,
569: including QCD corrections at the leading order. Then, to deal with
570: long-range matrix elements, we use the simple factorization
571: approach~\cite{bau87}, which should be adequate to estimate the
572: significance of the new contributions \cite{Kim02}.
573:
574: In view of the large hadronic uncertainties and the usual amount of
575: freedom to fix new physics parameters, we do not intend to perform an
576: accurate calculation of possible nonstandard contributions to the $\bddp$
577: decay amplitude. Just as an illustrative example, we consider the rather
578: representative framework of multihiggs models, showing that the situation
579: becomes quite promising if nonstandard contributions to penguin diagrams
580: are comparable to those arising from SM physics.
581:
582: Our theoretical analysis is based on the $\Delta B=1$ effective
583: Hamiltonian \cite{Buch96,AliGre98}
584: \begin{eqnarray}
585: {\cal H}_{\rm eff} = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt 2} \left\{ V_{cb} V^*_{cs} (C_1 O_1 +
586: C_2 O_2) - V_{tb} V^*_{ts} (\sum_{i=3}^7 C_i O_i) \right\}\,,
587: \label{hamilt}
588: \end{eqnarray}
589: where $C_i$ are Wilson coefficients evaluated at a renormalization
590: scale $\mu\approx m_b$, and $O_i$ are local operators,
591: \begin{equation}
592: \begin{array}{rclrcl}
593: O_1 & = & (\bar c_\alpha \, b_\alpha)_{V-A}
594: (\bar s_\beta \, c_\beta)_{V-A} \hspace*{3.cm} &
595: O_2 & = & (\bar c_\beta \, b_\alpha)_{V-A}
596: (\bar s_\alpha \, c_\beta)_{V-A} \\
597: O_3 & = & (\bar s_\alpha \, b_\alpha)_{V-A}
598: \sum_{q'} (\bar q'_\beta \, q'_\beta)_{V-A} &
599: O_4 & = & (\bar s_\beta \, b_\alpha)_{V-A}
600: \sum_{q'} (\bar q'_\alpha \, q'_\beta)_{V-A} \\
601: O_5 & = & (\bar s_\alpha \, b_\alpha)_{V-A}
602: \sum_{q'} (\bar q'_\beta \, q'_\beta)_{V+A} &
603: O_6 & = & (\bar s_\beta \, b_\alpha)_{V-A}
604: \sum_{q'} (\bar q'_\alpha \, q'_\beta)_{V+A} \\
605: O_7 & = & (g_s/8\pi^2) m_b\,\bar s_\alpha\,\sigma^{\mu\nu}
606: \,(1+\gamma_5)\, T^a_{\alpha\beta}\, b_\beta\, G^a_{\mu\nu}\;. &
607: \end{array}
608: \label{oper}
609: \end{equation}
610: Here $V\pm A$ refers to the Lorentz structure $\gamma_\mu(1\pm\gamma_5)$,
611: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ stand for $SU(3)$ color indices, $T^a_{\alpha\beta}$
612: are generators of $SU(3)$ color transformations and $G^a_{\mu\nu}$ denotes
613: the gluonic field strength tensor. Contributions from electroweak penguins
614: will not be taken into account, therefore these operators have not been
615: included in (\ref{hamilt}). We will also neglect the effect of the
616: electromagnetic dipole operator. Within the SM, the coefficients $C_i$ can
617: be calculated at the scale $m_W$, and then evolved to $\mu\approx m_b$
618: through the renormalization group equations \cite{Buch96}. The $V_{CKM}$
619: factors corresponding to each operator have been explicitly separated in
620: (\ref{hamilt}), so that with good approximation the coefficients $C_i$ in
621: the SM can be assumed to be real numbers\footnote{In fact, they carry
622: small CP-violating and CP-conserving phases, coming from
623: Cabibbo-suppressed contributions and absorptive parts of loop diagrams
624: respectively.}. Moreover, in view of the unitarity of the $V_{CKM}$
625: matrix, one has $V_{tb} V^*_{ts} = - V_{cb} V^*_{cs} - V_{ub}
626: V^*_{us}\simeq - V_{cb} V^*_{cs}$, where the correction due to the $V_{ub}
627: V^*_{us}$ term is about 5\%. In this way, for the case under
628: consideration, the CP-violating phase carried by the penguin contributions
629: in the SM is approximately the same as that coming from the tree operators
630: $C_1$ and $C_2$, and will factorize out for the decay amplitudes of
631: interest (the contribution of the $V_{ub} V^*_{us}$ term to the full
632: amplitude will be below 0.5\% if, as expected, the total penguin amplitude
633: does not exceed 10\% of the tree piece). In a given extension of the SM,
634: however, the coefficients $C_i$ will carry in general nonvanishing
635: CP-violating phases $\varphi_i$, allowing for the interference effects
636: discussed in the previous sections.
637:
638: In general, in a theory including physics beyond the SM, one expects that
639: the new particles can be integrated out at the $m_W$ scale, leading to new
640: contributions to the coefficients $C_i(m_W)$. However, since the new
641: particles have been integrated out, the running of the coefficients down
642: to $\mu\approx m_b$ proceeds just as in the SM~\cite{Xia01}. This running
643: of SM coefficients has been analyzed in detail in
644: Refs.~\cite{Buch96,Bur98} and will not be repeated here.
645:
646: In the evaluation of the amplitudes $\langle VP|{\cal H}_{\rm
647: eff}|B\rangle$, the scale and renormalization scheme dependence introduced
648: by the coefficients $C_i$ should be compensated by that of the matrix
649: elements of the quark operators $O_i$ between the hadronic states.
650: However, as stated above, to evaluate these quantities we will use the
651: factorization ansatz, and in this approach the matrix elements are written
652: in terms of decay constants and form factors, which are both scale and
653: renormalization scheme independent. In order to achieve the required
654: cancellation, it is possible \cite{AliGre98} to calculate the one-loop
655: corrections to the partonic matrix elements $\langle s\bar c
656: c|O_i|b\rangle$, and to define new effective coefficients $C_i^{\rm eff}$
657: such that the one-loop quark-level matrix elements read
658: \begin{equation}
659: \langle s\bar c c|{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|b\rangle = \sum_{i=1}^6 C_i^{\rm eff}\langle
660: s\bar c c|O_i|b\rangle^{tree}\;.
661: \end{equation}
662: At NLO these effective coefficients will be given by the original $C_i$
663: plus QCD corrections,
664: \begin{equation}
665: C_i^{\rm eff} = C_i(\mu) + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\, \sum_{j=1}^7 K_{ij}(\mu)\,
666: C_j(\mu)\;.
667: \label{efect}
668: \end{equation}
669: The analytic expressions for the functions $K_{ij}$ can be found in
670: Refs.~\cite{AliGre98,Ali98,Che99}. It can be shown that now the effective
671: coefficients $C_i^{\rm eff}$ are scale and scheme independent, as well as
672: gauge invariant and infrared safe~\cite{Cheli99}. An important point is that
673: the corrections introduced in Eq.~(\ref{efect}) involve the coefficient
674: $C_7$, which can receive important contributions coming from nonstandard
675: physics, as occurs e.g.\ in the case of two-Higgs-doublet models
676: \cite{Xia01}. Even if the operator $O_7$ does not contribute directly to
677: the $B\to VP$ decay amplitudes in the factorization approach, the
678: combination in (\ref{efect}) implies that the new physics corrections to
679: $C_7$ are translated to other effective coefficients $C_i^{\rm eff}$ and
680: thus to the decay amplitude.
681:
682: The previous analysis can be now applied to the decays of our interest,
683: namely the resonant processes $B^-\to D_s^{\ast -} D^0$; $D_s^{\ast -} \to
684: D_s^- \pi^0$ and $B^-\to D^{\ast 0} D_s^-$; $D^{\ast 0} \to D^0 \pi^0$
685: that dominate the three body decay $B^-\to D^0 D_s^-\pi^0$. In the
686: described framework, the relevant two-body amplitudes $\langle D_s^{\ast
687: -} D^0 |{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|B^-\rangle$ and $\langle D^{\ast 0} D_s^-
688: |{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|B^-\rangle$ will be given by
689: \begin{eqnarray}
690: \langle V P |{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|B^-\rangle & = &
691: \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\, V_{cb} V_{cs}^\ast
692: \sum_{i=1}^6 C_i^{\rm eff} \langle V P |O_i| B^-\rangle_{FA}
693: \nonumber \\
694: & = & \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\, V_{cb} V_{cs}^\ast\,
695: \tilde a(B^-\to VP)\, X^{(B^-\to VP)}\;,
696: \label{ampfa}
697: \end{eqnarray}
698: where the subindex $FA$ denotes that the matrix element is evaluated
699: within the factorization approximation. The factor $\tilde a(B^-\to VP)$
700: includes the effective coefficients $C_i^{\rm eff}$, whereas $X^{(B^-\to
701: VP)}$ contains the form factors related to the factorized amplitudes. For
702: the processes under consideration one has \cite{cheng99,Kim01}
703: \begin{eqnarray}
704: \tilde a(B^-\to D^{\ast 0} D_s^-) & = & a_1 + a_4 - 2\, a_6
705: \frac{m_{D_s}^2}{(m_b+m_c)(m_s+m_c)} \nonumber \\
706: \tilde a(B^-\to D_s^{\ast -} D^0) & = & a_1 + a_4 \;,
707: \label{a2}
708: \end{eqnarray}
709: where the coefficients $a_i$ are defined as $a_i \equiv C_i^{\rm eff} +
710: C_{i+1}^{\rm eff}/(N_c^{\rm eff})_i$ for $i=1$, and $a_i \equiv
711: C_i^{\rm eff} + C_{i-1}^{\rm eff}/(N_c^{\rm eff})_i$ for $i=4,6$. The
712: effective parameters $(N_c^{\rm eff})_i$ in these expressions account for
713: the uncertainties introduced when calculating the matrix elements of the
714: effective operators between hadron states \cite{AliGre98,Ali98,Che99}. The
715: factors $X^{(B^-\to VP)}$ are given by
716: \begin{eqnarray}
717: X^{(B^-\to D^{\ast 0} D_s^-)} & = & 2\,f_{D_s}\, m_{D^{\ast
718: 0}}\,A_0^{BD^\ast}(m_{D_s}^2)\,
719: (\varepsilon_{D^{\ast 0}}^\ast\cdot P_B)
720: \nonumber \\
721: X^{(B^-\to D_s^{\ast -} D^0)} & = & 2\,f_{D_s^\ast}\,
722: m_{D_s^\ast}\,F_1^{BD}(m_{D_s^\ast}^2)\,
723: (\varepsilon_{D_s^\ast}^\ast\cdot P_B)\;,
724: \label{x2}
725: \end{eqnarray}
726: where $\varepsilon_V$ are the corresponding $V$ meson polarizations, $P_B$
727: is the $B$ four-momentum, and the expressions include decay constants and
728: form factors that can be estimated in specific models. In fact, Eqs.
729: (\ref{x2}) have been quoted only for completeness, since the factors
730: $X^{(B^-\to VP)}$ cancel out in our estimation for $\Delta\theta^{(exp)}$.
731: This can be seen by noticing that the expression for
732: $\Delta\theta^{(exp)}$ in (\ref{relphase}) involves ratios between SM and
733: new physics amplitudes. According to previous assumptions, the effects of
734: new physics are only present in the effective coefficients $C_i^{\rm eff}$
735: ---or, equivalently, $\tilde a(B\to VP)$---, therefore any global factor
736: will cancel. One has in this way
737: \begin{eqnarray}
738: \frac{\alpha^{NP}_1 \, e^{-i\varphi^{NP}}}{\alpha^{SM}_1} & = &
739: \frac{\langle D^{\ast 0} D_s^-
740: |{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|B^-\rangle^{NP}}{
741: \langle D^{\ast 0} D_s^-|{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|B^-\rangle^{SM}}\;\
742: \simeq \;\ \frac{(a_1 + a_4 - 2\, r\, a_6)^{NP}}{(a_1 + a_4 - 2\,r\, a_6)^{SM}}
743: \nonumber \\
744: \frac{\alpha^{NP}_2 \, e^{-i\varphi^{NP}}}{\alpha^{SM}_2} & = &
745: \frac{\langle D_s^{\ast -} D^0
746: |{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|B^-\rangle^{NP}}{
747: \langle D_s^{\ast -} D^0|{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|B^-\rangle^{SM}}\;\
748: \simeq \;\ \frac{(a_1 + a_4)^{NP}}{(a_1 + a_4)^{SM}} \;,
749: \label{acoc}
750: \end{eqnarray}
751: where $r$ stand for the mass ratio $m_{D_s}^2/[(m_b+m_c)(m_s+m_c)]$, and
752: ---as in the previous sections--- we have assigned labels 1
753: and 2 to the channels mediated by the resonances $D^{\ast 0}$ and
754: $D_s^\ast$ respectively. Average values of quark masses yield $r\simeq
755: 0.5$.
756:
757: In order to analyze the possible NP effects in our observable $\Delta
758: \theta^{(exp)}$, let us consider the typical situation of a theory
759: including an extended scalar sector. In the case of multihiggs (MH)
760: models, the scalar-mediated tree contributions to $C_1$ and $C_2$ can be
761: neglected, since in general scalar couplings are proportional to the
762: current quark masses of the involved vertices. On the other hand,
763: penguin-like diagrams mediated by the new scalars involve vertices which
764: are proportional to the top quark mass, thus they are potentially
765: important. Then, while SM amplitudes are dominated by tree contributions
766: ($C_{1,2}^{SM}\gg C_i^{SM}$ for $i=3\dots 6$), in a MH scheme the main
767: effect of the extended scalar sector on $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ occurs
768: through the new contributions to the effective coefficients $a_4$ and
769: $a_6$. In this way, from Eqs. (\ref{relphase}) and (\ref{acoc}) one gets
770: \begin{equation}
771: \Delta \theta^{(exp)} \,
772: \simeq \, 2 \, \sin \varphi^{MH} \left( \frac{\alpha^{MH}_1}{\alpha^{SM}_1}
773: - \frac{\alpha^{MH}_2}{\alpha^{SM}_2} \right )\,
774: \sim \, - \, 4\, r\,\sin\varphi^{MH}
775: \frac{|a_6^{MH}|}{a_1}\;.
776: \label{cpthdm}
777: \end{equation}
778: As a first outcome from this expression, it is seen that the ratios
779: $\alpha_j^{NP}/\alpha_j^{SM}$ do not cancel with each other, consequently
780: the asymmetry $\Delta \theta^{(exp)}$ is in principle nonzero.
781:
782: Even if the result in (\ref{cpthdm}) is just an estimate, it can be taken
783: into account in order to show that new physics effects can be significant
784: enough to provide an observable signal. According to the analysis
785: presented in the previous section, this would be achieved if new physics
786: contributions to $a_6$ reach about 10\% of the SM tree amplitude, and
787: carry a CP-violating phase of order one (one would obtain in this case an
788: asymmetry $\Delta \theta^{(exp)}$ of about 10 degrees). Within the SM, the
789: effective coefficients $|a_1|$ (tree) and $|a_6|$ (penguin) are estimated
790: to be approximately 1 and $0.06$, respectively \cite{cheng99}. Thus, one
791: would have important chances of measuring nonstandard physics if new
792: contributions to $a_6$ carrying large CP-violating phases are comparable
793: in size to SM ones. It is worth to point out that this level of
794: contribution of nonstandard physics is indeed suggested by some puzzling
795: experimental results on penguin-dominated modes, such as the $B\to\eta' K$
796: branching ratios \cite{etak} and the time-dependent CP asymmetries in
797: $B^0\to\phi K_S$ \cite{phik}. The experimental values for these
798: observables are at least $2\sigma$ away from SM expectations, and can be
799: seen as indications of large new physics effects at the penguin level.
800:
801: We believe that these experimental observations on penguin-dominated $B$
802: decay channels already provide a substancial ground to encourage the DP
803: analysis of $\bddp$ proposed here. On the other hand, we point out that
804: the room for nonstandard contributions to penguin amplitudes ---and thus
805: to the phase difference $\Delta \theta^{(exp)}$--- is relatively large,
806: mainly due to the existing theoretical uncertainties in the evaluation of
807: SM amplitudes, and to the large number of unknown parameters included in
808: most scenarios of new physics. To be definite, let us take here as an
809: example one of the simplest possible extensions of the SM, namely a
810: two-Higgs-doublet model (THDM) type III. In particular, we consider a
811: minimal scenario \cite{Cha99} which does not include tree level FCNC, and
812: the number of new parameters is reduced to four (three Yukawa couplings
813: parameters plus the charged Higgs mass). In this framework the main new
814: contributions to $b$ quark decays arise from one-loop diagrams involving a
815: virtual top quark, while neutral Higgs-mediated diagrams are shown to be
816: negligible~\cite{Xia01,bsg}. As stated, in this kind of models the largest
817: new contributions to the amplitudes $a_i$ come through the dipole
818: coefficient $C_7$, and the allowed space for the new parameters is mainly
819: constrained by the effects on $B\to X_s\gamma$ decays \cite{bsg}. Taking
820: into account the bounds in Refs.~\cite{Cha99,bsg}, it is possible to
821: estimate the allowed values for both the amplitude $a_6$ and the
822: CP-violating phase $\varphi$. We find that within this model the phase
823: difference $\Delta \theta^{(exp)}$ can be as large as 3 degrees, which,
824: according to the analysis Sect.\ III, would be around the limit of
825: observability for the number of events considered.
826:
827: The example below should be taken just as an illustration to show the
828: potentiality of our analysis through a simple manageable case. Clearly,
829: the inclusion of more degrees of freedom would relax the experimental
830: bounds on the new model parameters (imposed e.g.\ by the chosen mechanism
831: to avoid unwanted flavor changing neutral transitions), allowing higher
832: values for the measurable phase difference $\Delta\theta^{(exp)}$ which
833: will exceed the observability limits. In addition, other possible
834: frameworks of nonstandard physics have been shown to provide enhancement
835: effects on penguin-dominated processes, offering an explanation for the
836: puzzling time-dependent CP asymmetries in $B^0\to\phi K_S$. Among the most
837: popular scenarios, recent analyses include R-parity violating
838: supersymmetry \cite{Dut03}, left-right supersymmetric models \cite{Fra03},
839: and theories including warped extra dimensions \cite{Bur03}. In all these
840: models ---which include in general a rather large number of new
841: parameters---, it has been shown that new physics contributions can be of
842: the same order as SM penguin amplitudes. In this way, their effects on the
843: $b\to c\bar c s$ channel could provide an observable signal in the DP
844: analysis of $\bddp$ decays proposed here.
845:
846: \section{Summary}
847:
848: We discuss the possible measurement of nonstandard CP violation in
849: $\bddp$, exploiting the fact that for these processes the asymmetry
850: between $B^+$ and $B^-$ decays is expected to be negligibly small in the
851: Standard Model. The presence of two resonant channels provides the
852: necessary interference to allow for CP asymmetries in the differential
853: decay width, even in the limit of vanishing strong rescattering phases.
854:
855: In order to measure the CP-odd phases entering the interfering
856: contributions to the total decay amplitude, we propose to use the Dalitz
857: Plot fit technique. This allows a clean disentanglement of relative
858: phases, independent of theoretical uncertainties arising from FSI effects.
859: The expected quality of the experimental measurements has been estimated
860: by means of a Monte Carlo simulation of the decays, from which we conclude
861: that the phases can be extracted with a statistical error not larger than
862: a couple of degrees, provided that the widths of the intermediate $D^{\ast
863: 0}$ and $D_s^\ast$ resonances are at least of the order of a hundred keV.
864: On the theoretical side, within the framework of generalized factorization
865: we perform a rough estimation of possible nonstandard CP violation effects
866: on the interfering amplitudes. We take as an example the typical case of a
867: multihiggs model, showing that the level of accuracy of the DP fit
868: measurements can be sufficient to reveal effects of new physics.
869:
870: Let us finally stress that tree-dominated decays like $\bddp$ are usually
871: not regarded as good candidates to reveal new physics, since the effects
872: on branching ratios are not expected to be strong enough to be separated
873: from the theoretical errors. Our proposal represents a possible way of
874: detecting these effects by means of CP asymmetries, which can allow the
875: disentanglement of new physics contributions to penguin-like operators in
876: a theoretically simple way.
877:
878: \section*{Acknowledgements}
879:
880: D.G.D.\ acknowledges financial aid from Fundaci\'on Antorchas (Argentina).
881: This work has been partially supported by CONICET and ANPCyT (Argentina).
882:
883: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
884:
885: \bibitem{Nir94} See e.g.\ Y.\ Nir, H.\ Quinn, in {\em B Decays}, Ed.\ S.\
886: Stone, World Scientific 1994, p.\ 362.
887:
888: \bibitem{Nir02} Y.\ Nir, Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 117}, 111
889: (2003).
890:
891: \bibitem{DP} See for example Refs.~\cite{cg-3pi,cg-kpipi}.
892:
893: \bibitem{cg-3pi} E791 Collab., E.M.\ Aitala {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\
894: Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 770 (2001).
895:
896: \bibitem{cg-kpipi} E791 Collab., E.M.\ Aitala {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\
897: Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 121801 (2002).
898:
899: \bibitem{Bed98} I.\ Bediaga, R.E.\ Blanco, C.\ G\"obel, R.\ Mendez
900: Galain, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 4067 (1998); R.E.\ Blanco, C.\
901: G\"obel, R.\ Mendez Galain, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 2720 (2001).
902:
903: \bibitem{D-decays} See for example Refs.~\cite{cg-3pi,cg-kpipi}.
904: A complete list can be found in \cite{PDG}.
905:
906: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, K.\ Hagiwara {\em et al.}, Phys.\
907: Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
908:
909: \bibitem{Atw94} This idea has been already exploited by several authors.
910: See e.g.\ D.\ Atwood, A.\ Soni, Z.\ Phys. C {\bf 64} 221 (1994); {\em
911: ibid.} Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74} 220 (1995); D.\ Atwood, G.\ Eilam, M.\
912: Gronau, A.\ Soni, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 341} 372 (1994); R.\ Enomoto, Y.\
913: Okada, Y.\ Shimizu, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 433} 109 (1998).
914:
915: \bibitem{Buch96} G.\ Buchalla, A.J.\ Buras, M.\ Lautenbacher, Rev.\
916: Mod.\ Phys.\ {bf 68}, 1125 (1996).
917:
918: \bibitem{Gir01} A.K.\ Giri, R.\ Mohanta, M.P.\ Khanna, Eur.\ Phys.\
919: J.\ C {\bf 22}, 115 (2001).
920:
921: \bibitem{Ger91} J.-M.\ G\'erard, W.-S\ Hou, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43},
922: 2909 (1991).
923:
924: \bibitem{Bed97} I.\ Bediaga, C.\ G\"obel, R.\ Mendez Galain, Phys.\ Rev.\
925: Lett.\ {\bf 78}, 22 (1997).
926:
927: \bibitem{Cin01} CLEO Collab., S.\ Ahmed {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\
928: {\bf 87}, 251801 (2001).
929:
930: \bibitem{bau87} M.\ Bauer, B.\ Stech, M.\ Wirbel, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf
931: 34}, 103 (1987).
932:
933: \bibitem{Kim02} Z.\ Luo, J.L.\ Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 094001 (2001);
934: C.S.\ Kim, Y.\ Kwon, J.\ Lee, W.\ Namgung, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 097503
935: (2002).
936:
937: \bibitem{AliGre98} A.\ Ali, C.\ Greub, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 2996 (1998).
938:
939: \bibitem{Xia01} Z.\ Xiao, C.S.\ Li, K.-T.\ Chao, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf
940: 63}, 074005 (2001); Z.\ Xiao, K.-T.\ Chao, C.S.\ Li, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf
941: 65} 114021 (2002).
942:
943: \bibitem{Bur98} A.J.\ Buras, R.\ Fleischer, Adv.\ Ser.\ Direct.\ High
944: Energy Phys.\ {\bf 15}, 65 (1998).
945:
946: \bibitem{Ali98} A.\ Ali, G.\ Kramer, C.-D.\ L\"u, Phys.\ Rev.\ D
947: {\bf 58} 094009 (1998).
948:
949: \bibitem{Che99} Y.-H.\ Chen, H.-Y.\ Cheng, B.\ Tseng, K.-C.\ Yang, Phys.\
950: Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 094014 (1999).
951:
952: \bibitem{Cheli99} H.-Y.\ Cheng, H.-n.\ Li, K.-C.\ Yang, Phys.\
953: Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 094005 (1999).
954:
955: \bibitem{cheng99} H.-Y.\ Cheng, K.-C.\ Yang, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59},
956: 092004 (1999).
957:
958: \bibitem{Kim01} C.S.\ Kim, Y.\ Kwon, J.\ Lee, W.\ Namgung, Phys.\ Rev.\ D
959: {\bf 63}, 094506 (2001).
960:
961: \bibitem{etak} CLEO Collab., S.J.\ Richichi {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\
962: Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 520 (2000); Belle Collab., K.\ Abe {\em et al.}, Phys.\
963: Lett.\ B {\bf 517}, 309 (2001); BaBar Collab., B.\ Aubert {\em et al.},
964: {\tt hep-ex/0303046}.
965:
966: \bibitem{phik} BaBar Collab., B.\ Aubert {\em et al.}, {\tt
967: hep-ex/0207070} (ICHEP 02); Belle Collab., K.\ Abe {\em et al.},
968: %{\tt hep-ex/0308035}.
969: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 031102(R) (2003).
970:
971: \bibitem{Cha99} D.\ Bowser-Chao, K.-m.\ Cheung, W.-Y.\ Keung, Phys.\ Rev.\ D
972: {\bf 59}, 115006 (1999)
973:
974: \bibitem{bsg} Z.J.\ Xiao, C.S.\ Li, K.T.\ Chao, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62},
975: 094008 (2000).
976:
977: \bibitem{Dut03} B.\ Dutta, C.S.\ Kim, S.\ Oh, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 535}, 249;
978: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 011801 (2003); A.\ Kundu, T.\ Mitra, Phys.\
979: Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 116005 (2003).
980:
981: \bibitem{Fra03} M.\ Frank, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 035011 (2003).
982:
983: \bibitem{Bur03} G.\ Burdman, {\tt hep-ph/0310144}.
984:
985: \end{thebibliography}
986:
987: \end{document}
988: