1:
2: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,showpacs,prl]{revtex4}% Physical Review Letter
3: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,showpacs,prl]{revtex4}% Physical Review Letter
4:
5: \RequirePackage{amsfonts}
6: \RequirePackage{amssymb}
7: \RequirePackage{amsmath}
8: \RequirePackage{graphicx}
9: \RequirePackage{makeidx}
10: %\RequirePackage{calc}
11: \RequirePackage{ifthen}
12: \RequirePackage{color}
13: \renewcommand{\a}{\ensuremath{\alpha}}
14: \renewcommand{\b}{\ensuremath{\beta} }
15: \newcommand{\g}{\ensuremath{\gamma} }
16: \renewcommand{\d}{\ensuremath{\delta} }
17: \newcommand{\e}{\ensuremath{\epsilon}}
18: \newcommand{\ve}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}
19: \newcommand{\z}{\ensuremath{\zeta} }
20: %\renewcommand{\eta}{\ensuremath{\eta} }
21: \renewcommand{\th}{\ensuremath{\theta} }
22: %\renewcommand{\iota}{\ensuremath{\iota} }
23: \renewcommand{\k}{\ensuremath{\kappa}}
24: \renewcommand{\l}{\ensuremath{\lambda} }
25: \newcommand{\m}{\ensuremath{\mu} }
26: \newcommand{\n}{\ensuremath{\nu} }
27: %\renewcommand{\xi}{\ensuremath{\xi} }
28: %\renewcommand{\pi}{\ensuremath{\pi} }
29: %\renewcommand{\rho}{\ensuremath{\rho} }
30: \newcommand{\s}{\ensuremath{\sigma} }
31: %\renewcommand{\tau}{\ensuremath{\tau} }
32: \renewcommand{\o}{\ensuremath{\omega } }
33: %\renewcommand{\varphi}{\ensuremath{\varphi} }
34: %\renewcommand{\psi}{\ensuremath{\psi} }
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36: % Greak letters ( upper case )
37: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
38: \newcommand{\G}{\ensuremath{\Gamma} }
39: \newcommand{\D}{\ensuremath{\Delta} }
40: \newcommand{\Th}{\ensuremath{\Theta} }
41: \newcommand{\Io}{\ensuremath{\Iota} }
42: \newcommand{\K}{\ensuremath{\Kappa} }
43: \renewcommand{\L}{\ensuremath{\Lambda} }
44: \renewcommand{\S}{\ensuremath{\Sigma} }
45: \newcommand{\T}{\ensuremath{\Tau} }
46: \renewcommand{\O}{\ensuremath{\Omega } }
47:
48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
49: % Math Eviroment:
50: % equation, equation array, array, itemize, etal
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
52: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
53: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{align}} \newcommand{\ea}{\end{align}}
54: \newcommand{\benum}{\begin{enumerate}}
55: \newcommand{\eenum}{\end{enumerate}}
56: \newcommand{\bitem}{\begin{itemize}}
57: \newcommand{\eitem}{\end{itemize}}
58: \newcommand{\Table}[3]
59: { \begin{table}[htb]
60: \caption{#2}
61: \begin{center}
62: \begin{ruledtabular}
63: \begin{tabular}{#1}
64: #3
65: \end{tabular}
66: \end{ruledtabular}
67: \end{center}
68: \end{table}
69: }
70:
71:
72: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber \\ }
73:
74: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\ensuremath{\left| #1 \right|}} % absolute value %
75: \newcommand{\abssq}[1]{\ensuremath{\left| #1 \right|^2}} % square absolute value%
76:
77:
78: \newcommand{\sci}[2]{\ensuremath{#1\times 10^{#2}}} % expression of float number%
79: \newcommand{\psci}[2]{\ensuremath{(#1)\times 10^{#2}}} % expression of float number with ()%
80:
81: \newcommand{\tr}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Tr}\left[ #1\right]}} % trace %
82: \newcommand{\order}[1]{\ensuremath{{\cal O}(10^{#1})} }% order of magnitude %
83:
84: \newcommand{\fr}[2]{\ensuremath{\frac{#1}{#2}}}
85: \newcommand{\pfr}[2]{\left( \frac{#1}{#2}\right)}
86: \newcommand{\sqfr}[2]{\frac{#1^2}{#2^2}}
87: \newcommand{\sqtfr}[2]{\sqrt{\frac{#1}{#2}}}
88: \newcommand{\sqrtfr}[2]{\sqrt{\frac{#1}{#2}}}
89: \newcommand{\inv}[1]{\frac{1}{#1}} % invers %
90: \newcommand{\invsq}[1]{\frac{1}{\left( #1\right)^2}} % invers square %
91: \newcommand{\invsqrt}[1]{\frac{1}{\sqrt{ #1}}} % invers square %
92: %\newcommand{\sub}[2]{\ensuremath{#1_{#2}}}
93: %\newcommand{\sup}[2]{\ensuremath{#1^{#2}}}
94: \newcommand{\sbp}[3]{\ensuremath{#1^{#2}_{#3}}}
95:
96: \newcommand{\matrixthree}[1]{
97: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
98: #1
99: \end{array}
100: \right)
101: }
102: \renewcommand{\matrix}[1]{\begin{pmatrix} #1 \end{pmatrix}}
103: %\def\differential#1#2{\frac{d}{d#2} \! #1} % total differential %
104: %\def\pdifferential#1#2{\frac{\partial}{\partial #2} \! #1} % partial differential
105:
106:
107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
108: % Phsics related symbols
109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
110:
111: % Quantum states
112: %\def\bar#1{\overline{#1}} % conjugate fields %
113: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\ensuremath{ \left\langle #1 \right| } } % quantum state %
114: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\ensuremath{ \left| #1 \right\rangle} } % conjugate quantum state %
115: \newcommand{\braket}[1]{\ensuremath{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle} } % conjugate quantum state %
116:
117:
118: % Dirac matrix symbols
119: \def\gfive{\gamma_{5}}
120:
121: % index contract
122: \newcommand{\ctr}[3]{#1_{#3} #2^{#3}}
123: %Dirac slash
124: \newcommand{\sh}[1]{#1\hskip-7pt \diagup}
125: \newcommand{\Sh}[1]{#1\hskip-11pt \diagup}
126: % momentum loop integration
127: %\def\lint#1{\int\frac{d^d #1} {(2\pi)^d}\ }
128:
129: % feynman integration
130: \def\feynint#1{\int^1_0 d#1\ }
131: \def\feyninttwo#1#2{\int^1_0 d#1\int^{1-#1}_0 d#2 \ }
132:
133: % denominator of propagator
134: \def\deno#1#2{\frac{1{#1^2-#2^2}}}
135:
136:
137: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
138: % paticle names
139: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
140: \newcommand{\Pip}{\pi^{+}}
141: \newcommand{\Pim}{\pi^{-}}
142: \newcommand{\Pipm}{\pi^{\pm}}
143: \newcommand{\Piz}{\pi^{0}}
144:
145:
146: \newcommand{\Etapr}{\eta'}
147: \newcommand{\Eta}{\eta}
148: \newcommand{\Etaoct}{\eta_{8}}
149: \newcommand{\Etasig}{\eta_{0}}
150:
151:
152: \newcommand{\Kp}{K^{+}}
153: \newcommand{\Km}{K^{-}}
154: \newcommand{\Kpm}{K^{\pm}}
155: \newcommand{\Kz}{K^{0}}
156: \newcommand{\Kzb}{\bar K^{0}}
157:
158: \newcommand{\KSTp}{K^{*+}}
159: \newcommand{\KSTm}{K^{*-}}
160: \newcommand{\KSTpm}{K^{*\pm}}
161: \newcommand{\KSTz}{K^{*0}}
162: \newcommand{\KSTzb}{\bar K^{*0}}
163:
164: \newcommand{\Bp}{B^{+}}
165: \newcommand{\Bm}{B^{-}}
166: \newcommand{\Bpm}{B^{\pm}}
167: \newcommand{\Bz}{B^{0}}
168: \newcommand{\Bzb}{\bar B^{0}}
169:
170: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
171: % Color
172: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
173: \definecolor{myblue}{rgb}{.1,.1,.7}
174: \definecolor{dcyan}{rgb}{.0,.6,.6}
175: \definecolor{dmagenta}{rgb}{0.6,0.0,0.6}
176: \definecolor{brown}{rgb}{0.6,0.2,0.}
177: \definecolor{darkblue}{rgb}{0,0,0.6}
178: \definecolor{darkred}{rgb}{0.75,0.0,0.0}
179: \definecolor{darkgreen}{rgb}{0.0,0.6,0.0}
180:
181: %-- clolor name ---
182: \newcommand{\black}{\color{black}}
183: \newcommand{\red}{\color{red}}
184: \newcommand{\blue}{\color{blue}}
185: \newcommand{\cyan}{\color{dcyan}}
186: \newcommand{\magenta}{\color{dmagenta}}
187: \newcommand{\brown}{\color{brown}}
188: \newcommand{\darkblue}{\color{darkblue}}
189: \newcommand{\darkgreen}{\color{darkgreen}}
190:
191:
192: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
193: % Others
194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
195: \newcommand{\usemarker}{Y}
196: \newcommand{\marker}[1]{
197: \ifthenelse{\equal{\usemarker}{Y}}
198: {\mbox{}\marginpar{\tt #1}}{}
199: }
200:
201: \newcommand{\mk}[1]{
202: \ifthenelse{\equal{\usemarker}{Y}}
203: {\noindent\hskip -1truecm {\bf\blue$^{#1}$}}{}
204: }
205:
206: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
207: %
208: %%%%%
209: \newcommand{\myname}{Yu-Feng Zhou}
210: \newcommand{\myemail}{zhou@theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de}
211: \newcommand{\myaddress}{Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, \\
212: Sektion Physik. Theresienstr. 37, D-80333. Munich, Germany}
213:
214:
215: \def \amp#1#2{#1_{#2}^{u(c)} e^{i \delta_{#2}}}
216: \def \ampq#1#2{#1_{#2}^{q} e^{i \delta^{q}_{#2}}}
217: \def\sq#1{\sqrt{#1}}
218: %%%%%%%%%% Start TeXmacs macros
219: %\newcommand{\tmop}[1]{\operatorname{#1}}
220: \newcommand{\tmop}[1]{#1}
221: %%%%%%%%%% End TeXmacs macros
222:
223: \begin{document}
224: \title{Implications of Charmless B Decays with Large Direct CP Violation}
225: \author{Yue-Liang Wu}
226: \affiliation{Institute of theoretical physics,Chinese Academy of Sciences\\
227: 100080, Beijing, China}
228: %\email[Email]{ylwu@itp.ac.cn}
229: \author{Yu-Feng Zhou}
230: \affiliation{Dortmund University, 44221, Dortmund, Germany}
231: %\email[Email]{zhou@thoerie.physik.uni-muenchen.de}
232: %\date{\today}
233: \begin{abstract}
234: Based on the most recent data in charmless B decays including the
235: very recently reported large direct CP violations, it is shown
236: that the weak phase $\gamma$ can well be extracted without
237: two-fold ambiguity even only from two decay modes $\pi^+\pi^-$ and
238: $\pi^+K^-$, and its value is remarkably consistent with the global
239: standard model fit at a compatible accuracy. A fit to all the
240: $\pi\pi,\pi K$ data favor both large electroweak penguin and
241: color-suppressed tree amplitude with large strong phases. It is
242: demonstrated that the inclusion of $\tmop{SU} ( 3 )$ symmetry
243: breaking effects of strong phases and the inelastic rescattering
244: effects can well improve the consistency of the data, while both
245: effects may not be sufficient to arrive at a small electroweak
246: penguin amplitude in the standard model. It is of interest to
247: notice that large or small electroweak penguin amplitude becomes a
248: testable prediction as they lead to significantly different
249: predictions for the direct CP violations for $\pi^0\pi^0$, $\pi^0
250: \bar{K}^0$ modes. Clearly, precise measurements on charmless $B$
251: decays will provide a window for probing new physics.
252: \end{abstract}
253: \preprint{DO-TH/0410}
254: %\keywords{}
255: \pacs{13.25.Hw, 11.30.Er, 11.30.Hv}
256: \maketitle
257:
258:
259: The evidences of direct CP violation in $B$ decays have recently
260: been reported by the BaBar and Belle collaborations. The latest
261: averaged data give $a_{CP}(\pi^+\pi^-)=0.46\pm 0.13$ and
262: $a_{CP}(\pi^+ K^-)=-0.11\pm 0.02$\cite{newData}. Thus direct CP
263: violation has been established not only in the kaon system, but
264: also in B system. It has been shown that both direct CP violation
265: and $\Delta I = 1/2$ rule in kaon decays can be
266: understood in the standard model (SM)\cite{Wu:2000ki}. It is then
267: natural to test whether the observed direct CP violations and
268: decay rates in charmless B decays can be explained within the SM.
269: As the two experimental groups BaBar and Belle have reported more and more
270: accurate data for charmless B decays ($B\rightarrow \pi\pi, \pi
271: K$)\cite{HFaverage}, it then allows one to test the SM and to
272: explore possible indications for new physics, such as the
273: two-Higgs-doublet model with spontaneous CP
274: violation\cite{S2HDM}, the supersymmetric models etc.
275: %
276: There have been several global analyzes which are based on either
277: model independent parameterizations such as quark flavor
278: diagrammatic decomposition \cite{SW,Buras,Rosner,Hocker}, isospin
279: decomposition\cite{Zhou:2000hg}, flavor SU(3) symmetry\cite{He},
280: or QCD inspired calculations such as QCD factorization
281: \cite{QCDFacFit,Hocker} and perturbative QCD approach\cite{pQCD}
282: as well as soft-collinear effective theory\cite{SCET}.
283: %
284:
285:
286: In this letter, we are going to make a step-by-step
287: fit for the charmless B decay modes based on
288: approximate SU(3) flavor symmetry and hierarchical structures of
289: diagrammatic amplitudes. Based on the most
290: recent data including the very recently
291: reported large direct CP violations, we arrive at the following
292: main observations:
293: %
294: i) the current data allow us to precisely extract the
295: weak phase $\gamma$ from only two modes $\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\pi^+ K^-$
296: without two-fold ambiguity. The resulting
297: numerical value of $\gamma$ is found to be
298: remarkably consistent with the global SM fit at a
299: compatible accuracy;
300: %Of particular, the extracted weak phase
301: %$\gamma$ is quite stable and not significantly modified by other
302: %possible effects;
303: % such as the SU(3) symmetry breaking and large
304: %electroweak penguin effects;
305: %
306: ii) A direct fit to all $\pi\pi$, $\pi K$ modes favors a large
307: electroweak penguin. Furthermore, the large or small electroweak
308: penguin amplitude is found to be a testable prediction via
309: measuring direct CP violations in the decay modes $B\to \pi^0
310: \pi^0$ and $\pi^0 \bar{K}^0$ once more accurate data become
311: available.
312: %For small(large) electroweak penguin
313: %amplitudes, direct CP violations $a_{CP}(\pi^0\pi^0)$ and $a_{CP}(\pi^0K^0)$ are
314: %found to be large(small).
315: %This allows one to distinguish them in the recent
316: %future.
317: %
318: iii) all the amplitudes and strong phases in $B\rightarrow \pi\pi
319: , \pi K$ are extracted, which indicates large final state
320: interactions and non-factorizable QCD effects as the resulting
321: numerical results show an enhanced color-suppressed tree amplitude
322: and strong phase. It is shown that not only the large $\pi^0\pi$
323: branching ratios but also the large $\pi^0 K^0$ ones result in a
324: large color-suppressed tree amplitude with a large strong phase;
325: %
326: iv) it is the large $\pi^0 K$ branching ratio that mainly
327: responsible for a large electroweak penguin amplitude with a large
328: strong phase. In the case of a small electroweak penguin amplitude
329: fixed by the isospin relation in the SM, the resulting $\pi^0 K$
330: branching ratios are bellow the experimental data;
331: %
332: vi) SU(3) symmetry breaking of strong phases and $B\to DD$ rescattering effects
333: can well improve the consistency of the global fitting. However, it remains
334: necessary to have a large electroweak penguin amplitude with large strong
335: phases.
336:
337: The diagrammatic decomposition approach is adopted to carry out a
338: global analysis. The advantage is that in such an approach some decay
339: modes can form, in a good approximation, closed subsets, which
340: allows us to determine the relevant parameters without knowing the others.
341: Although the
342: number of data points decrease for each subset, the number of the
343: free parameters decrease as well. Of interest, the precision of
344: the determinations is not necessarily lower than that of the whole
345: global fit. Furthermore it may avoid the complicity and the
346: potential inconsistency in the current data when more decay modes
347: are involved in the whole global fit. The comparison between
348: different results from different subsets may provide us important
349: hints to understand those decays. In general, all the $B\to \pi
350: \pi$ decay modes can be written in terms of diagrammatic
351: amplitudes: tree ($\mathcal{T}$), color-suppressed tree
352: ($\mathcal{C} )$, QCD penguin ($\mathcal{P}$), electro-weak
353: penguin ($\mathcal{P}_{\tmop{EW}}$), color suppressed electroweak
354: penguin ( $\mathcal{P}_{\tmop{EW}}^C$) etc. The corresponding
355: diagrams in $B\to \pi K$ are denoted by primed ones, such as
356: $\mathcal{T}'$, $\mathcal{P}'$, etc. Using the CKM factors
357: $\lambda_q^{( s )} = V_{\tmop{qd} ( s )}^{\ast} V_{\tmop{qb}}$,
358: and the unitarity of the CKM matrix, the penguin type amplitude
359: can be decomposed as : $\mathcal{P}^{(')} = \lambda_u^{( s )}
360: \mathcal{P}_u + \lambda_c^{( s )} \mathcal{P}_c + \lambda^{( s
361: )}_t \mathcal{P}_t$. Defining $P_{} \equiv P_{\tmop{tc}}
362: =\mathcal{P}_t -\mathcal{P}_c$ , $P_{\tmop{tu}}\equiv
363: \mathcal{P}_t -\mathcal{P}_u$, $\hat{P}_{EW} = P_{EW} +
364: P_{EW}^C$ and factorize out the CKM factors, we arrive
365: at the following diagrammatic decomposition
366: \begin{align}
367: %
368: \bar{A}_{\pi^+ \pi^-}
369: & = \lambda_u ( T - P_{\tmop{tu}} - \frac{2}{3}
370: P_{\tmop{EW}, \tmop{tu}}^C ) - \lambda_c ( P + \frac{2}{3} P_{\tmop{EW}}^C )
371: \nonumber\\
372: %
373: \bar{A}_{\pi^- \pi^0}
374: & = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ \lambda_u ( T + C -
375: \hat{P}_{\tmop{EW}, \tmop{tu}} ) -
376: \lambda_c \hat{P}_{\tmop{EW}} \right]
377: \nonumber\\
378: %
379: \bar{A}_{\pi^0 \pi^0} & =
380: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ \lambda_u ( - C -
381: P_{\tmop{tu}} + \hat{P}_{\tmop{EW}, \tmop{tu}} - \frac{2}{3} P_{\tmop{EW},
382: \tmop{tu}}^C ) \right.
383: \nonumber\\
384: &\left.- \lambda_c ( P - \hat{P}_{\tmop{EW}} + \frac{2}{3} P_{\tmop{EW}}^C
385: ) \right]
386: \nonumber\\
387: \bar{A}_{\pi^+ K^-}
388: & = \lambda_u^s ( T' - P'_{\tmop{tu}} - \frac{2}{3}
389: P_{\tmop{EW}, \tmop{tu}}^{' C} ) - \lambda_c^s ( P' + \frac{2}{3}
390: P_{\tmop{EW}}^{' C} )
391: \nonumber\\
392: %
393: \bar{A}_{\pi^0 \bar K^0}
394: &=\frac{1}{\sqrt2}
395: \left[
396: \lambda^{s}_{u}(-C'-P'_{tu}+\hat{P}'_{EW,tu}-\frac{2}{3} P^{C}_{EW,tu})
397: \right.
398: \nonumber\\
399: &\left. -\lambda^{s}_{c}(P'-\hat{P}'_{EW}+\frac{2}{3} P^{C}_{EW})
400: \right]
401: \nonumber\\
402: \bar{A}_{\pi^- \bar{K}^0}
403: & = \lambda_u^s ( P'_{\tmop{tu}} - \frac{1}{3}
404: P^{' C}_{\tmop{EW}, \tmop{tu}} ) + \lambda_c^s ( P' - \frac{1}{3} P^{'
405: C}_{\tmop{EW}} )
406: \nonumber\\
407: \bar{A}_{\pi^0 K^-}
408: &=-\frac{1}{\sqrt2}
409: \left[
410: \lambda^{s}_{u}(T'+C'-P'_{tu}-\hat{P}'_{EW,tu}+\frac{1}{3}P^{'C}_{EW})
411: \right.
412: \nonumber\\
413: & \left. -\lambda^{s}_{c}(P'+\hat{P}'_{EW}-\frac{1}{3}P^{'C}_{EW})
414: \right]
415: \end{align}
416: where the rescaled amplitudes have a hierarchical structure $T \gg P \gg
417: \hat{P}_{\tmop{EW}}$. The primed and unprimed amplitudes are equal in the SU(3)
418: limit. For simplicity, throughout this paper, we will neglect the smallest
419: amplitudes of $P^{C}_{EW}$ and
420: take in a good approximation $P_{EW,tu}\simeq P_{EW,tc} = P_{EW}$ and
421: $P_{tu}\simeq P_{tc} = P$ due to t-quark dominance. As a phase convention, we
422: take $T$ to be real, i.e. $\delta_T = 0$. The amplitudes are normalized to the
423: CP averaged branching ratio $\tmop{Br} = ( |A|^2 + | \bar{A} |^2 )/2$ in units of $10^{-6}$, where the
424: tiny differences due to the $B^0$ and $B^{\pm}$ lifetime difference and the
425: final state phase spaces are neglected.
426: %Throughout the paper, all the $Br$s are
427: %written in unit of $10^{-6}$.
428: The direct CP violation is defined through
429: $a_{\tmop{CP}} = (| \bar{A} |^2 - |A|^2)/(|\bar A|^2 + |A|^2)$. The flavor SU(3)
430: symmetry breaking effects for amplitudes are considered as
431: $ |{T'}/{T}| = |{P'}/{P}| = |{P'_{EW}}/{P_{\tmop{EW}}}| \simeq
432: {f_K}/{f_{\pi}} \simeq 1.28 $ from naive factorization. The SU(3) symmetry breaking effects of strong
433: phases are characterized by the phase differences of the primed and the unprimed
434: amplitudes $ \Delta \delta_A \equiv \delta_A' - \delta_{A}$
435: with $A$ denoting for any of the amplitudes $T, P, P_{\tmop{EW}}$ etc.
436:
437: %{\bf Weak phase $\gamma$ from $\pi^+ \pi^-$ and $ \pi^+ K^-$
438: %decays }.
439: The decay modes of $\pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\pi^+ K^-$ provide five data points: two
440: CP averaged branching ratios $Br(\pi^+ \pi^-) =4.6\pm0.4$ and $Br(\pi^+ K^-)
441: =18.2\pm0.9$, two direct CP asymmetries $a_{CP}(\pi^+\pi^-)$ and $a_{CP}(\pi^+
442: K^-)$, and one mixing induced CP asymmetry $S_{\pi\pi}=-0.61\pm 0.14$. Taking
443: the flavor $\tmop{SU} ( 3 )$ relations and neglecting $P^C_{EW}$, the two decay
444: modes only involves $T, P, \delta_P$ and the weak phase $\gamma$. Thus all of
445: them can be directly determined. A fit to the current data gives the following
446: results
447: \begin{eqnarray}\label{simpleFit}
448: & & |T| = 0.53\pm 0.03, \qquad |P| = 0.09 \pm 0.002,\nonumber \\
449: & & \delta_P = - 0.48^{+ 0.09}_{- 0.12}, \qquad \gamma = 1.11^{+ 0.11}_{-
450: 0.14}
451: \end{eqnarray}
452: with a $\chi^2_{\min}/d.o.f =0.71/1$. Where the well measured
453: result of $\sin 2\beta=0.73\pm 0.037$ from $B \rightarrow J / \psi K_S$ has been
454: used to relate the weak phase $\alpha$ to the weak phase $\gamma$ via
455: unitarity relation. The values of $|T|$ and $|P|$ are well determined with
456: relative errors less than $10 \%$. The error of $\delta_P$ is larger but
457: can be reduced with more accurate data in the recent future. The ratio $|P / T|$ is
458: found to be around 0.17. Note that the best fitted angle $\gamma$ is in a
459: remarkable agreement with the one from the global SM fit of the unitarity
460: triangle which gives $\gamma=1.08^{+0.17}_{-0.21}$ and at a compatible accuracy.
461: %
462: We emphasize that the above results are obtained without the interference with
463: other $\pi\pi$, $\pi K$ modes in which more diagrammatic parameters $C$ and
464: $P_{EW}$ are involved. Therefore it provides a very promising way to extract
465: $\gamma$ from charmless $B$ decays and an important reference point for any
466: further analysis.
467: %
468: In obtaining the above result, the newly reported
469: $a_{CP}(\pi^+K^-)$ plays a key role. Without it, as shown in
470: ref\cite{SW,Buras}, the determination of $\gamma$ suffer from a
471: two-fold ambiguity with the other solution at $\gamma\simeq
472: 40^\circ$. In Fig.\ref{chiSq-A}, we plot the $\chi^2_{min}$ as a
473: function of $\gamma$. It is clearly seen that after including
474: $a_{CP}(\pi^+K^-)$ the global minimum (best-fit) of $\chi^2$ falls
475: into the allowed range of the SM fit and the ambiguity is lifted.
476: %We plot in Fig.\ref{chiSq-A} the $\chi_{\min}^2$
477: %as functions of the weak phase $\gamma$.
478: %
479: %
480: \begin{figure}[htb]
481: %\begin{center}
482: \includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{chisqDistr.eps}
483: %\end{center}
484: \caption{The $\chi_{min}^{2}$ as functions of $\gamma$. The three
485: curves (from bottom to top) are:
486: Solid: Fit to $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ and $\pi^{+}K^-$ data only. Dashed: Fit to all
487: the $\pi\pi$, $\pi K$ modes, with $\hat{P}_{EW}$ free (Fit B). Dotted: Fit to all the
488: $\pi\pi$, $\pi K$ modes, with $\hat{P}_{EW}$ fixed by Eq.(\ref{Rew}) (Fit A). The shadowed
489: band indicates the allowed range from the global SM fit.
490: }
491: \label{chiSq-A}
492: \end{figure}
493: %
494:
495: %{\bf SU(3) symmetry breaking effects of strong phase}.
496: %
497: Note that in the above fit the $\pi \pi$ and $\pi K$ modes are related via the
498: SU(3) relations, while the symmetry breaking effects on the strong phases have
499: been neglected. As pointed out in ref. \cite{Zhou:2000hg} the
500: SU(3) breaking in strong phases may significantly change the correlation between
501: $a_{\tmop{CP}} ( \pi^+ \pi^- )$ and $a_{\tmop{CP}} ( \pi^+ K^- )$. Taking
502: $\Delta \delta_P$ as a free parameter in the fit, we find
503: \begin{align}\label{SF2}
504: |T| &= 0.53\pm 0.03, &|P|& = 0.09\pm 0.002
505: \nonumber \\
506: \delta_P &= - 0.67^{+ 0.24}_{- 0.45},
507: &\Delta \delta_p &= 0.21\pm0.4,
508: \nonumber \\
509: \gamma &= 1.06 \pm 0.2 &&
510: \end{align}
511: %we yield a more consistent fit
512: %\begin{eqnarray}
513: % & & |T| = 0.56^{+ 0.040}_{- 0.038}, |P| = 0.093^{+ 0.0023}_{- 0.0025},
514: % \delta_P = - 0.83^{+ 0.28}_{- 0.48}, \nonumber \\
515: % & & \Delta \delta_p = 0.43^{+ 0.47}_{-0.31}, \gamma = 1.08 \pm 0.21
516: %\end{eqnarray}
517: %Here $\chi^2_{min}$ dramatically drops down to $\chi^2_{\min}
518: %=$0.19, which manifests that a small value of $\Delta \delta_P$
519: %indeed improves considerably the goodness-of-fit.
520: with $\chi^2_{min}=4.7\times 10^{-7}$, which manifests that a small
521: value of $\Delta \delta_P$
522: further improves the goodness-of-fit.
523:
524:
525: %{\bf Large color-suppressed tree amplitude}.
526: When including the branching ratios of $Br(\pi^0\pi^0)=1.51\pm 0.28$ and
527: $Br(\pi^0\pi^-)=5.5\pm 0.6$ but ignoring $P_{\tmop{EW}}$ at the moment as both
528: modes are dominated by $T$ and $C$, only two new parameters $C$ and $\delta_C$
529: are involved. A fit to the four decay modes leads to the following results
530: \begin{eqnarray}\label{CFIT1}
531: & & |T| = 0.53^{+ 0.029}_{- 0.03}, |C| = 0.43\pm 0.05,
532: \delta_C = - 0.85^{+
533: 0.52}_{-0.28} \nonumber \\
534: & & |P| = 0.08^{+0.003}_{-0.005}, \delta_P = -0.48^{+ 0.09}_{- 0.11},
535: \gamma = 1.11^{+ 0.11}_{- 0.14}
536: \end{eqnarray}
537: which shows a large ratio of $|C / T| = 0.81$. In the QCD
538: factorization estimation this value is bound to be $|C / T| \le
539: 0.4$. The error of $\delta_C$ is significantly large. Note that
540: the values of $|T|$ and $|P|$ and $\gamma$ remain almost
541: unchanged, which indicates no explicit contradiction
542: between two sets of data $\pi^+ \pi^-, \pi^+ K^-$ and $\pi^0
543: \pi^0, \pi^0 \pi^-$, and the relatively large ratio $ |C / T|$ is
544: purely the results of the large $\pi^0\pi^0$ and $\pi^0\pi^-$
545: branching ratios.
546:
547: %{\bf Extraction of electroweak penguin amplitude $\hat{P}_{\tmop{EW}}$}.
548: We now include other $\pi K$ data to determine $\hat{P}_{EW}$ and its strong
549: phase. We use the experimental value of $Br(\pi^0 \bar{K}^{0})=11.5\pm 1.0$,
550: $Br(\pi^-\bar{K}^0)=24.1\pm 1.3$ and $Br(\pi^{0}K^-)=12.1\pm 0.8$. The
551: preliminary data of $a_{CP}(\pi^-\bar{K}^0)=0.02\pm 0.034$ and
552: $a_{CP}(\pi^{0}K^-)=0.04\pm 0.04$ are also considered. However, we do not
553: include the preliminary data of $a_{CP}(\pi^0\pi^0), a_{CP}(\pi^0\bar{K}^0)$ as
554: we would like to leave them to be pure predictions from the fits.
555: %as the current data are not yet conclusive
556: From the
557: isospin structure of the effective weak Hamiltonian in the SM and
558: the relations between the isospin amplitudes and the diagrammatic
559: amplitudes, i.e., $a^c_{2}= \hat{P}_{EW}$ and $a^u_{2}= T + C -
560: \hat{P}_{EW} $, one arrives at the following well-known
561: model-independent constraint \cite{EW}
562: \begin{eqnarray}
563: \frac{\hat{P}_{EW}}{T+C}\simeq - \frac{3 ( C_9 + C_{10} )}{2 (
564: C_1 + C_2 )}\simeq ( 1.25\pm 0.12 ) \times 10^{- 2}
565: \label{Rew}
566: \end{eqnarray}
567: with $C_i s$ being the Wilson coefficients evaluated at $m_b$.
568: %In the SU(3) symmetry, it holds for primed amplitudes or the isospin
569: %$3/2$ part of $\pi K$ modes as well.
570: This relation tightly constrains the magnitude and the phase of
571: $\hat{P}_{\tmop{EW}}$. However in the presence of new physics
572: beyond the SM, the ratio could be significantly modified.
573: %When applying it to $\pi K$ modes, special care should
574: %be taken of the SU(3) breaking effects.
575: In view of the recent puzzling experimental results, a careful analysis is
576: urgently needed to find out whether this relation is indeed favored by the data.
577:
578: % {\bf General global fitting}.
579: We now discuss several cases. First, consider a fit (Fit A) to the
580: $\pi\pi$, $\pi K$ data using Eq.(\ref{Rew}). The result is given
581: in the first column of Tab.\ref{charmlessFit}. Comparing with the
582: fit to $\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\pi^+ K^-$ in Eq.(\ref{simpleFit}), one
583: notices that the values of $\gamma$, $|T|$ and $|P|$ are almost
584: unchanged. $C$ and its strong phase become larger and the ratio
585: $|C/T|$ is enhanced to be close to $\sim 0.9$. Namely, the large
586: $\pi^0\pi^0$ branching ratio is actually not the full reason for a
587: large $C/T\approx \mathcal{O}(1)$. It is also required by the $\pi
588: K$ data. The $\chi_{min}^{2}/d.o.f$ is found to be 12.7/7 which is
589: much higher than the previous fits. The main inconsistency comes
590: from the branching ratio of $\pi^+ K^-$, $\pi^0 K^0$ and $\pi^-
591: \bar{K}^0$. The resulting best-fit values in this case are
592: $20.0\pm0.8$, $9.7\pm0.5$ and $22.3\pm0.7$ respectively.
593: %which are much lower than the current data.
594: %
595: %%% new note added
596: The inconsistencies can be characterized by two ratios
597: $R_n=Br(\pi^+K^-)/Br(\pi^0\bar{K}^0) \simeq 0.79$ and
598: $R=Br(\pi^+K^-)/Br(\pi^-\bar{K}^0) \simeq 0.76$, which should be very close to
599: 1.0 in the SM. The small value of $R_n$ may require corrections to $P_{EW}$ while
600: $R$ may be connected to large non-facotrizable effects \cite{Buras2}.
601: %%%%%
602: An important feature of this fit is that the predicted
603: direct CP violations $a_{CP}(\pi^{0}\pi^{0})\simeq 0.36$ and
604: $a_{CP}(\pi^0\bar{K}^0) \simeq -0.11$ are large and compatible with
605: $a_{CP}(\pi^{+}\pi^{-})$ and $a_{CP}(\pi^+\bar{K}^-)$. The
606: $\chi^2_{min}$ vs $\gamma$ is also given in Fig.\ref{chiSq-A}
607: which shows a good determination of $\gamma$.
608: %
609:
610: \begin{table}[htb]%label{}
611: \begin{center}
612: \begin{ruledtabular}
613: \begin{tabular}{lllll}
614: & FitA & FitB & FitC & FitD\\
615: \hline
616: $\gamma$ & $1.0^{+ 0.11}_{- 0.13}$ & $1.0^{+ 0.13}_{- 0.18}$ & $0.98^{+0.12}_{0.13}$ & $1.1^{+ 0.12}_{- 0.19}$\\
617: \hline
618: $|T|$ & $0.52 \pm 0.27$ & $0.52 \pm 0.03$ & $0.52 \pm 0.03$ & $1.13^{+ 0.36}_{- 0.32}$\\
619: \hline
620: $|C|$ & $0.47 \pm 0.04$ & $0.45 \pm 0.05$ & $0.45\pm 0.05$ & $0.32^{+0.35}_{-0.22}$\\
621: \hline
622: $\delta_C$ & $-1.1^{+ 0.19}_{- 0.17}$ & $-0.88^{+ 0.3}_{- 0.2}$ & $-1.87^{+0.3}_{-0.25}$ & $-2.7^{+1.29}_{-0.3}$\\
623: \hline
624: $|P|$ & $0.094 \pm 0.001$ & $0.093 \pm 0.002$ & $0.09 \pm 0.002$ & $0.74\pm 0.3$\\
625: \hline
626: $\delta_P$ & $-0.49^{+ 0.09}_{- 0.10}$ & $-0.53^{+ 0.10}_{- 0.14}$ & $-0.76 \pm 0.17$ & -$0.2^{+ 0.05}_{- 0.14}$\\
627: \hline
628: $|\hat{P}_{\tmop{EW}} |$ & $-$ & $0.03 \pm 0.01$ & $0.03 \pm 0.01$ & $0.024\pm 0.01$\\
629: \hline
630: $\delta_{P_{\tmop{EW}}}$ & $-$ & $0.67^{+ 0.2}_{- 0.3}$ & $0.67^{+0.2}_{-0.4}$ & $1.13^{+0.19}_{-0.39}$\\
631: \hline
632: $|P_D|$ & $0$(fix) & $0$(fix) & $0$(fix) & $0.11\pm 0.02$\\
633: \hline
634: $\delta_{P_D}$ & $0$(fix) & $0$(fix) & $0$(fix) & $- 0.21^{+ 0.09}_{-0.14}$\\
635: \hline
636: $\Delta \delta_P$ & $0$(fix) & $0$(fix) & $0.2^{+ 0.1}_{- 0.17}$ & $0$(fix)\\
637: \hline
638: $\chi^2/\mbox{dof}$ & $12.7/7$ & $9.1/5$ & 7.9/4 & 5.4/3\\
639: \hline
640: \hline
641: $a_{\pi^0 \pi^0}$ & $0.36 \pm 0.11$ & $0.05 \pm 0.22$ & -$0.06 \pm 0.2$ & $0.07 \pm 0.39$\\
642: \hline
643: $a_{\pi^0 \bar{K}^0}$ & -$0.10 \pm 0.004$ & -$0.01\pm 0.05$ & -$0.02 \pm 0.05$ & -$0.01 \pm 0.11$\\
644: \hline
645: \hline
646: $B_{\pi^0 \pi^0}$ & $1.7 \pm 0.3$ & $1.56 \pm 0.4$ & $1.53 \pm 0.4$ & $1.7\pm0.5$\\
647: \hline
648: $B_{\pi^0 \bar{K}^0}$ & $9.7 \pm 0.48$ & $11.1 \pm 1.8$ & $11.1 \pm 2.1$ & $11.3\pm2.3$\\
649: \hline
650: $B_{\pi^0 K^-}$ & $11.7 \pm 0.6$ & $11.9 \pm 2.2$ & $11.8 \pm 2.4$ & $11.9\pm2.5$\\
651: \hline
652: $a_{\pi^+ \pi^-}$ & $0.27 \pm 0.06$ & $0.30 \pm 0.08$ & $0.37 \pm 0.06 $ & $0.34\pm0.27$\\
653: \hline
654: $a_{\pi^+ K^- }$ & $-0.1 \pm 0.02$ & $-0.11 \pm 0.02$ & $-0.1 \pm 0.03$ & -$0.1\pm 0.06$\\
655: % \hline
656: \end{tabular}
657: \end{ruledtabular}
658: \end{center}
659: \caption{Best fitted parameters and predictions from charmless
660: $B$ decay data in four different cases.
661: Details are explained in the text.}
662: \label{charmlessFit}
663: \end{table}
664: %
665: Second, considering a fit (Fit B) with freeing the parameter
666: $\hat{P}_{\tmop{EW}}$ and its strong phase. The results are
667: tabulated in the second column of table \ref{charmlessFit}, which
668: show roughly the same values of $\gamma$, $|T|$, $|P|$ and $|C|$,
669: but the value of $|P_{\tmop{EW}}|\simeq 0.03$ leads to
670: %
671: \begin{equation}
672: \frac{|\hat{P}_{\tmop{EW}}|}{ |T+C|} \simeq (3.1\pm 1.3)\times 10^{-2}
673: \end{equation}
674: %
675: which is twice as large as in Eq.(\ref{Rew}).
676: %In this case,
677: %a much smaller $\chi_{\min}^2 =2.9$ indicates an improved
678: %consistency. Consequently,
679: The data of $\tmop{Br} ( \pi^0 \bar{K}^0 )$ and the ratio $R_n$
680: are perfectly reproduced. This result agrees with the observation
681: in Refs.\cite{Buras} with a statement that a large electro-weak
682: penguin can consistently explain the $\pi K$ data. Clearly, the
683: large value $\hat{P}_{EW}$ is driven by the observed large
684: branching ratio of $\pi^{0} \bar{K}^{0}$ mode. All the previous
685: fits with small $\hat{P}_{EW}$ failed to meet this date
686: point\cite{Rosner,Hocker}. Note that in the case of large
687: $\hat{P}_{EW}$, the predicted CP violations of $\pi^{0}\pi^{0}$
688: and $\pi^{0}\bar{K}^0$ are found to be small. The predicted
689: central values are only $0.06$ and $-0.02$ respectively though the
690: errors are big(see Tab.\ref{charmlessFit}). Therefore it provides
691: a possibility to distinguish the electro-weak penguin effects in
692: the near future with more accurate measurements.
693: %To see how
694: %
695: In the third column (Fit C) of Tab.\ref{charmlessFit}, we
696: consider the effects of $\tmop{SU} ( 3 )$ breaking in the strong
697: phases. The best fit gives $\Delta \delta_P = 0.2$ in accordance
698: with Eq.(\ref{SF2}).
699: %which
700: %coincides with the one obtained from the $\pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\pi^+
701: %K^-$ modes only.
702: In this case,
703: %all the experimental data are perfectly reproduced and the
704: value of $\hat{P}_{EW}$ remains the same as in Fit.B.
705: %But a smaller $\gamma$ is favored.
706: The predictions give $a_{CP}(\pi^0\pi^0)=-0.06$ and
707: $a_{CP}(\pi^0\bar{K}^0)=-0.1$ respectively.
708: %
709:
710: %
711: %{\bf Inelastic rescattering effects}.
712: The inclusion of all the
713: $\pi \pi$ and $\pi K$ modes allows one to investigate the possible
714: large inelastic rescattering effect due to the process of $B
715: \rightarrow D D_{( s )} \rightarrow \pi \pi ( \pi K )$. It is
716: well known that $B \rightarrow D D$ have a large branching ratio
717: about 50 times greater than that of $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$, which
718: amplifies the successive small effects of re-scattering $D D_{( s
719: )} \rightarrow \pi \pi ( \pi K )$.
720: %This effect was discussed
721: %recently in Refs. \cite{DD} in model dependent and
722: %independent ways.
723: %
724: Considering the fact that $B \rightarrow D D_{( s )}$ only
725: contributes to the isospin $0 ( 1 / 2 )$ $\pi\pi(\pi K)$ final
726: sates and carries only the CKM factor $\lambda^{(s)}_c$,
727: its contribution can be parameterized by only one complex quantity
728: denoted by $D(D')$ and effectively it can be considered by
729: replacing $P^{(')}$ by $P^{(')}_D = P^{(')} + D^{(')}$.
730: In the fourth column (Fit D) of Tab.\ref{charmlessFit}, the
731: parameters of $|P_{D}|$ and $\delta_{P_{D}}$ motivated by the inelastic
732: rescattering from $B \rightarrow D D_{( s )}$ are added
733: %
734: which makes $P$ and $P_{D}$ two independent parameters. The results show that
735: $P_{D}$ is compatible with the QCD penguins obtained from the previous fits of
736: A,B,C while $P$ becomes larger. This large difference between $P$ and $P_{D}$
737: indicates a large effect of inelastic rescattering and may also imply new
738: physics in strong penguin sector. In this fit, the ratio of $|C/T|$ is reduced
739: to $0.37$. The ratio of $\hat{P}_{EW}/(T+C)$ remains large and the two predicted CP
740: violations are again small.
741:
742:
743: In conclusion, the current data enable us to make a very encouraging global
744: fitting for testing the standard model and probing new physics.
745: %It will be very
746: %helpful and crucial if the Belle and BaBar collaborations can arrive at more
747: %accurate measurements on both branching ratios and direct CP violations in $B\to
748: %\pi^0\pi^0$ and $\pi^0 \bar{K}^0$ decays.
749: It will be very crucial to arrive at more accurate measurements on
750: both branching ratios and direct CP violations in $B\to
751: \pi^0\pi^0$ and $\pi^0 \bar{K}^0$. The current preliminary data
752: give $a_{CP}(\pi^0\pi^0)=0.28\pm0.39$ and $a_{CP}(\pi^0
753: \bar{K}^0)=-0.09\pm0.14$\cite{newData}. Due to the large errors,
754: including them will not change the conclusion. Numerically, we
755: find that the results in Eq.(\ref{CFIT1}) are unchanged. The
756: ratio $|\hat{P}_{EW}/(T+C)|$ remains large and is found to be
757: $0.024\pm0.01$, $0.034\pm0.01$ and $0.033\pm0.04$ for FitB,C and D
758: respectively in Tab.\ref{charmlessFit}.
759: %
760: It is very likely that we are standing
761: at the corner of finding new physics with two B-factories.
762:
763: acknowledgments: YLW is supported in part by the key project of
764: NSFC and Chinese Academy of Sciences.
765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% reference %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
766:
767: \begin{thebibliography}{50}
768:
769:
770: \bibitem{newData}
771: K.Abe. ~et.al (Belle) Phys.Rev.{\bf D}012001(2003).
772: B.Aubert, ~et.al(Babar), hep-ex/0407057.
773: Z.Ligeti, ~talk at ICHEP04,Beijing,Auguest 16-22(2004),hep-ph/0408267.
774: M. Giorgi, ~talk at ICHEP04, hep-ex/0408113,
775: Y. Sakai,~talk at ICHEP04, hep-ex/0410006.
776: \bibitem{Wu:2000ki}
777: Y.~L.~Wu,
778: %``A new prediction for direct CP violation epsilon'/epsilon and Delta(I) = 1/2
779: %rule,''
780: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 016001 (2001)
781: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0012371].
782: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012371;%%
783:
784: \bibitem{HFaverage}
785: For a summary, see: Heavy Flavor Averaging Group,
786: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/rare
787:
788: \bibitem{S2HDM}
789: Y.L. Wu and L. Wolfenstein, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 73} 1762 (1994);
790: %L. Wolfenstein and Y. L. Wu,
791: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 73} 2809 (1994);
792: Y.L. Wu and Y.F. Zhou, Phys.Rev. {\bf D61} 096001 (2000).
793:
794: \bibitem{SW} J. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, Phys.Rev. {\bf D49} 1151
795: (1994)
796:
797: \bibitem{Buras}
798: A.~J.~Buras {\it et al.},
799: %``B $\to$ pi pi, new physics in B $\to$ pi K and implications for rare K and B
800: %decays,''
801: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 101804 (2004).
802: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312259;%%
803: hep-ph/0402112.
804: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402112;%%
805: T.~Yoshikawa,
806: %``A possibility of large electro-weak penguin contribution in B $\to$ K pi
807: %modes,''
808: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 054023 (2003)
809: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0306147].
810: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306147;%%
811: D.~Atwood and G.~Hiller,
812: %``Implications of non-standard CP violation in hadronic B decays,''
813: hep-ph/0307251.
814: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307251;%%
815: S.~Mishima and T.~Yoshikawa,
816: %``Large electroweak penguin contribution in B $\to$ K pi and pi pi decay
817: %modes,''
818: hep-ph/0408090.
819: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408090;%%
820: S.~Nandi and A.~Kundu,
821: %``Large electroweak penguins in B $\to$ pi pi and B $\to$ pi K: Implication
822: %for new physics,''
823: hep-ph/0407061.
824: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407061;%%
825: D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys. Rev.{\bf D58}, 036005 (1998).
826:
827: \bibitem{Rosner}
828: C.~W.~Chiang {\it et al.},
829: %``Charmless B $\to$ P P decays using flavor SU(3) symmetry,''
830: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 034020 (2004).
831: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0404073].
832: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404073;%%
833: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 034001 (2004).
834: %
835: %
836:
837: \bibitem{Hocker}
838: J.~Charles {\it et al.}, %[CKMfitter Group Collaboration],
839: %``CP violation and the CKM matrix: Assessing the impact of the asymmetric B
840: %factories,''
841: arXiv:hep-ph/0406184.
842: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406184;%%
843:
844: \bibitem{Zhou:2000hg}
845: Y.~L.~Wu and Y.~F.~Zhou,
846: %``Weak phase gamma and strong phase delta from CP averaged B $\to$ pi pi and
847: %pi K decays,''
848: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 036007 (2000).
849: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0002227].
850: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002227;%%
851: %
852: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ dirC {\bf 5}, 014 (2003).
853: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210367;%%
854: %
855: Y.~F.~Zhou, et.al,%Y.~L.~Wu, J.~N.~Ng and C.~Q.~Geng,
856: %``The interplay of weak and strong phases and direct CP violation in charmless
857: %B meson decays,''
858: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 054011 (2001).
859: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0006225].
860: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006225;%%
861: %
862:
863: \bibitem{EW}
864: M. Gronau, et.al, %Dan Pirjol, Tung-Mow Yan,.
865: Phys.Rev.D60:034021(1999).
866: %
867: Y.Grossman, M.Neubert and A.L.Kagan, JHEP 9910:029(1999)
868:
869: \bibitem{He}
870: X.~G.~He, et.al, %Y.~K.~Hsiao, J.~Q.~Shi, Y.~L.~Wu and Y.~F.~Zhou,
871: %``The CP violating phase gamma from global fit of rare charmless hadronic B
872: %decays,''
873: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 034002 (2001)
874: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0011337].
875: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011337;%%
876:
877: \bibitem{QCDFacFit}
878: M.~Beneke and M.~Neubert,
879: %``QCD factorization for B $\to$ P P and B $\to$ P V decays,''
880: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 675}, 333 (2003)
881: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0308039].
882: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308039;%%
883: %
884: D.~s.~Du, et.al, %J.~f.~Sun, D.~s.~Yang and G.~h.~Zhu,
885: %``Charmless two-body B decays: A global analysis with QCD factorization,''
886: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 014023 (2003)
887: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0209233].
888: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209233;%%
889: %
890: R.~Aleksan, et.al,%P.~F.~Giraud, V.~Morenas, O.~Pene and A.~S.~Safir,
891: %``Testing QCD factorisation and charming penguins in charmless B $\to$ P V.
892: %((U)),''
893: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 094019 (2003).
894: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0301165].
895: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301165;%%
896: G.~Buchalla and A.~S.~Safir,
897: %``Model independent bound on the unitarity triangle from CP violation in B
898: %$\to$ pi+ pi- and B $\to$ psi K(S),''
899: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 021801 (2004).
900:
901: \bibitem{pQCD}
902: Y.~Y.~Keum, H.~n.~Li and A.~I.~Sanda,
903: %``Fat penguins and imaginary penguins in perturbative QCD,''
904: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 504}, 6 (2001)
905: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0004004].
906: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004004;%%
907: %
908: %Y.~Y.~Keum, H.~N.~Li and A.~I.~Sanda,
909: %``Penguin enhancement and B $\to$ K pi decays in perturbative QCD,''
910: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 054008 (2001)
911: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0004173].
912: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004173;%%
913:
914: \bibitem{SCET} C.W. Bauer et. al., hep-ph/0401188.
915:
916: \bibitem{Buras2}
917: A.~J.~Buras {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0410407.
918:
919: %\bibitem{DD}
920: %see, e.g.
921: %A.~N.~Kamal and C.~W.~Luo,
922: %%``Inelastic final-state interactions and two-body hadronic B decays into
923: %%single-isospin channels,''
924: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 4275 (1998).
925: %%[arXiv:hep-ph/9710275].
926: %%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710275;%%
927: %S.~Barshay, G.~Kreyerhoff and L.~M.~Sehgal,
928: %%``Direct CP violation in B-+ $\to$ pi-+ omega, pi-+ rho0, pi0 rho-+, and in
929: %%anti-B0 (B0) $\to$ pi-+ rho+- with an enhanced branching ratio for pi0 rho0,''
930: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 595}, 318 (2004).
931: %%[arXiv:hep-ph/0405012].
932: %%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405012;%%
933: \end{thebibliography}
934:
935:
936:
937:
938: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
939: \end{document}
940:
941: )
942: )
943: )
944: