1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % version as of 8/24/2005
3: % 2 figures and 17 pages
4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5:
6: \documentclass[aps,eqsecnum,preprint,floats,epsf,epsfig,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
7: \textwidth 6.5in \textheight 9.0in
8: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
9: \usepackage{epsfig}
10:
11:
12: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.10}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15: \def\be{\begin{eqnarray}}
16: \def\en{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \def\non{\nonumber}
18: \def\la{\langle}
19: \def\ra{\rangle}
20: \def\pp{{\prime\prime}}
21: \def\nc{N_c^{\rm eff}}
22: \def\vp{\varepsilon}
23: \def\hep{\hat{\varepsilon}}
24: \def\drho{\bar\rho}
25: \def\deta{\bar\eta}
26: \def\a{{\cal A}}
27: \def\B{{\cal B}}
28: \def\c{{\cal C}}
29: \def\d{{\cal D}}
30: \def\e{{\cal E}}
31: \def\p{{\cal P}}
32: \def\t{{\cal T}}
33: \def\B{{\cal B}}
34: \def\L{{\cal L}}
35: \def\P{{\cal P}}
36: \def\S{{\cal S}}
37: \def\T{{\cal T}}
38: \def\C{{\cal C}}
39: \def\A{{\cal A}}
40: \def\E{{\cal E}}
41: \def\V{{\cal V}}
42: \def\CP{{\it CP}~}
43: \def\CPP{{\it CP}}
44: \def\up{\uparrow}
45: \def\dw{\downarrow}
46: \def\vma{{_{V-A}}}
47: \def\vpa{{_{V+A}}}
48: \def\smp{{_{S-P}}}
49: \def\spp{{_{S+P}}}
50: \def\lrpartial{\buildrel\leftrightarrow\over\partial}
51: \def\J{{J/\psi}}
52: \def\3bar{{\bf \bar 3}}
53: \def\6bar{{\bf \bar 6}}
54: \def\10bar{{\bf \ov{10}}}
55: \def\ov{\overline}
56: \def\Lqcd{{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}}
57: \def\pr{{Phys. Rev.}~}
58: \def\prl{{ Phys. Rev. Lett.}~}
59: \def\pl{{ Phys. Lett.}~}
60: \def\np{{ Nucl. Phys.}~}
61: \def\zp{{ Z. Phys.}~}
62: \def\lsim{ {\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\rlap{$<$}\lower5pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}
63: }}}\ } }
64: \def\gsim{ {\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\rlap{$>$}\lower5pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}
65: }}}\ } }
66:
67: \font\el=cmbx10 scaled \magstep2{\obeylines\hfill BNL-HET-05/16}
68:
69: \font\el=cmbx10 scaled \magstep2{\obeylines\hfill September, 2005}
70:
71:
72: \vskip 1.5 cm
73:
74: \centerline{\large\bf $CP$-violating asymmetries in $B^0$ decays
75: to $K^+ K^- K_{S(L)}^0$ and $K_S^0 K_S^0 K_{S(L)}^0$}
76: % \centerline{\large\bf in
77: %Penguin-dominated $B$ Decays }
78: \bigskip
79: \centerline{\bf Hai-Yang Cheng,$^1$ Chun-Khiang Chua$^1$ and
80: Amarjit Soni$^2$}
81: \medskip
82: \centerline{$^1$ Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica}
83: \centerline{Taipei, Taiwan 115, Republic of China}
84: \medskip
85:
86: \medskip
87: \centerline{$^2$ Physics Department, Brookhaven National
88: Laboratory} \centerline{Upton, New York 11973}
89: \medskip
90:
91: \bigskip
92: \bigskip
93: \centerline{\bf Abstract}
94: \bigskip
95: \small
96:
97: Decay rates and time-dependent and direct \CP asymmetries in the
98: decays $B^0\to K^+K^-K_{S(L)}$ and $K_S K_S K_{S(L)}$ are studied.
99: Resonant and nonresonant contributions to the three-body decays
100: are carefully investigated. Nonresonant effects on 2-body and
101: 3-body matrix elements are constrained by QCD counting rules. The
102: predicted branching ratios are consistent with the data within the
103: theoretical and experimental errors, though the theoretical
104: central values are somewhat smaller than the experimental ones.
105: Owing to the presence of {\it color-allowed} tree amplitudes in
106: $B^0\to K^+K^-K_{S(L)}$, this penguin-dominated mode may be
107: subject to a potentially significant tree pollution and the
108: deviation of the mixing-induced \CP asymmetry from that measured
109: in $B\to J/\psi K_S$, namely, $\Delta \sin
110: 2\beta_{K^+K^-K_{S(L)}}\equiv \sin 2\beta_{K^+K^-K_{S(L)}}-\sin 2
111: \beta_{J/\psi K_S}$, can be as large as ${\cal O}(0.10)$. In
112: contrast, the $K_SK_SK_{S(L)}$ modes appear theoretically very
113: clean in our picture with negligible theoretical errors in
114: $\Delta\sin 2\beta_{K_SK_SK_{S(L)}}$. Direct \CP asymmetries in
115: $K^+K^-K_{S(L)}$ and $K_S K_S K_{S(L)}$ modes are found to be very
116: small.
117: %, rendering these viable {\it null} tests.
118:
119:
120: \eject
121:
122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
123: \section{Introduction}
124: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
125:
126: Considerable activity in search of possible New Physics beyond the
127: Standard Model has recently been devoted to the measurements of
128: time-dependent \CP asymmetries in neutral $B$ meson decays into
129: final \CP eigenstates defined by
130: \be
131: {\Gamma(\ov B(t)\to f)-\Gamma(B(t)\to f)\over
132: \Gamma(\ov B(t)\to f)+\Gamma(B(t)\to
133: f)}=\S_f\sin(\Delta mt)+\A_f\cos(\Delta mt),
134: \en
135: where $\Delta m$ is the mass difference of the two neutral $B$
136: eigenstates, $S_f$ monitors mixing-induced \CP asymmetry and
137: $\A_f$ measures direct \CP violation (in the BaBar notation,
138: $\C_f=-\A_f$). The time-dependent {\it CP} asymmetries in the
139: $b\to sq\bar q$ penguin-induced two-body decays such as $B^0\to
140: (\phi,\omega,\pi^0,\eta',f_0)K_S$ measured by BaBar
141: \cite{BaBarSf1,BaBarSf2} and Belle
142: \cite{BelleSf1,BelleSf2,BelleSf3} show some indications of sizable
143: deviations from the expectation of the SM where \CP asymmetry in
144: all above-mentioned modes should be equal to $S_{J/\psi
145: K_S}=0.687\pm0.032$ \cite{HFAG} with a small deviation {\it at
146: most} ${\cal O}(0.1)$ \cite{LS,Browder}. Based on the framework of
147: QCD factorization \cite{BBNS}, the mixing-induced \CP violation
148: parameter $S_f$ in the seven 2-body modes
149: $(\phi,\omega,\rho^0,\eta',\eta,\pi^0,f_0)K_S$ has recently been
150: quantitatively studied in \cite{CCSsin2beta} and
151: \cite{Buchalla,Beneke}. It is found that the sign of $\Delta
152: S_f\equiv -\eta_fS_f-S_{J/\psi K_S}$ ($\eta_f$ being the \CP
153: eigenvalue of the final state $f$) at short distances is positive
154: except for the channel $\rho^0K_S$. After including final-state
155: rescattering effects, the central values of $\Delta S_f$ become
156: positive for all the modes under consideration, but they tend to
157: be rather small compared to the theoretical uncertainties involved
158: so that it is difficult to make reliable statements on the sign at
159: present \cite{CCSsin2beta}.
160:
161: Time-dependent {\it CP} asymmetries in the $b\to sq\bar q$ induced
162: three-body decays $B^0\to K^+K^-K_S$ and $K_SK_SK_S$ have also
163: been measured by $B$ factories
164: \cite{BaBarSf2,BaBarKKK,BaBarKKKL,BaBar3Ks,BelleSf2,BelleSf3,BelleKKK}
165: (see
166: Table \ref{tab:Data}). Three-body modes such as these were first
167: discussed by Gershon and Hazumi \cite{Gershon}. While $K_SK_SK_S$
168: has fixed $CP$-parity, $K^+K^-K_S$ is an admixture of $CP$-even
169: and $CP$-odd components, rendering its \CP analysis more
170: complicated. By excluding the major $CP$-odd contribution from
171: $\phi K_S$, the 3-body $K^+K^-K_S$ final state is primarily
172: $CP$-even. A measurement of the \CPP-even fraction $f_+$ in the
173: $B^0\to K^+K^-K_S$ decay yields $f_+=0.89\pm0.08\pm0.06$ by BaBar
174: \cite{BaBarSf2} and $0.93\pm0.09\pm0.05$ by Belle \cite{BelleSf3},
175: while the \CPP-odd fraction in $K^+K^-K_L$ is measured to be
176: $f_-=0.92\pm0.33^{+0.13}_{-0.14}\pm0.10$ by BaBar
177: \cite{BaBarKKKL}. Hence, while $\eta_f=1$ for the $K_SK_SK_S$
178: mode, $\eta_f=2f_+-1$ for $K^+K^-K_S$ and $\eta_f=-(2f_--1)$ for
179: $K^+K^-K_L$. It is convenient to define an effective $\sin 2\beta$
180: via $S_f\equiv -\eta_f\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}$. The results of $\sin
181: 2\beta_{\rm eff}$ for $K^+K^-K_S$ obtained from the measurements
182: of $S_{K^+K^-K_S}$ and $f_+$ are also shown in Table
183: \ref{tab:Data}.
184:
185: \begin{table}[t]
186: \caption{Mixing-induced \CP asymmetries $-S_f$ (top), direct \CP
187: violation $\A_f$ (middle) and branching ratios (in units of
188: $10^{-6}$, bottom) for $\ov B^0\to K^+K^-K_S$ and $K_SK_SK_S$
189: decays. For effective $\sin 2\beta$ for $K^+K^-K_S$, the third
190: error is due to the uncertainty in the fraction of \CPP-even
191: contributions to the decay rate. Experimental results are taken
192: from
193: \cite{BaBarSf2,BaBarKKK,BaBarKKKL,BaBar3Ks,BelleSf2,BelleSf3,BelleKKK}.
194: } \label{tab:Data}
195: \begin{ruledtabular}
196: \begin{tabular}{c r r r}
197: Final State & BaBar & Belle & Average \\
198: \hline
199: $K^+K^-K_S$\footnotemark[1] & $0.42\pm0.17\pm0.03$ &
200: $0.52\pm0.16\pm0.03$ & $0.47\pm0.12$ \\
201: $(\sin2\beta_{\rm eff})_{K^+K^-K_S}$ & $0.55\pm0.22\pm0.04\pm0.11$
202: & $0.60\pm0.18\pm0.04^{+0.19}_{-0.12}$ &
203: $0.57^{+0.18}_{-0.17}$ \\
204: $K^+K^-K_L$\footnotemark[2] & $0.07\pm0.28^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$ & & $0.07\pm0.30$ \\
205: $(\sin2\beta_{\rm eff})_{K^+K^-K_L}$ &
206: $0.09\pm0.33^{+0.13}_{-0.14}\pm0.10$ & & $0.09\pm0.37$ \\
207: $K_SK_SK_S$ & $0.63^{+0.28}_{-0.32}\pm0.04$ &
208: $0.58\pm0.36\pm0.08$ & $0.61\pm0.23$ \\
209: \hline
210: $K^+K^-K_S$\footnotemark[1] & $-0.10\pm0.14\pm0.04$ & $-0.06\pm0.11\pm0.07$ &
211: $-0.08\pm0.10$ \\
212: $K^+K^-K_L$\footnotemark[2] & $-0.54\pm0.22^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & &
213: $-0.54\pm0.24$ \\
214: $K_SK_SK_S$ & $0.10\pm0.25\pm0.05$ &
215: $0.50\pm0.23\pm0.06$ & $0.31\pm0.17$ \\
216: \hline
217: $K^+K^-K_{S}$ & $11.9\pm1.0\pm0.8$ & $14.2\pm1.7\pm2.0$ &
218: $12.4\pm1.2$ \\
219: $K_SK_SK_S$ & $6.9^{+0.9}_{-0.8}\pm0.6$ &
220: $4.2^{+1.6}_{-1.3}\pm0.8$ & $6.2\pm1.2$~\footnotemark[3] \\
221: \end{tabular}
222: \end{ruledtabular}
223: \footnotetext[1]{with $\phi(1020)K_S$ excluded.}
224: \footnotetext[2]{with $\phi(1020)K_L$ excluded.}
225: \footnotetext[3]{with the error enlarged by a factor of $S=1.4$.}
226: \end{table}
227:
228: In order to see if the current measurements of the deviation of
229: $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}$ in $KKK$ modes from $\sin 2 \beta_{J/\psi
230: K_S}$ signal New Physics in $b\to s$ penguin-induced modes, it is
231: of great importance to examine and estimate how much of the
232: deviation of $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}$ is allowed in the SM. One of
233: the major uncertainties in the dynamic calculations lies in the
234: hadronic matrix elements which are nonperturbative in nature. One
235: way to circumvent this difficulty is to impose SU(3) flavor
236: symmetry \cite{Grossman03,Engelhard} or isospin and U-spin
237: symmetries \cite{Gronau} to constrain the relevant hadronic matrix
238: elements. While this approach is model independent in the symmetry
239: limit, deviations from that limit can only be computed in a model
240: dependent fashion. In addition, it may have some weakness as
241: discussed in \cite{Engelhard}.
242:
243:
244: We shall apply the factorization approach in this work as it seems
245: to work even in the case of three-body $B$ decays~\cite{DKK}. By
246: using factorization and kaon time-like form factors extracted from
247: the $e^+e^-\to K\ov K$ process, the predicted $\ov B {}^0\to
248: D^{(*)+}K^- K^0$ rate agrees well with the data~\cite{DKK}. In
249: general, three-body $B$ decays are more complicated than the
250: two-body case as they receive resonant and nonresonant
251: contributions and involve 3-body matrix elements. Nonresonant
252: charmless three-body $B$ decays have been studied extensively
253: \cite{Deshpande,Fajfer1,Fajfer2,Deandrea1,Deandrea,Fajfer3} based
254: on heavy meson chiral perturbation theory (HMChPT)
255: \cite{Yan,Wise,Burdman}. However, the predicted decay rates are in
256: general unexpectedly large. For example, the branching ratio of
257: the nonresonant decay $B^-\to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^-$ is predicted to be
258: of order $10^{-5}$ in \cite{Deshpande} and \cite{Fajfer1}, which
259: is too large compared to the BaBar's preliminary result
260: $(0.68\pm0.41)\times 10^{-6}$ \cite{BaBar3pi}. The issue has to do
261: with the applicability of HMChPT. In order to apply this approach,
262: two of the final-state pseudoscalars have to be soft. The momentum
263: of the soft pseudoscalar should be smaller than the chiral
264: symmetry breaking scale $\Lambda_\chi\sim 830$ MeV. For 3-body
265: charmless $B$ decays, the available phase space where chiral
266: perturbation theory is applicable is only a small fraction of the
267: whole Dalitz plot. Therefore, it is not justified to apply chiral
268: and heavy quark symmetries to a certain kinematic region and then
269: generalize it to the region beyond its validity. In order to have
270: a reliable prediction for the total rate of direct 3-body decays,
271: one should try to utilize chiral symmetry to a minimum. Therefore,
272: we will apply HMChPT only to the strong vertex and use the form
273: factors to describe the weak vertex \cite{Cheng:2002qu}. Moreover,
274: we shall introduce a form factor to take care of the off-shell
275: effect.
276:
277: As shown in \cite{CCSsin2beta}, among the aforementioned seven
278: neutral $PK_S$ modes, only the $\omega K_S$ and $\rho^0 K_S$ modes
279: are expected to have a sizable deviation of the mixing-induced \CP
280: asymmetry $S_f$ from $S_{J/\psi K_S}$. More precisely, it is found
281: $\Delta S_{\omega K_S}=0.12^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ and $\Delta
282: S_{\rho^0K_S}=-0.09^{+0.03}_{-0.07}$ \footnote{Note that since
283: $K^+K^-K_S$ is not a pure \CP eigenstate, we define $\Delta \sin
284: 2\beta_{\rm eff}\equiv \sin 2 \beta_{\rm eff}-\sin 2\beta_{J/\psi
285: K}$ with $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}=-S_f/\eta_f$. In general, the
286: relation $\Delta S_f=\Delta \sin 2\beta_f^{\rm eff}$ holds for the
287: final state with fixed \CP parity.}
288: %
289: in the absence of final-state interactions \cite{CCSsin2beta}.
290: Although the tree contribution in these two modes is color
291: suppressed, the large cancellation between $a_4$ and $a_6$ penguin
292: terms renders the tree pollution relatively significant. Unlike
293: the above-mentioned case for two-body decays, the tree
294: contribution to the 3-body decay $B^0\to K^+K^-K_S$ is {\it
295: color-allowed} and hence it has the potential for producing a
296: large deviation from $\sin 2\beta$ measured in $B\to J/\psi K_S$.
297: We shall see in this work that it is indeed the case. In contrast,
298: the absence of tree pollution in $K_SK_SK_S$ renders it
299: theoretically very clean in our picture.
300:
301:
302:
303: The layout of the present paper is as follows. In Sec. II we apply
304: the factorization approach to study $B^0\to K^+K^-K_S$ and
305: $K_SK_SK_S$ decays and discuss resonant and nonresonant
306: contributions in Sec. II. Numerical results for decay rates and
307: \CPP-violating parameters $S_f$ and $A_f$ and discussions are
308: presented in Sec. III. Sec. IV contains our conclusions.
309:
310: \section{Formalism for charmless 3-body $B$ decays}
311:
312: In the factorization approach, the matrix element of the $\ov
313: B\to\ov K\,\ov K K$ decay amplitude is given by
314: \be \label{eq:factamp}
315: \la \overline K\, \overline K K|{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|\ov B\ra
316: =\frac{G_F}{\sqrt2}\sum_{p=u,c}\lambda_p \la\overline K\, \overline K K|T_p|\ov B\ra,
317: \en
318: where $\lambda_p\equiv V_{pb} V^*_{ps}$ and \cite{BBNS}
319: \be \label{eq:Tp}
320: T_p&=&
321: a_1 \delta_{pu} (\bar u b)_{V-A}\otimes(\bar s u)_{V-A}
322: +a_2 \delta_{pu} (\bar s b)_{V-A}\otimes(\bar u u)_{V-A}
323: +a_3(\bar s b)_{V-A}\otimes\sum_q(\bar q q)_{V-A}
324: \non\\
325: &&+a^p_4\sum_q(\bar q b)_{V-A}\otimes(\bar s q)_{V-A}
326: +a_5(\bar s b)_{V-A}\otimes\sum_q(\bar q q)_{V+A}
327: \non\\
328: &&-2 a^p_6\sum_q(\bar q b)_{S-P}\otimes(\bar s q)_{S+P}
329: +a_7(\bar s b)_{V-A}\otimes\sum_q\frac{3}{2} e_q (\bar q q)_{V+A}
330: \non\\
331: &&-2a^p_8\sum_q(\bar q b)_{S-P}\otimes\frac{3}{2} e_q
332: (\bar s q)_{S+P}
333: +a_9(\bar s b)_{V-A}\otimes\sum_q\frac{3}{2}e_q (\bar q q)_{V-A}\non\\
334: &&+a^p_{10}\sum_q(\bar q b)_{V-A}\otimes\frac{3}{2}e_q(\bar s
335: q)_{V-A},
336: \en
337: with $(\bar q q')_{V\pm A}\equiv \bar q\gamma_\mu(1\pm\gamma_5)
338: q'$, $(\bar q q')_{S\pm P}\equiv\bar q(1\pm\gamma_5) q'$ and a
339: summation over $q=u,d,s$ being implied. The matrix element
340: $\la\overline K\, \overline K K|j\otimes j'|\ov B\ra$ corresponds
341: to $\la\overline K K|j|\ov B\ra\la\overline K|j'|0\ra$,
342: $\la\overline K|j|\ov B\ra \la\overline K K|j'|0\ra$ or
343: $\la0|j|\ov B\ra\la\overline K\, \overline K K|j'|0\ra$, as
344: appropriate, and $a_i$ are the NLO effective Wilson coefficients.
345: In this work, we take
346: \be
347: && a_1\approx0.99\pm0.37 i,\quad a_2\approx 0.19-0.11i, \quad a_3\approx -0.002+0.004i, \quad a_5\approx
348: 0.0054-0.005i, \non \\
349: && a_4^u\approx -0.03-0.02i, \quad a_4^c\approx
350: -0.04-0.008i,\quad
351: a_6^u\approx -0.06-0.02i, \quad a_6^c\approx -0.06-0.006i,
352: \non\\
353: &&a_7\approx 0.54\times 10^{-4} i,\quad a_8^u\approx (4.5-0.5i)\times
354: 10^{-4},\quad
355: a_8^c\approx (4.4-0.3i)\times
356: 10^{-4}, \\
357: && a_9\approx -0.010-0.0002i,\quad
358: a_{10}^u \approx (-58.3+ 86.1 i)\times10^{-5},\quad
359: a_{10}^c \approx (-60.3 + 88.8 i)\times10^{-5}, \non
360: \en
361: for typical $a_i$ at the renormalization scale $\mu=m_b/2=2.1$~GeV
362: which we are working on.
363:
364: Applying Eqs. (\ref{eq:factamp}), (\ref{eq:Tp}) and the equation
365: of motion, we obtain the $\ov B {}^0\to K^+ K^- \ov K {}^0$ decay
366: amplitude as
367: \be
368: \la\overline K {}^0 K^+ K^-|T_p|\ov B\ra&=&
369: \la K^+\ov K {}^0|(\bar u b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra \la K^-|(\bar s u)_{V-A}|0\ra
370: \left[a_1 \delta_{pu}+a^p_4+a_{10}^p-(a^p_6+a^p_8) r_\chi\right]
371: \non\\
372: &&+\la \ov K {}^0|(\bar s b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra
373: \la K^+ K^-|(\bar u u)_{V-A}|0\ra
374: (a_2\delta_{pu}+a_3+a_5+a_7+a_9)
375: \non\\
376: &&+\la \ov K {}^0|(\bar s b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra
377: \la K^+ K^-|(\bar d d)_{V-A}|0\ra
378: \bigg[a_3+a_5-\frac{1}{2}(a_7+a_9)\bigg]
379: \non\\
380: &&+\la \ov K {}^0|(\bar s b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra
381: \la K^+ K^-|(\bar s s)_{V-A}|0\ra
382: \bigg[a_3+a^p_4+a_5-\frac{1}{2}(a_7+a_9+a^p_{10})\bigg]
383: \non\\
384: &&+\la \ov K {}^0|\bar s b|\ov B {}^0\ra
385: \la K^+ K^-|\bar s s|0\ra
386: (-2 a^p_6+a^p_8)
387: \non\\
388: && +\la K^+ K^-\ov K {}^0|(\bar s d)_{V-A}|0\ra
389: \la 0|(\bar d b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra
390: \bigg(a^p_4-\frac{1}{2} a^p_{10}\bigg)
391: \non\\
392: && + \la K^+ K^-\ov K {}^0|\bar s\gamma_5 d|0\ra
393: \la 0|\bar d\gamma_5 b|\ov B {}^0\ra
394: (-2a^p_6+a^p_8),
395: \label{eq:AKKKs}
396: \en
397: with $r_\chi=2 m_K^2/(m_b m_s)$. In the factorization terms, the
398: $K\ov K$ pair can be produced through a transition from the $\ov
399: B$ meson or can be created from vacuum through $V$ and $S$
400: operators. There exist two weak annihilation contributions, where
401: the $\ov B$ meson is annihilated and a final state with three
402: kaons is created.
403: %
404: Note that the OZI suppressed matrix element $\la K^+ K^-|(\bar d
405: d)_{V-A}|0\ra$ is included in the factorization amplitude since it
406: could be enhanced through the long-distance pole contributions via
407: the intermediate vector mesons such as $\rho^0$ and $\omega$.
408:
409:
410: To evaluate the above amplitude, we need to consider the $\ov B\to
411: K\ov K$, $0\to K\ov K$ and $0\to \ov K\,\ov K K$ matrix elements,
412: the so-called two-meson transition, two-meson and tree-meson
413: creation matrix elements in addition to the usual one-meson
414: transition and creation ones. The two-meson transition matrix
415: element $\la \ov K {}^0 K^+|(\bar u b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra$ has
416: the general expression~\cite{LLW}
417: \be
418: \la \ov K {}^0 (p_1) K^+(p_2)|(\bar u b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra
419: &=&i r
420: (p_B-p_1-p_2)_\mu+i\omega_+(p_2+p_1)_\mu+i\omega_-(p_2-p_1)_\mu
421: \non\\
422: &&+h\,\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_B^\nu (p_2+p_1)^\alpha
423: (p_2-p_1)^\beta.
424: \en
425: This leads to
426: \be
427: && \la K^-(p_3)|(\bar s
428: u)_{V-A}|0\ra \la\ov K {}^0 (p_1) K^+(p_2)|(\bar u b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra \non\\
429: &&\quad=-\frac{f_K}{2}\left[2 m_3^2 r+(m_B^2-s_{12}-m_3^2) \omega_+
430: +(s_{23}-s_{13}-m_2^2+m_1^2) \omega_-\right],
431: \en
432: where $s_{ij}\equiv (p_i+p_j)^2$. A pole model calculation of the
433: $\ov B^0\to \ov K^0K^+$ transition matrix element amounts to
434: considering the strong interaction $\ov B {}^0\to \ov K {}^0 \ov
435: B_s^*$ followed by the weak transition $\ov B_s^*\to K^+$ and the
436: result is \cite{Cheng:2002qu}
437: \be \label{eq:BKKpole}
438: && \left[\la K^-(p_3)|(\bar s
439: u)_{V-A}|0\ra \la\ov K {}^0 (p_1) K^+(p_2)|(\bar u b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra\right]_{\rm pole}
440: \non\\
441: &&\quad=\frac{f_K}{f_\pi}\frac{g\sqrt{m_B
442: m_{B_s^*}}}{s_{23}-m^2_{B_s^*}}
443: F(s_{23},m_{B_s^*}) F_1^{B_sK}(m_3^2)
444: \bigg[m_B+\frac{s_{23}}{m_B}-m_B\frac{m_B^2-s_{23}}{m_3^2}
445: \bigg(1-\frac{F_0^{B_sK}(m_3^2)}{F_1^{B_sK}(m_3^2)}\bigg)\bigg]\non\\
446: &&\qquad\times\bigg[m_1^2+m_3^2-s_{13}+\frac{(s_{23}-m_2^2+m_3^2)(m_B^2-s_{23}-m_1^2)}{2
447: m_{B_s^*}^2}\bigg],
448: \en
449: where $g$ is a heavy-flavor independent strong coupling which can
450: be extracted from the recent CLEO measurement of the $D^{*+}$
451: decay width, $g=0.59\pm0.01\pm0.07$ \cite{CLEOg}, and $F^{B_s
452: K}_{0,1}$ are the $B_s\to K$ weak transition from factors in the
453: standard convention \cite{BSW}. Since $B_s^*$ can be far from the
454: mass shell, it is necessary to introduce a form factor
455: $F(s_{23},m_{B_s^*})$ to take into account the off-shell effect of
456: the $B_s^*$ pole. Following \cite{CCS}, it is parameterized as
457: $F(s_{23},m_{B_s^*})=(\Lambda^2-m_{B_s^*}^2)/(\Lambda^2-s_{23})$
458: with the cut-off parameter $\Lambda$ chosen to be
459: $\Lambda=m_{B^*_s}+\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.
460:
461: It is worth making a digression for a moment. In principle, one
462: can apply HMChPT {\it twice} to evaluate the form factors
463: $r,~\omega_+$ and $\omega_-$ \cite{LLW}. However, this will lead
464: to too large decay rates in disagreement with experiment
465: \cite{Cheng:2002qu}. This is because the use of HMChPT is reliable
466: only in the kinematic region where $K^+$ and $\ov K^0$ are soft.
467: Therefore, the available phase space where chiral perturbation
468: theory is applicable is very limited. If the soft meson result is
469: assumed to be applicable to the whole Dalitz plot, the decay rate
470: will be greatly overestimated. Therefore, we employ the pole model
471: to evaluate the aforementioned form factors. We shall apply HMChPT
472: only {\it once} to the $\ov B {}^0K {}^0 B_s^*$ strong vertex and
473: introduce a form factor to take care of the momentum dependence of
474: the strong coupling.
475:
476: The resonant pole contributions to the form factors $r$,
477: $\omega_\pm$ and $h$ can be worked out from
478: Eq.~(\ref{eq:BKKpole}). In principle, there are also nonresonant
479: contributions to these form factors. It turns out that the leading
480: nonresonant contribution can be determined as follows. We notice
481: that the same $\ov B\to K\ov K$ two-meson transition matrix
482: element also appears in the decay $B^-\to D^0 K^0 K^-$ under
483: factorization \cite{DKK}. The data favors a $1^-$ configuration in
484: the $K^0 K^-$ pair ~\cite{DKKdata}. The corresponding two-meson
485: transition matrix element is dominated by the $\omega_-$ term.
486: Following~\cite{DKK} we shall include a nonresonant contribution
487: to $\omega_-$ parametrized as
488: \be
489: \omega^{NR}_-=\kappa\, \frac{2p_B\cdot p_2}{s^2_{12}},
490: \label{eq:omegaNR}
491: \en
492: and employ the $B^-\to D^0 K^0 K^-$ data and apply isospin
493: symmetry to the $\ov B\to K\ov K$ matrix elements to determine the
494: unknown parameter $\kappa$. The denominator in the above
495: parametrization is inspired by the QCD counting rule which gives
496: rise to a $1/s_{12}^2$ asymptotic behavior,\footnote{As explained
497: in \cite{DKK}, at least two hard gluon exchanges are needed: one
498: creating the $s\bar s$ pair in $\ov K^0K^+$, the other kicking the
499: spectator to catch up with the energetic $s$ quark to form the $K$
500: meson. This gives rise to a $1/s_{12}^2$ asymptotic behavior.}
501: %
502: while the numerator $p_B\cdot p_2=m_B E_{K^+}$ is motivated by the
503: observation that $K^+$ contains an energetic $u$ quark coming from
504: the $b\to u$ transition.
505:
506:
507:
508: The matrix elements involving 3-kaon creation are given
509: by~\cite{Cheng:2002qu}
510: \be \label{eq:KKKme}
511: &&\hspace{-0.5cm}\la \ov K {}^0(p_1) K^+(p_2) K^-(p_3)|(\bar s d)_{V-A}|0\ra\la
512: 0|(\bar d b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra
513: \approx 0, \\
514: &&\hspace{-0.5cm}\la \ov K {}^0(p_1) K^+(p_2) K^-(p_3)|\bar s\gamma_5
515: d|0\ra\la
516: 0|\bar d\gamma_5 b|\ov B {}^0\ra=v\frac{ f_B m_B^2}{f_\pi m_b}
517: \left(1-\frac{s_{13}-m_1^2-m_3^2}{m_B^2-m_K^2}\right)F^{KKK}(m_B^2),
518: \non
519: \en
520: where
521: \be \label{eq:v}
522: v=\frac{m_{K^+}^2}{m_u+m_s}=\frac{m_K^2-m_\pi^2}{m_s-m_d},
523: \en
524: characterizes the quark-order parameter $\la \bar q q\ra$ which
525: spontaneously breaks the chiral symmetry. Both relations in Eq.
526: (\ref{eq:KKKme}) are originally derived in the chiral limit
527: \cite{Cheng:2002qu} and hence the quark masses appearing in Eq.
528: (\ref{eq:v}) are referred to the scale $\sim$ 1 GeV . The first
529: relation reflects helicity suppression which is expected to be
530: even more effective for energetic kaons. For the second relation,
531: we introduce the form factor $F^{KKK}$ to extrapolate the chiral
532: result to the physical region. Following \cite{Cheng:2002qu} we
533: shall take $F^{KKK}(q^2)=1/[1-(q^2/\Lambda^2_\chi)]$ with
534: $\Lambda_\chi=0.83$~GeV being a chiral symmetry breaking scale.
535:
536:
537: We now turn to the 2-kaon creation matrix element which can be
538: expressed in terms of time-like kaon current form factors as
539: \be \label{eq:weakff}
540: \la K^+(p_{K^+}) K^-(p_{K^-})|\bar q\gamma_\mu q|0\ra
541: &=& (p_{K^+}-p_{K^-})_\mu F^{K^+K^-}_q,
542: \non\\
543: \la K^0(p_{K^0}) \ov K^0(p_{\bar K^0})|\bar q\gamma_\mu q|0\ra
544: &=& (p_{K^0}-p_{\bar K^0})_\mu F^{K^0\bar K^0}_q.
545: \en
546: The weak vector form factors $F^{K^+K^-}_q$ and $F^{K^0\bar
547: K^0}_q$ can be related to the kaon electromagnetic (e.m.) form
548: factors $F^{K^+K^-}_{em}$ and $F^{K^0\bar K^0}_{em}$ for the
549: charged and neutral kaons, respectively. Phenomenologically, the
550: e.m. form factors receive resonant and nonresonant contributions
551: and can be expressed by
552: \be \label{eq:emff}
553: F^{K^+K^-}_{em}= F_\rho+F_\omega+F_\phi+F_{NR}, \qquad
554: F^{K^0\bar K^0}_{em}= -F_\rho+F_\omega+F_\phi+F_{NR}'.
555: \en
556: It follows from Eqs. (\ref{eq:weakff}) and (\ref{eq:emff}) that
557: \be
558: F^{K^+K^-}_u&=&F^{K^0\bar K^0}_d=F_\rho+3 F_\omega+\frac{1}{3}(3F_{NR}-F'_{NR}),
559: \non\\
560: F^{K^+K^-}_d&=&F^{K^0\bar K^0}_u=-F_\rho+3 F_\omega,
561: \non\\
562: F^{K^+K^-}_s&=&F^{K^0\bar K^0}_s=-3 F_\phi-\frac{1}{3}(3 F_{NR}+2F'_{NR}),
563: \label{eq:FKKisospin}
564: \en
565: where use of isospin symmetry has been made.
566:
567: The resonant and nonresonant terms in Eq. (\ref{eq:emff}) can be
568: parametrized as
569: \be
570: F_{h}(s_{23})=\frac{c_h}{m^2_h-s_{23}-i m_h \Gamma_h},
571: \qquad
572: F^{(\prime)}_{NR}(s_{23})=\left(\frac{x^{(\prime)}_1}{s_{23}}
573: +\frac{x^{(\prime)}_2}{s_{23}^2}\right)
574: \left[\ln\left(\frac{s_{23}}{\tilde\Lambda^2}\right)\right]^{-1},
575: \en
576: with $\tilde\Lambda\approx 0.3$ GeV. The expression for the
577: nonresonant form factor is motivated by the asymptotic constraint
578: from pQCD, namely, $F(t)\to (1/t)[\ln(t/\tilde \Lambda^2)]^{-1}$
579: in the large $t$ limit \cite{Brodsky}. The unknown parameters
580: $c_h$, $x_i$ and $x'_i$ are fitted from the kaon e.m. data, giving
581: the best fit values (in units of GeV$^2$ for $c_h$) ~\cite{DKK}:
582: %
583: \begin{equation}
584: \begin{array}{lll}
585: c_\rho=3c_\omega=c_\phi=0.363,
586: & c_{\rho(1450)}=7.98\times 10^{-3},\ \
587: & c_{\rho(1700)}=1.71\times10^{-3},\ \
588: \\
589: c_{\omega(1420)}=-7.64\times 10^{-2},
590: & c_{\omega(1650)}=-0.116,
591: & c_{\phi(1680)}=-2.0\times10^{-2},
592: \\
593: \end{array}
594: \label{eq:cj}
595: \end{equation}
596: and
597: \begin{eqnarray}
598: x_1=-3.26~{\rm GeV}^2, \qquad x_2=5.02~{\rm GeV}^4,
599: \qquad x'_1=0.47~{\rm GeV}^2,
600: \qquad x'_2=0.
601: \label{eq:xy}
602: \end{eqnarray}
603: %
604: Note that the form factors $F_{\rho,\omega,\phi}$ in
605: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:emff}) and (\ref{eq:FKKisospin}) include the
606: contributions from the vector mesons
607: $\rho(770),\,\rho(1450),\,\rho(1700)$,
608: $\omega(782),\,\omega(1420),\,\omega(1650),$ $\phi(1020)$ and
609: $\phi(1680)$.
610: %
611: It is interesting to note that (i) the fitted values of $c_{V}$
612: are very close to the vector meson dominance expression
613: $g_{_{V\gamma}} g_{VKK}$ for $V=\rho,\omega,\phi$~\cite{DM2,PDG},
614: where $g_{_{V\gamma}}$ is the e.m. coupling of the vector meson
615: defined by $\la
616: V|j_{em}|0\ra=g_{V\gamma}\epsilon^*_V$~\footnote{The vector meson
617: e.m. couplings are given by $g_{\phi\gamma}=e_s m_\phi f_\phi$,
618: $g_{\rho\gamma}=[(e_u-e_d)/\sqrt2] m_\rho f_\rho$ and
619: $g_{\omega\gamma}=[(e_u+e_d)/\sqrt2] m_\omega f_\omega$ where
620: $e_q$ is the quark's charge and $f_V$ is the vector decay
621: constant.} and $g_{VKK}$ is the $V\to KK$ strong coupling with,
622: $-g_{\phi K^+K^-}\simeq g_{\rho K^+K^-}/\sqrt2= g_{\omega
623: K^+K^-}/\sqrt2\simeq3.03$,
624: %
625: and (ii) the vector-meson pole contributions alone yield
626: $F^{K^+K^-}_{u,s}(0)\approx 1,-1$ and $F^{K^+K^-}_d(0)\approx 0$
627: as the charged kaon does not contain the valence $d$
628: quark.~\footnote{The sign convention is fixed by using $\la
629: M(q\bar q',p)\ov M(q\bar q',p')|\bar q\gamma_\mu q|0\ra=\la
630: M(q\bar q',p)|\bar q\gamma_\mu q|M(q\bar q',-p')\ra=(p-p')_\mu
631: |F^{MM}_q|$ in the case of a real $F^{MM}_q$.}
632: %
633: The matrix element in the decay amplitude relevant for our purpose
634: then has the expression
635: \be
636: \la \ov K {}^0(p_1)|(\bar s b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra \la K^+(p_2)
637: K^-(p_3)|(\bar q q)_{V-A}|0\ra
638: =(s_{12}-s_{13}) F_1^{BK}(s_{23}) F^{K^+K^-}_q (s_{23}).
639: \en
640:
641:
642:
643: We also need to specify the 2-body matrix element $\la K^+
644: K^-|\bar s s|0\ra$ induced from the scalar density. It receives
645: resonant and non-resonant contributions:
646: \be \label{eq:KKsff}
647: \la K^+(p_2) K^-(p_3)|\bar s s|0\ra
648: &\equiv& f^{K^+K^-}_s(s_{23})=\sum_{i}\frac{m_i \bar f_i g^{i\to KK}}{m_i^2-s_{23}-i
649: m_i\Gamma_i}+f_s^{NR},
650: \non\\
651: f_s^{NR}&=&\frac{v}{3}(3 F_{NR}+2F'_{NR})+v\frac{\sigma}{s_{23}^2}
652: \left[\ln\left(\frac{s_{23}}{\tilde\Lambda^2}\right)\right]^{-1},
653: \en
654: where the scalar decay constant $\tilde f_i$ is defined in $\la
655: i|\bar s s|0\ra=m_i \bar f_i$, $g^{i\to KK}$ is the $i\to KK$
656: strong coupling, and the nonresonant terms are related to those in
657: $F_s^{K^+K^-}$ through the equation of motion.\footnote{The use of
658: equations of motion also leads to
659: \be
660: f_s^{K^+K^-}=-v F_s^{K^+K^-}.
661: \en
662: Note that the pole contribution to $F_s^{K^+K^-}$ should be
663: dropped in the above relation as it applies only to nonresonant
664: contributions.}
665: %
666: The main scalar meson pole contributions are those that have
667: dominant $s\bar s$ content and large coupling to $K\ov K$. It is
668: found in \cite{ANS} that among the $f_0$ mesons, only $f_0(980)$
669: and $f_0(1530)$ have the largest couplings with the $K\ov K$ pair.
670: Note that $f_0(1530)$ is a very broad state with the width of
671: order 1 GeV \cite{ANS}. To proceed with the numerical
672: calculations, we use $g^{f_0(980)\to KK}=1.5$~GeV,
673: $g^{f_0(1530)\to KK}=3.18$~GeV, $\Gamma_{f_0(980)}=80$~MeV,
674: $\Gamma_{f_0(1530)}=1.160$~GeV~\cite{ANS}, $\bar
675: f_{f_0(980)}(\mu=m_b/2)\simeq 0.39$~GeV~\cite{Cheng:2005ye} and
676: $\bar f_{f_0(1530)}\simeq \bar f_{f_0(980)}$.
677: %
678: The sign of the resonant terms is fixed by $f_s^{K^+ K^-}(0)=v$
679: from a chiral perturbation theory calculation (see, for example,
680: \cite{Cheng:1988va}).
681: %
682: It should be stressed that although the nonresonant contributions
683: to $f_s^{KK}$ and $F_s^{KK}$ are related through the equation of
684: motion, the resonant ones are different and not related {\it a
685: priori}. To apply the equation of motion, the form factors should
686: be away from the resonant region.
687: %
688: In the large $s_{23}$-region, the nonresonant contribution
689: dominated by the $1/s_{23}$ term is far away from the resonant
690: one. In contrast, the $1/s^2_{23}$ term dominates in the low
691: $s_{23}$-region where resonant contributions cannot be ignored.
692: The $1/s^2_{23}$ term in $F_s$ is not necessarily conveyed to
693: $f_S$ through the equation of motion.
694: %
695: Hence, the $1/s^2_{23}$ term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:KKsff}) is
696: undetermined and a new parameter $\sigma$, which is expected to be
697: of similar size as $x_2$, is assigned and will be determined later
698: by fitting to the data. The corresponding matrix element is now
699: given by
700: %
701: \be
702: \la \ov K {}^0(p_1)|\bar s b|\ov B {}^0\ra \la K^+(p_2) K^-(p_3)|\bar s s|0\ra
703: =\frac{m_B^2-m_K^2}{m_b-m_s} F_0^{BK}(s_{23})
704: f_s^{K^+K^-}(s_{23}).
705: \en
706:
707: Collecting all the relevant matrix elements evaluated above, we
708: are ready to compute the amplitude $A(\ov B {}^0\to K_{S(L)} K^+
709: K^-)=\pm A(\ov B {}^0\to \ov K {}^0 K^+ K^-)/\sqrt2$. Since under
710: \CPP-conjugation we have $K_S (\vec p_1)\to K_S(-\vec p_1)$,
711: $K^+(\vec p_2)\to K^-(-\vec p_2)$ and $K^-(\vec p_3)\to K^+(-\vec
712: p_3)$, the $\ov B {}^0\to K_S K^+ K^-$ amplitude can be decomposed
713: into \CPP-odd and \CPP-even components
714: \be
715: &&A[\ov B {}^0\to K_S(p_1) K^+(p_2) K^-(p_3)]=A(s_{12},s_{13},s_{23})=A_{CP-}+A_{CP+},\non\\
716: &&A_{CP\pm}=\frac{1}{2}
717: [A(s_{12},s_{13},s_{23})\pm A(s_{13},s_{12},s_{23})].
718: %[\ov B {}^0\to K_S(p_1) K^+(p_2)
719: %K^-(p_3)]\pm A[\ov B {}^0\to K_S(p_1) K^+(p_3) K^-(p_2)]).
720: \en
721: Correspondingly, we have
722: \be
723: \Gamma&=&\Gamma_{CP+}+\Gamma_{CP-},\non\\
724: \Gamma_{CP\pm}&=&\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{32 m_B^3}\int
725: |A_{CP\pm}|^2ds_{12} ds_{13}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{32 m_B^3}\int
726: |A_{CP\pm}|^2ds_{12} ds_{23}.
727: \label{eq:Gamma}
728: \en
729: The vanishing cross terms due to the interference between \CPP-odd
730: and \CPP-even components can be easily seen from the
731: (anti)symmetric properties of the amplitude and the integration
732: variables under the interchange of $s_{12}\leftrightarrow s_{13}$.
733: Similar relations hold for the conjugated $B^0$ decay rate
734: $\bar\Gamma$. %and the amplitude $\bar A$.
735: The $CP$-even fraction $f_+$ is defined by
736: \be \label{eq:f+}
737: f_+\equiv \left.{\Gamma_{CP+}+\ov \Gamma_{CP+} \over
738: \Gamma+\ov\Gamma}\right|_{\phi K_S~{\rm excluded}.}
739: \en
740: Note that results for the $K^+K^-K_L$ mode are identical to the
741: $K^+K^-K_S$ ones with the \CP eigenstates interchanged. For
742: example, results for $(K^+K^-K_L)_{CP+}$ are the same as those for
743: $(K^+K^-K_S)_{CP-}$ and hence $f_+$ in $K^+K^-K_S$ corresponds to
744: $f_-$ in $K^+K^-K_L$.
745:
746:
747: We next turn to the $\ov B {}^0\to K_S K_S K_S,\,K_S K_S K_L$
748: decays. The decay amplitudes are given by
749: \be
750: A[\ov B{}^0\to K_S(p_1) K_S(p_2) K_{S,L}(p_3)]
751: &=&\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{3/2}
752: \bigg\{\pm A[\ov B{}^0\to K^0(p_1) \ov K
753: {}^0(p_2) \ov K {}^0(p_3)]
754: \non\\
755: &&\qquad\pm A[\ov B{}^0\to K^0(p_2) \ov K
756: {}^0(p_3) \ov K {}^0(p_1)]
757: \non\\
758: &&\qquad+A[\ov B{}^0\to K^0(p_3) \ov K
759: {}^0(p_1) \ov K {}^0(p_2)]\bigg\},
760: \label{eq:AKsKsKs}
761: \en
762: %and
763: % \be
764: % A[\ov B{}^0\to K_S(p_1) K_S(p_2) K_L(p_3)]
765: % &=&\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{3/2}
766: % \bigg\{-A[\ov B{}^0\to K^0(p_1) \ov K
767: % {}^0(p_2) \ov K {}^0(p_3)]
768: % \non\\
769: % &&\qquad+A[\ov B{}^0\to K^0(p_2) \ov K
770: % {}^0(p_3) \ov K {}^0(p_1)]
771: % \non\\
772: % &&\qquad+A[\ov B{}^0\to K^0(p_3) \ov K
773: % {}^0(p_1) \ov K {}^0(p_2)]\bigg\},
774: % \label{eq:AKsKsKL}
775: % \en
776: with
777: \be
778: A[\ov B{}^0\to K^0(p_1) \ov K
779: {}^0(p_2) \ov K {}^0(p_3)]&=&\frac{G_F}{\sqrt2}\sum_{p=u,c}\lambda_p
780: \Bigg\{
781: \Big[\la K^0(p_1)\ov K {}^0(p_2)|(\bar d b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra \la \ov K {}^0(p_3)|(\bar s d)_{V-A}|0\ra
782: \non\\
783: &&+\la K^0(p_1)\ov K {}^0(p_3)|(\bar d b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra \la \ov K {}^0(p_2)|(\bar s
784: d)_{V-A}|0\ra \Big]
785: \non\\
786: &&\times\Big(a^p_4+\frac{1}{2}a^p_{10}-(a^p_6-\frac{1}{2}a^p_8)
787: r_\chi\Big)
788: \non\\
789: &&+\Big[\la \ov K {}^0 (p_2)|\bar s b|\ov B {}^0\ra
790: \la K^0(p_1) \ov K {}^0(p_3)|\bar s s|0\ra
791: \non\\
792: && +\la \ov K {}^0 (p_3)|\bar s b|\ov B {}^0\ra
793: \la K^0(p_1) \ov K {}^0(p_2)|\bar s s|0\ra\Big]
794: (-2 a^p_6+a^p_8)
795: \non\\
796: && + \la K^0(p_1) \ov K {}^0(p_2) \ov K {}^0(p_3)|\bar s\gamma_5 d|0\ra
797: \la 0|\bar d\gamma_5 b|\ov B {}^0\ra
798: (-2a^p_6+a^p_8)
799: \non\\
800: &&+\Big[\la \ov K {}^0 (p_2)|(\bar s b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra
801: \la K^0(p_1) \ov K {}^0(p_3)|(\bar s s)_{V-A}|0\ra
802: \non\\
803: && +\la \ov K {}^0 (p_3)|(\bar s b)_{V-A}|\ov B {}^0\ra
804: \la K^0(p_1) \ov K {}^0(p_2)|(\bar s s)_{V-A}|0\ra\Big]
805: \non\\
806: &&\times \left[a_3+a^p_4+a_5-\frac{1}{2}(a_7+a_9+a_{10})\right]\Bigg\},
807: \en
808: where the last term will not contribute to the purely \CPP-even
809: decay $\overline B {}^0\to K_S K_S K_S$. Decay rates for the $K_S
810: K_S K_S$ and $K_S K_S K_L$ modes can be obtained from
811: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Gamma}) with an additional factor of $1/3!$ and
812: $1/2!$, respectively, for identical particles in the final state.
813:
814: We now consider the \CP asymmetries for $\ov B {}^0\to K^+ K^-
815: K_{S(L)},\,K_S K_S K_{S(L)}$ decays. The direct \CP asymmetry and
816: the mixing induced \CP violation are defined by
817: \be \label{eq:A&S}
818: \A_{KKK}&=& \left.\frac{\Gamma-\ov
819: \Gamma}{\Gamma+\ov \Gamma} \right.%|_{\phi K_S~{\rm excluded}}
820: \non\\
821: &=&\left. \frac{\int
822: |A|^2ds_{12} ds_{23}-\int
823: |\bar A|^2ds_{12} ds_{23}}{\int
824: | A|^2ds_{12} ds_{23}+\int
825: |\bar A|^2ds_{12} ds_{23}},\right.%|_{\phi K_S~{\rm excluded},}
826: \non\\
827: \S_{KKK,CP\pm}&=& \left. \frac{2\int
828: {\rm Im}(e^{-2i\beta} A_{CP\pm} \bar A^*_{CP\pm}) ds_{12} ds_{23}}{\int
829: |A_{CP\pm}|^2ds_{12} ds_{23}+\int
830: |\bar A_{CP\pm}|^2ds_{12} ds_{23}},\right.%|_{\phi K_S~{\rm excluded},}
831: \non\\
832: \S_{KKK}&=& \left. \frac{2\int
833: {\rm Im}(e^{-2i\beta} A \bar A^*) ds_{12} ds_{23}}{\int
834: |A|^2ds_{12} ds_{23}+\int
835: |\bar A|^2ds_{12} ds_{23}}\right. %|_{\phi K_S~{\rm excluded}}
836: \non\\
837: &=&f_+\,S_{KKK,CP+}+(1-f_+)\,S_{KKK,CP-},
838: \en
839: where $\bar A$ is the decay amplitude of $B^0\to K^+K^-K_{S(L)}$
840: or $K_SK_SK_{S(L)}$. For the $K^+K^-K_S$ mode, it is understood
841: that the contribution from $\phi K_S$ is excluded. It is expected
842: in the SM that $\S_{KKK,CP+}\equiv \sin 2 \beta_{\rm
843: eff}\approx\sin 2\beta$, $\S_{KKK,CP-}\approx -\sin 2\beta$ and
844: hence $\S_{KKK}\approx -(2f_+-1)\sin 2\beta$.\footnote{Writing the
845: \CPP-conjugated decay amplitude as $\bar A=\bar A_{CP+}+\bar
846: A_{CP-}$, we have $\bar A_{CP\pm}=\pm A_{CP\pm}$ with
847: $\lambda_p\to\lambda^*_p$. This leads to $\S_{KKK,CP-}\approx
848: -\S_{KKK,CP+}$.}
849:
850:
851: \section{Numerical results and discussions}
852:
853: \begin{table}[t]
854: \caption{Branching ratios for $\ov B {}^0\to K^+ K^- K_S,\,K_S K_S
855: K_S,\,K_S K_S K_L$ decays and the fraction of \CPP-even
856: contribution to $\ov B^0\to K^+K^-K_S$, $f_+$ [see Eq.
857: (\ref{eq:f+})]. The branching ratio of \CPP-odd $K^+K^-K_S$ with
858: $\phi K_S$ excluded is shown in parentheses. Results for
859: $(K^+K^-K_L)_{CP\pm}$ are identical to those for
860: $(K^+K^-K_S)_{CP\mp}$. Theoretical errors correspond to the
861: uncertainties in (i) $\kappa$, (ii) $m_s$, $F^{BK}_0$ and $\sigma$
862: (constrained by the $K_SK_SK_S$ rate), and (iii) $\gamma$. }
863: \label{tab:Br}
864: \begin{ruledtabular}
865: \begin{tabular}{c r r}
866: Final State &${\cal B}(10^{-6})_{\rm theory}$ &${\cal B}(10^{-6})_{\rm expt}$ \\
867: \hline
868: $K^+ K^- K_S$
869: & $7.33^{+8.38+2.31+0.70}_{-1.08-1.59-0.10}$
870: & $12.4\pm1.2$ \\
871: $(K^+ K^- K_S)_{CP+}$
872: & $5.45^{+5.29+1.48+0.05}_{-0.65-1.13-0.06}$
873: & \\
874: $(K^+ K^- K_S)_{CP-}$
875: & $1.88^{+3.08+0.83+0.04}_{-0.43-0.46-0.04}$
876: & \\
877: %
878: & $(0.48^{+2.98+0.54+0.03}_{-0.40-0.22-0.03})$
879: & \\
880: $K_S K_S K_S$
881: & input
882: & $6.2\pm1.2$ \\
883: $K_S K_S K_L$
884: & $5.74^{+6.02+2.24+0.02}_{-0.88-1.40-0.03}$
885: &
886: \\
887: \hline
888: &$f_+^{\rm theory}$ &$f_+^{\rm expt}$ \\
889: \hline
890: $K^+K^-K_S$
891: & $0.92^{+0.06+0.04+0.00}_{-0.16-0.08-0.00}$
892: & $0.91\pm0.07$
893: \\
894: \hline
895: &$f_-^{\rm theory}$ &$f_-^{\rm expt}$ \\
896: \hline
897: $K^+K^-K_L$
898: & $0.92^{+0.06+0.04+0.00}_{-0.16-0.08-0.00}$
899: & $0.92\pm0.37$
900: \end{tabular}
901: \end{ruledtabular}
902: \end{table}
903:
904:
905: \begin{table}[t]
906: \caption{Mixing-induced and direct \CP asymmetries $\sin
907: 2\beta_{\rm eff}$ (top) and $\A_f$ (in $\%$, bottom),
908: respectively, in $B^0\to K^+K^-K_S$ and $K_SK_SK_S$ decays.
909: Results for $(K^+K^-K_L)_{CP\pm}$ are identical to those for
910: $(K^+K^-K_S)_{CP\mp}$. Experimental results are taken from Table
911: I. } \label{tab:AS}
912: \begin{ruledtabular}
913: \begin{tabular}{l r r}
914: Final State & $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}$ & Expt. \\
915: \hline
916: $(K^+K^-K_S)_{\phi K_S~{\rm excluded}}$
917: & $0.749^{+0.080+0.024+0.004}_{-0.013-0.011-0.015}$
918: & $0.57^{+0.18}_{-0.17}$
919: \\
920: $(K^+K^-K_S)_{CP+}$
921: & $0.770^{+0.113+0.040+0.002}_{-0.031-0.023-0.013}$
922: &
923: \\
924: $(K^+K^-K_L)_{\phi K_L~{\rm excluded}}$
925: & $0.749^{+0.080+0.024+0.004}_{-0.013-0.011-0.015}$
926: & $0.09\pm0.34$
927: \\
928: $K_SK_SK_S$
929: & $0.748^{+0.000+0.000+0.007}_{-0.000-0.000-0.018}$
930: & $0.65\pm0.25$
931: \\
932: $K_SK_SK_L$
933: & $0.748^{+0.001+0.000+0.007}_{-0.001-0.000-0.018}$
934: &
935: \\
936: \hline
937: &$\A_f(\%)$ &Expt. \\
938: \hline
939: $(K^+K^-K_S)_{\phi K_S~{\rm excluded}}$
940: & $0.16^{+0.95+0.29+0.01}_{-0.11-0.32-0.02}$
941: & $-8\pm10$
942: \\
943: $(K^+K^-K_S)_{CP+}$
944: & $-0.09^{+0.73+0.16+0.01}_{-0.00-0.27-0.01}$
945: &
946: \\
947: $(K^+K^-K_L)_{\phi K_L~{\rm excluded}}$
948: & $0.16^{+0.95+0.29+0.01}_{-0.11-0.32-0.02}$
949: & $-54\pm24$
950: \\
951: $K_SK_SK_S$
952: & $0.74^{+0.02+0.00+0.05}_{-0.06-0.01-0.06}$
953: & $31\pm17$
954: \\
955: $K_SK_SK_L$
956: & $0.77^{+0.12+0.08+0.06}_{-0.28-0.11-0.07}$
957: &
958: \\
959: \end{tabular}
960: \end{ruledtabular}
961: \end{table}
962:
963:
964:
965: To proceed with the numerical calculations, we need to specify the
966: input parameters. For the CKM matrix elements, we use the
967: Wolfenstein parameters $A=0.825$, $\lambda=0.22622$, $\bar
968: \rho=0.207$ and $\bar \eta=0.340$, corresponding to
969: $(\sin2\beta)_{CKM}=0.724$~\cite{CKMfitter}. For $B\to K$ form
970: factors we shall use those derived in the covariant light-front
971: quark model~\cite{CCH} with the assigned error to be $0.03$,
972: namely, $F_{0,1}^{BK}(0)=0.35\pm0.03$. The parameter $\kappa$ in
973: Eq.~(\ref{eq:omegaNR}) is determined from the $B^-\to D^0 K^0 K^-$
974: data. From the measured branching ratio ${\cal B}(B^-\to D^0 K^0
975: K^-)=(5.5\pm1.4\pm0.8)\times 10^{-4}$ \cite{DKKdata}, we obtain
976: $\kappa=3.1^{+5.1}_{-1.8}$~GeV where use of $a^{DKK}_1=0.935$ and
977: $a^{DKK}_2(\simeq a^{D\rho}_2)=0.4\pm 0.2$ has been
978: made~\cite{DKK}. For the quark masses and the unitarity angle
979: $\gamma$, we shall use $m_b(m_b)=4.2$ GeV,
980: $m_s(m_b/2)=80\pm20$~MeV and
981: $\gamma=(58.6\pm7)^\circ$~\cite{CKMfitter}. The $K_SK_SK_S$ rate
982: sensitive to the parameter $\sigma$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:KKsff}) is
983: used to determine $\sigma=(-10.4^{+5.4}_{-4.8})$GeV$^4$, where the
984: errors include the uncertainties in the $K_SK_SK_S$ decay rate,
985: the strange quark mass and the $F_0^{BK}$ form factor.
986:
987: Results for the decay rates and \CP asymmetries in $\ov B {}^0\to
988: K^+ K^- K_{S(L)},\,K_S K_S K_{S(L)}$ are exhibited in
989: Table~\ref{tab:Br} and Table~\ref{tab:AS}, respectively. The
990: theoretical errors shown there are from the uncertainties in (i)
991: the parameter $\kappa$ which governs the nonresonant contribution
992: to the form factor $\omega_-$ [see Eq. (\ref{eq:omegaNR})], (ii)
993: the strange quark mass $m_s$, the form factor $F^{BK}_0$ and
994: $\sigma$ [see Eq. (\ref{eq:KKsff})] constrained from the
995: $K_SK_SK_S$ rate, and (iii) the unitarity angle $\gamma$.
996: %
997: To compute the \CPP-even fraction $f_+$ and $\sin 2\beta_{\rm
998: eff}$ for $K^+K^-K_S$, we need to turn off the coefficient
999: $c_\phi$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:FKKisospin}). As one can see from Table
1000: \ref{tab:Br}, the predicted rates for $\ov B {}^0\to K^+ K^-
1001: K_{S(L)}$ decays and the $CP$-even (odd) ratio $f_{+(-)}$ are in
1002: accordance with the data within errors, though the theoretical
1003: central values on rates are somewhat smaller than the experimental
1004: ones. Theoretical errors on the branching ratios are dominated by
1005: the sizable error in $\kappa$ and the uncertainty in the strange
1006: quark mass as the penguin term $a_6 r_\chi$ and the parameter $v$
1007: are very sensitive to $m_s$. Note that the second error in rates
1008: (including the contribution from the uncertainty in $\sigma$) are
1009: constrained from the $K_SK_SK_S$ rate and hence are reduced
1010: significantly. For the first error, we note that the larger the
1011: value of $|\kappa|$ we have, the larger rate on \CPP-odd
1012: $K^+K^-K_S$ is obtained, leading to a smaller value of
1013: $f_+(K^+K^-K_S)$. Since the central value of our $f_+(K^+K^-K_S)$
1014: agrees well with data, $\kappa$ is preferred to be around its
1015: central value.
1016:
1017:
1018: The $K^+K^-$ mass spectra of the $\overline B {}^0\to K^+ K^- K_S$
1019: decay from $CP$-even and $CP$-odd contributions are shown in
1020: Fig.~\ref{fig:rates}. In the spectra, there are peaks at the
1021: threshold and a milder one in the large $m_{K^+K^-}$ region. For
1022: the $CP$-even part, the threshold enhancement arises from the
1023: $f_0(980) K_S$ and the nonresonant $f_S^{K^+K^-}$ contributions
1024: [see Eq. (\ref{eq:KKsff})], while the peak at large $m_{K^+K^-}$
1025: comes from the nonresonant two-meson transition $\overline B
1026: {}^0\to K^+ K_S$ followed by a current produced $K^-$. Since the
1027: nonresonant term [Eq.~(\ref{eq:omegaNR})] favors a small $m_{K^+
1028: K_s}$ region, the spectrum should peak at the large $m_{K^+ K^-}$
1029: end. For the $CP$-odd spectrum the bump at the large $m_{K^+ K^-}$
1030: end originates from the same two-meson transition term, while the
1031: peak on the lower end corresponds to the $\phi K_s$ contribution,
1032: which is also shown in the insert. The full $K^+K^-K_S$ spectrum
1033: is basically the sum of the $CP$-even and the $CP$-odd parts. Note
1034: that although we include $f_0(1530) K_S$ contribution, its effect
1035: is not as prominent as one may expect from the $K^-K^+K^-$
1036: spectrum where a large $f_X(1500) K^-$ contribution is
1037: found~\cite{Garmash:2004wa}.
1038:
1039:
1040:
1041: \begin{figure}[t]
1042: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=even.eps,width=8cm}
1043: \hspace{0.2cm}
1044: \epsfig{figure=odd.eps,width=8.2cm}
1045: }
1046: \centerline{(a)
1047: \hspace{8cm}
1048: (b)
1049: }
1050: \caption{\small The $K^+ K^-$ mass spectra for
1051: $\overline B {}^0\to K^+ K^- K_S$ decay from (a) $CP$-even and (b) $CP$-odd contributions.
1052: The insert in (b) is for the $\phi$ region. Results for
1053: $(K^+K^-K_L)_{CP\pm}$ are identical to those for
1054: $(K^+K^-K_S)_{CP\mp}$.}\label{fig:rates}
1055: \end{figure}
1056:
1057:
1058: For the mixing-induced \CP asymmetry in the $K^+K^-K_S$ mode, we
1059: compute the effective $\sin 2\beta$ in two different ways: In one
1060: way, we calculate $S$ with $\phi K_S$ excluded in $K^+K^-K_S$ and
1061: then apply the relation $S=-(2f_+-1)\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}$ and the
1062: theoretical value of $f_+$ to obtain $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}$. This
1063: procedure follows closely the BaBar and Belle method of measuring
1064: the effective $\sin 2\beta$. In the other way, we calculate $S$
1065: directly for the \CPP-even $K^+K^-K_S$ and identify $S_{KKK,CP+}$
1066: with $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}$. As for the $K_SK_SK_S$ mode, there
1067: is no such ambiguity as it is a purely \CPP-even state. As shown
1068: in Table \ref{tab:AS} and Fig. \ref{fig:sin2beta}, the resulting
1069: $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}$ is slightly different in these two
1070: different approaches.
1071:
1072: The deviation of the mixing-induced \CP asymmetry in $B^0\to
1073: K^+K^-K_S$ and $K_SK_SK_S$ from that measured in $B\to J/\psi K_S$
1074: (or the fitted CKM's $\sin2\beta$~\cite{CKMfitter}), namely,
1075: $\Delta \sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}\equiv \sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}-\sin 2
1076: \beta_{J/\psi K_S\,(CKM)}$, is calculated from Table \ref{tab:AS}
1077: to be
1078: \be
1079: \label{eq:DeltaS}
1080: \Delta \sin 2\beta_{K^+K^-K_S}=0.06^{+0.08}_{-0.02}\,\,(0.02^{+0.08}_{-0.02}),\qquad
1081: \Delta \sin 2\beta_{K_SK_SK_S}=0.06^{+0.00}_{-0.00}\,\,(0.02^{+0.00}_{-0.00}).
1082: \en
1083: Note that part of the deviation comes from that between the
1084: measured $\sin 2 \beta_{J/\psi K_S}$ and the fitted CKM's
1085: $\sin2\beta$. The $K^+K^-K_S$ has a potentially sizable
1086: $\Delta\sin 2\beta$, as this penguin-dominated mode is subject to
1087: a tree pollution due to the presence of color-allowed tree
1088: contributions. For the $K_SK_SK_S$ mode, the central value and the
1089: error on $\Delta\sin 2\beta$ are small.
1090:
1091:
1092: It is instructive to see the dependence of $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}$
1093: on the $K^+K^-$ invariant mass, $m_{K^+K^-}\equiv
1094: m_{23}=\sqrt{s_{23}}$. For the phase space integration in Eq.
1095: (\ref{eq:A&S}), for a given $s_{23}$, the upper and lower bounds
1096: of $s_{12}$ are fixed. The invariant mass $m_{23}$ is integrated
1097: from $m_{23}^-=m_2+m_3$ to $m_{23}^+=m_B-m_1$. When the variable
1098: $s_{23}$ or $m_{23}$ is integrated from $m_{23}^-$ to a fixed
1099: $m_{23}^{\rm max}$ (of course, $m_{23}^-< m_{23}^{\rm max}\leq
1100: m_{23}^+$), the effective $\sin 2 \beta$ thus obtained is
1101: designated as $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}(m_{23}^{\rm max})$. Fig.
1102: \ref{fig:sin2beta} shows the plot of $\sin 2 \beta_{\rm
1103: eff}(m_{K^+K^-}^{\rm max})$ versus $m^{\rm max}_{K^+K^-}$ for
1104: $K^+K^-K_S$. Since there are two different methods for the
1105: determination of $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}$, the results are depicted
1106: in two different curves. It is interesting that $\sin
1107: 2\beta(m_{23}^{\rm max})$ is slightly below $\sin 2\beta_{CKM}$ at
1108: the bulk of the $m_{K^+K^-}$ region and gradually increases and
1109: becomes slightly larger than $\sin 2\beta_{CKM}$ when the phase
1110: space is getting saturated. The deviation $\Delta
1111: \sin2\beta_{K^+K^-K_S}$ arises mainly from the large $m_{K^+K^-}$
1112: region.
1113:
1114:
1115:
1116: \begin{figure}[t]
1117: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=sin2beta.eps,width=8cm}}
1118: %
1119: \caption{\small Mixing-induced \CP asymmetry $\sin2\beta_{\rm
1120: eff}(m_{K^+K^-}^{\rm max})$ (see the text for the definition)
1121: versus the invariant mass $m^{\rm max}_{K^+K^-}$ for $K^+ K^- K_S$
1122: with $\phi K_S$ excluded (solid line) and for \CPP-even $K^+ K^-
1123: K_S$ (dashed line). When $m_{K^+K^-}^{\rm max}$ approaches the
1124: upper limit $m_B-m_{K_S}$, the whole phase space is saturated and
1125: $\sin2\beta_{\rm eff}(m_{K^+K^-}^{\rm max})$ is reduced to the
1126: usual $\sin2\beta_{\rm eff}$. This result also applies to the
1127: $K^+K^-K_L$ mode.}
1128: \label{fig:sin2beta}
1129: \end{figure}
1130:
1131:
1132: Direct \CP violation is found to be very small in both $K^+K^-K_S$
1133: and $K_SK_SK_S$ modes. It is interesting to notice that direct \CP
1134: asymmetry in the \CPP-even $K^+K^-K_S$ mode is only of order
1135: $10^{-3}$, but it becomes $0.2\times 10^{-2}$ in $K^+K^-K_S$ with
1136: $\phi K_S$ excluded. Since these direct \CP asymmetries are so
1137: small they can be used as approximate null tests of the SM.
1138:
1139: Since direct \CP violation in charmless $B$ decays can be
1140: significantly affected by final-state rescattering \cite{CCS}, we
1141: have studied to what extent indications of possibly large
1142: deviations of the mixing-induced \CP violation seen in the
1143: penguin-induced two-body decay modes from $\sin 2\beta$ determined
1144: from $B\to J/\psi K_S$ can be accounted for by final-state
1145: interactions \cite{CCSsin2beta}. It is natural to extend the study
1146: of final-state rescattering effect on time-dependent \CP
1147: asymmetries to $B\to KKK_S$ decays. Final-state interactions in
1148: three-body decays are expected to be much more complicated than
1149: the two-body case.
1150: %
1151: For example, the color allowed tree decay $\ov B {}^0\to
1152: D^{(*)+}_s D^{(*)-}$ can rescatter into a $K^+ K^- K_S$ final
1153: state, where we have $D^{(*)+}_s\to K^+ \bar D^{*0}$, $D^{(*)-}\to
1154: K_S D^{*-}_s$ followed by a $\bar D^{*0} D^*_s\to K^-$ fusion.
1155: These diagrams are too complicated and will not be included in
1156: this study.\footnote{In passing we note that these diagrams could
1157: have the effect of increasing somewhat our predictions for the
1158: rates of 3$K$ final states. Although these contributions carry
1159: negligible \CPP-odd (weak) phases, they also contribute to the
1160: strong phases and hence will tend to dilute our prediction on
1161: $\Delta\S$ but not necessarily on direct \CP asymmetries.}
1162: %
1163: Nevertheless, we attempt to incorporate final state rescattering
1164: effects in a simple way by including resonance contributions to
1165: the corresponding kaon pairs in the final state \cite{hewett-res}.
1166: We note that another attempt in this direction has recently been
1167: made by Furman {\it et al.} \cite{Furman}. They considered
1168: rescattering of $\pi\pi$ and $K\ov K$ pairs in the $\pi\pi$
1169: effective mass range from threshold to 1.1 GeV. While their
1170: predicted direct \CP asymmetry is very small, the parameter $\S$
1171: is found to be $-0.64$ or $-0.77$, depending on the set of penguin
1172: amplitudes. However, due to the limitation on phase space, the
1173: calculated branching ratios of order $1\times 10^{-6}$ for
1174: $K^+K^-K_S$ and $K_SK_SK_S$ are only small portions of the total
1175: experimental rates (see Table \ref{tab:Data}) and, consequently,
1176: the predictions of $S$ may be affected when the whole phase space
1177: is taken into consideration.
1178:
1179:
1180:
1181: \section{Conclusions}
1182: In the present work we have studied the decay rates and
1183: time-dependent \CP asymmetries in the decays $B^0\to
1184: K^+K^-K_{S(L)}$ and $K_S K_S K_{S(L)}$ within the framework of
1185: factorization. Our main results are as follows:
1186:
1187: \begin{enumerate}
1188:
1189: \item Resonant and nonresonant contributions to the hadronic
1190: matrix elements are carefully investigated. We incorporate final
1191: state rescattering effects in a simple way by including resonance
1192: contributions to the corresponding kaon pairs in the final state.
1193: Instead of applying heavy meson chiral perturbation theory to the
1194: matrix element for $B\to KK$, which is valid only for a small
1195: kinematic region, we consider the resonant contribution from the
1196: $B_s^*$ pole and nonresonant contributions constrained by QCD
1197: counting rules.
1198:
1199: \item Using the $K_SK_SK_S$ decay rate as an input, the predicted
1200: branching ratio of $K^+K^-K_{S(L)}$ modes and the \CPP-even (-odd)
1201: fraction of $B^0\to K^+K^-K_{S(L)}$ are consistent with the data
1202: within the theoretical and experimental errors, though the
1203: theoretical central values on rates are somewhat smaller than the
1204: experimental ones.
1205:
1206: \item Owing to the presence of color-allowed tree contributions in
1207: $B^0\to K^+K^-K_{S(L)}$, this penguin-dominated mode is subject to
1208: a potentially significant tree pollution and the deviation of the
1209: mixing-induced \CP asymmetry from that measured in $B\to J/\psi
1210: K_S$, namely, $\Delta \sin 2\beta_{K^+K^-K_{S(L)}}\equiv \sin
1211: 2\beta_{K^+K^-K_{S(L)}}-\sin 2 \beta_{J/\psi K_S}$, can be as
1212: large as ${\cal O}(0.10)$. The deviation $\Delta
1213: \sin2\beta_{K^+K^-K_{S(L)}}$ arises mainly from the large
1214: $m_{K^+K^-}$ region.
1215:
1216: \item The $K_S K_S K_{S(L)}$ mode appears theoretically very clean
1217: in our picture: The uncertainties in $\Delta \sin 2\beta_{\rm
1218: eff}$ are negligible.
1219:
1220: \item Direct \CP asymmetries are very small in both
1221: $K^+K^-K_{S(L)}$ and $K_SK_SK_{S(L)}$ modes.
1222: %, rendering them as useful approximate null tests of the SM.
1223:
1224: \end{enumerate}
1225:
1226: \vskip 2.0cm \acknowledgments We wish to thank Kai-Feng Chen for
1227: discussion. This research was supported in part by the National
1228: Science Council of R.O.C. under Grant Nos. NSC93-2112-M-001-043,
1229: NSC93-2112-M-001-053 and by the U.S. DOE contract No.
1230: DE-AC02-98CH10886(BNL).
1231:
1232: \vskip 2.0cm {\it Note added:} After the paper was submitted for
1233: publication, BaBar has presented a Dalitz plot study of $B^0\to
1234: K^+K^-K_S^0$ decays \cite{BaBarKKKsEPS}. The BaBar results
1235: constrain the tree contribution (incorporated via Eq. (2.18) in
1236: the present work) in rates and, as a result, a small $\Delta\sin
1237: 2\beta_{K^+K^-K_S}$ is preferable.
1238:
1239: \newpage
1240: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1241: \newcommand{\bi}{\bibitem}
1242:
1243: \bi{BaBarSf1} BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert {\it et al.,}
1244: hep-ex/0408062; hep-ex/0408072; hep-ex/0408090; hep-ex/0408095;
1245: hep-ex/0502011; hep-ex/0502017.
1246:
1247: \bi{BaBarSf2} BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert {\it et al.,}
1248: hep-ex/0502019.
1249:
1250: \bi{BelleSf1} Belle Collaboration, K. Abe {\it et al.,}
1251: hep-ex/0409049.
1252:
1253: \bi{BelleSf2} Belle Collaboration, K.F. Chen {\it et al.,}
1254: hep-ex/0504023.
1255:
1256:
1257: \bi{BelleSf3} Belle Collaboration, K. Abe {\it et al.,}
1258: hep-ex/0507037.
1259:
1260:
1261: \bi{HFAG} See web page of Heavy Flavor Averaging Group,
1262: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag.
1263:
1264: \bi{LS} D. London and A. Soni, \pl B {\bf 407}, 61 (1997).
1265:
1266: \bi{Browder} For a review of the New Physics sources contributing
1267: to $S_f$, see T.E. Browder and A. Soni, Pramana {\bf 63}, 1171
1268: (2004) [hep-ph/0410192].
1269:
1270: \bi{BBNS} M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C.T. Sachrajda,
1271: \prl {\bf 83}, 1914 (1999); \np B {\bf 591}, 313 (2000); {\it
1272: ibid.} B {\bf 606}, 245 (2001).
1273:
1274: \bibitem{CCSsin2beta}
1275: H.Y.~Cheng, C.K.~Chua, and A.~Soni, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 014006
1276: (2005).
1277:
1278: \bi{Buchalla} G. Buchalla, G. Hiller, Y. Nir, and G. Raz,
1279: hep-ph/0503151.
1280:
1281: \bi{Beneke} M. Beneke, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 620}, 143 (2005).
1282:
1283: \bi{BaBarKKKL} BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert {\it et al.,}
1284: hep-ex/0507016.
1285:
1286: \bi{BaBar3Ks} BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert {\it et al.,}
1287: hep-ex/0507052.
1288:
1289: \bi{BaBarKKK} BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert {\it et al.,}
1290: hep-ex/0502013.
1291:
1292: \bi{BelleKKK} Belle Collaboration, K. Sumisawa {\it et al.,}
1293: hep-ex/0503023.
1294:
1295: \bi{Gershon} T. Gershon and M. Hazumi, \pl B {\bf 596}, 163
1296: (2004).
1297:
1298: \bi{Grossman03} Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir, and H. Quinn, \pr
1299: D {\bf 68}, 015004 (2003).
1300:
1301: \bi{Engelhard} G. Engelhard, Y. Nir, and G. Raz, hep-ph/0505194.
1302:
1303: \bi{Gronau} M. Gronau and J.L. Rosner, \pl B {\bf 564}, 90 (2003).
1304:
1305: \bibitem{DKK}
1306: C.~K.~Chua, W.~S.~Hou, S.~Y.~Shiau, and S.~Y.~Tsai,
1307: %``Evidence for factorization in three-body anti-B $\to$ D(*) K- K0 decays,''
1308: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 034012 (2003).
1309: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209164;%%
1310:
1311:
1312: \bi{Deshpande} N.G. Deshpande, G. Eilam, X.G. He, and J.
1313: Trampeti\'c, \pr D {\bf 52}, 5354 (1995).
1314:
1315: \bi{Fajfer1} S. Fajfer, R.J. Oakes, and T.N. Pham, \pr D {\bf 60},
1316: 054029 (1999).
1317:
1318: \bi{Fajfer2} B. Bajc, S. Fajfer, R.J. Oakes, T.N. Pham, and S.
1319: Prelovsek, \pl B {\bf 447}, 313 (1999).
1320:
1321: \bi{Deandrea1} A. Deandrea, R. Gatto, M. Ladisa, G. Nardulli, and
1322: P. Santorelli, \pr D {\bf 62}, 036001 (2000); {\it ibid} {\bf 62},
1323: 114011 (2000).
1324:
1325: \bi{Deandrea} A. Deandrea and A.D. Polosa, \prl {\bf 86}, 216
1326: (2001).
1327:
1328: \bi{Fajfer3} S. Fajfer, T.N. Pham, and A. Prapotnik, \pr D {\bf
1329: 70}, 034033 (2004).
1330:
1331:
1332: \bi{Yan} T.M. Yan, H.Y. Cheng, C.Y. Cheung, G.L. Lin, Y.C. Lin,
1333: and H.L. Yu, \pr D {\bf 46}, 1148 (1992); {\bf 55}, 5851(E)
1334: (1997).
1335:
1336: \bi{Wise} M.B. Wise, \pr D {\bf 45}, 2118 (1992).
1337:
1338: \bi{Burdman} G. Burdman and J.F. Donoghue, \pl B {\bf 280}, 287
1339: (1992).
1340:
1341: \bi{BaBar3pi} BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert {\it et al.,}
1342: hep-ex/0408032.
1343:
1344: \bibitem{Cheng:2002qu}
1345: H.~Y.~Cheng and K.~C.~Yang,
1346: %``Nonresonant three-body decays of D and B mesons,''
1347: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 054015 (2002).
1348: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205133;%%
1349:
1350: \bibitem{LLW}
1351: C.~L.~Y.~Lee, M.~Lu, and M.~B.~Wise,
1352: %``B(l4) and D(l4) decay,''
1353: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 5040 (1992).
1354: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,5040;%%
1355:
1356: \bi{CLEOg} CLEO Collaboration, S. Ahmed {\it et al.,} \prl {\bf
1357: 87}, 251801 (2001).
1358:
1359: \bibitem{BSW} M. Wirbel, B. Stech, and M. Bauer, \zp C {\bf 29}, 637 (1985).
1360:
1361: \bibitem{CCS}
1362: H.Y.~Cheng, C.K.~Chua, and A.~Soni, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 014030
1363: (2005).
1364:
1365: \bi{DKKdata} Belle Collaboration, A. Drutskoy {\it et al.,} \pl B
1366: {\bf 542}, 171 (2002).
1367:
1368: \bi{Brodsky} S.J. Brodsky and G.R. Farrar, \pr D {\bf 11}, 1309
1369: (1975).
1370:
1371: \bibitem{DM2} DM2 Collaboration,
1372: D.~Bisello {\it et al.,}
1373: %``Study Of The Reaction E+ E- $\to$ K+ K- In The Energy Range 1350 <=
1374: %S**(1/2) <= 2400-Mev,''
1375: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 39}, 13 (1988).
1376: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C39,13;%%
1377:
1378: \bi{PDG} Particle Data Group, S. Eidelman {\it et al.,} \pl B
1379: {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
1380:
1381:
1382: \bibitem{ANS}
1383: V.~V.~Anisovich, V.~A.~Nikonov, and A.~V.~Sarantsev,
1384: %``Determination of hadronic partial widths for scalar-isoscalar resonances
1385: %f0(980), f0(1300), f0(1500), f0(1750) and the broad state f0(1530 +90
1386: %-250),''
1387: Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\ {\bf 65}, 1545 (2002)
1388: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 65}, 1583 (2002)]
1389: [hep-ph/0102338].
1390: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102338;%%
1391:
1392: \bibitem{Cheng:2005ye}
1393: H.~Y.~Cheng and K.~C.~Yang,
1394: %``B $\to$ f0(980) K decays and subleading corrections,''
1395: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 054020 (2005).
1396: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501253;%%
1397:
1398: \bibitem{Cheng:1988va}
1399: H.~Y.~Cheng,
1400: %``Status Of The Delta I = 1/2 Rule In Kaon Decay,''
1401: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 4}, 495 (1989).
1402: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A4,495;%%
1403:
1404: \bi{CKMfitter} CKMfitter Group, J. Charles {\it et al.,} Eur.
1405: Phys. J. C {\bf 41}, 1 (2005) and updated results from
1406: http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr; UTfit Collaboration, M. Bona {\it et
1407: al.,} hep-ph/0501199.
1408:
1409: \bibitem{CCH}
1410: H.~Y.~Cheng, C.~K.~Chua, and C.~W.~Hwang, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69},
1411: 074025 (2004).
1412:
1413: \bibitem{Garmash:2004wa} Belle Collaboration,
1414: A.~Garmash {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 092003 (2005).
1415:
1416: \bibitem {hewett-res} See {\it e. g.} G. Eilam, J. L. Hewett, and A. Soni,
1417: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 67}, 1979 (1991); D. Atwood and A. Soni, Z.
1418: Phys. C {\bf 64}, 241 (1994).
1419:
1420:
1421: \bi{Furman} A. Furman, R. Kami\'nski, L. Le\'sniak, and B.
1422: Loiseau, hep-ph/0504116.
1423:
1424: \bibitem{BaBarKKKsEPS} BaBar
1425: Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\it et al.,}
1426: %``Dalitz plot study of B0 $\to$ K+ K- K0(S) decays,''
1427: hep-ex/0507094.
1428: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507094;%%
1429:
1430:
1431: \end{thebibliography}
1432: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1433:
1434:
1435: \end{document}
1436: