1: \documentclass[prd,twocolumn,aps,amsmath,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{bm}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6:
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: %Put your definitions here
9:
10: %\documentstyle[preprint,floats,tighten,aps,graphicx]{revtex}
11:
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: %%%%% Add code to put the time in our tex file %%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \newcount\hour \newcount\minute
15: \hour=\time \divide \hour by 60
16: \minute=\time
17: \count99=\hour \multiply \count99 by -60 \advance \minute by \count99
18: \newcommand{\mydate}{\ \today \ - \number\hour :\ifnum \minute<10 0\fi
19: \number\minute}
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21:
22:
23: %Put your definitions here
24:
25: \def\Slash#1{{#1\!\!\!\slash}}
26: \def\Aslash{A\!\!\!\!\slash}
27: \def\Bslash{B\!\!\!\!\slash}
28: \def\Dslash{D\!\!\!\!\slash}
29: \def\Eslash{E\!\!\!\slash}
30: \def\Mslash{M\!\!\!\!\!\slash}
31: \def\SppP{{\cal {P\!\!\!\!\hspace{0.04cm}\slash}}_\perp}
32: \def\ppslash{p^{\,\prime}\!\!\!\!\!\slash}
33: \def\nslash{n\!\!\!\slash}
34: \def\bnslash{\bar n\!\!\!\slash}
35: \def\pslash{p\!\!\!\slash}
36: \def\qslash{q\!\!\!\slash}
37: \def\ellslash{\ell\!\!\!\slash}
38: \def\lslash{l\!\!\!\slash}
39: \def\dslash{\partial\!\!\!\slash}
40: \def\Aslash{A\!\!\!\slash}
41: \def\epslash{\epsilon\!\!\!\slash}
42: \def\vslash{v\!\!\!\slash}
43: \def\OMIT#1{}
44:
45: \newcommand{\CH}[2]{\chi_{#1,#2}}
46: \newcommand{\CHp}[3]{\chi_{#1,#2}^{#3}}
47: \newcommand{\bCH}[2]{\overline\chi_{#1,#2}}
48: \newcommand{\bCHp}[3]{\overline\chi_{#1,#2}^{#3}}
49:
50: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
51: \newcommand{\lc}{\lowercase}
52: \newcommand{\bn}{{\bar n}}
53: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
54: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
55: \newcommand{\bnp}{\bar n \!\cdot\! p}
56: \newcommand{\bnP}{\bar {\cal P}}
57: \newcommand{\ppP}{{\cal P}_\perp}
58: \newcommand{\bnPd}{\bar {\cal P}^{\raisebox{0.8mm}{\scriptsize$\dagger$}} }
59: \newcommand{\cP}{{\cal P}}
60: \newcommand{\cPslash}{ {\cal P}\!\!\!\!\slash}
61: \newcommand{\bs}{\!\hspace{0.05cm}}
62: \newcommand{\mcdot}{\!\cdot\!}
63: \newcommand{\Ub}{{\cal U}}
64: \newcommand{\cD}{{\cal D}}
65: \newcommand{\LQCD}{{\Lambda}}
66: \newcommand{\np}{n \!\cdot\! p}
67:
68: \newcommand{\SCETa}{\mbox{${\rm SCET}_{\rm I}$ }}
69: \newcommand{\SCETb}{\mbox{${\rm SCET}_{\rm II}$ }}
70:
71: \newcommand{\DgppPl}{\,\overleftarrow D{}_{\!c\,\alpha}^{\perp}}
72: \newcommand{\DgppPr}{\,\overrightarrow D{}_{\!c\,\alpha}^{\perp}}
73:
74: \def\lqcd{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}
75:
76: \begin{document}
77:
78:
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80: %Define Title, Author, Address, Preprint#
81:
82: \preprint{ \vbox{\hbox{MIT-CTP 3688} \hbox{LBNL-58941} \hbox{hep-ph/0510241} }}
83:
84: \title{SCET Analysis of $B\to K\pi$, $B\to K\bar K$, and $B\to \pi\pi$
85: Decays\vspace{0.3cm}}
86:
87:
88:
89: \author{Christian W.~Bauer}
90: \affiliation{Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720}
91: \author{Ira Z.~Rothstein}
92: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University,
93: Pittsburgh, PA 15213}
94: \author{Iain W.~Stewart\vspace{0.4cm}}
95: \affiliation{Center for Theoretical Physics, Laboratory for Nuclear Science,
96: Massachusetts Institute of Technology,\\
97: Cambridge, MA 02139\vspace{0.3cm}}
98:
99: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
100: \begin{abstract}
101:
102: $B \to K \pi$ and related decays are studied in the heavy quark limit of QCD
103: using the soft collinear effective theory (SCET). We focus on results that
104: follow solely from integrating out the scale $m_b$, without expanding the
105: amplitudes for the physics at smaller scales such as
106: $\alpha_s(\sqrt{E_\pi\Lambda_{\rm QCD}})$. The reduction in the number of
107: hadronic parameters in SCET leads to multiple predictions without the need of
108: SU(3). We find that the CP-asymmetry in $B^-\to \pi^0 K^-$ should have a
109: similar magnitude and the same sign as the well measured asymmetry in $\bar
110: B^0 \to\pi^+ K^-$. Our prediction for ${\rm Br}(K^+\pi^-)$ exceeds the current
111: experimental value at the $2 \sigma$ level. We also use our results to
112: determine the corrections to the Lipkin and CP-asymmetry sum rules in the
113: standard model and find them to be quite small, thus sharpening their utility
114: as a tool to look for new physics.
115:
116: \end{abstract}
117:
118: \maketitle
119:
120: %
121: \section{Introduction}
122: \label{sec:introduction}
123: %
124: Two body nonleptonic decays are the most widely used processes to study CP
125: violation in the $B$ system. Due to the large mass of the $B$-meson there is a
126: plethora of open channels, each of which provides unique ways for testing the
127: consistency of the standard model. For each channel observables include the CP
128: averaged branching ratios ({\rm Br}), direct CP asymmetry ($A_{CP}=-C$), and for
129: certain neutral $B$ decays, the time dependent CP asymmetry ($S$). For the
130: decays we are interested in
131: \begin{align} \label{obs}
132: & {\rm Br} \equiv \frac{1}{\Gamma_B} \frac{s|\vec p|}{8\pi m_B^2}
133: \Big( \frac{|{A}|^2 + |\overline A|^2}{2} \Big) \,,
134: \quad \lambda_{ CP}= \frac{q}{p}\, \frac{\overline A}{A},\\[5pt]
135: & A_{\rm CP} \equiv
136: \frac{|{A}|^2 - |\overline A|^2}{|{A}|^2 + |\overline A|^2} \,,
137: %
138: \quad S = \frac{2 \, {\rm Im}(\lambda_{CP})}{1+|{\lambda_{ CP}}|^2}\,,
139: \nn\\[5pt]
140: & \frac{\Gamma_{B^0}(t) - \Gamma_{\bar B^0}(t)}
141: {\Gamma_{B^0}(t) + \Gamma_{\bar B^0}(t)}
142: \equiv -S \sin(\Delta m\, t) + C \cos(\Delta m\, t)
143: \nn \,,
144: \end{align}
145: where $A$ is the amplitude of the decay process $A=A(\bar B\to M_1 M_2)$,
146: $\overline A$ is the amplitude for CP-conjugate process, and $q/p$ is the mixing
147: parameter for $B^0-\bar B^0$ and/or $K^0-\bar K^0$ mixing. The other parameters
148: in Eq.(\ref{obs}) are $|\vec p|$, the final meson momentum in the $B$ rest
149: frame, $s$, a possible identical particle symmetry factor, and $\Delta m$, the
150: difference between mass eigenstates in the neutral $B$ two-state system.
151:
152: Using the unitarity of the CKM matrix to remove top-quark CKM elements, the
153: amplitude for any decay can be written with the CKM elements factored out as
154: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Auc}
155: A = \lambda_u^{(f)} A_u + \lambda_c^{(f)} A_c\,,
156: \end{eqnarray}
157: where $\lambda_p^{(f)} = V_{pb}^* V_{pf}$. Theoretical predictions for the
158: observables in (\ref{obs}) are often hampered by our ability to calculate
159: $A_{u,c}$. In general the CP-asymmetries depend on the ratio of amplitudes
160: $|A_u/A_c|$ and their relative strong phase $\delta$. In fact $A_{\rm CP}\propto
161: \sin(\delta)$, and so non-negligible strong dynamics are required for the
162: existence of a direct CP asymmetry.
163:
164: The parameters $A_u$ and $A_c$ are in principle different for each decay
165: channel. In order to accurately determine $A_u$ and $A_c$ we need model
166: independent methods to handle the strong dynamics in these decays. All such
167: methods involve systematic expansions of QCD in ratios of quark masses and the
168: scale $\Lambda\simeq \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ associated with hadronization. This
169: includes flavor symmetries for the light quarks, SU(2) and SU(3), from
170: $m_q/\Lambda\ll 1$, as well as expansions for the heavy $b$-quark from
171: $\Lambda/m_b \ll 1$. For nonleptonic decays to two light mesons with energies
172: $E_m\sim m_b/2$, kinematics implies that we must also expand in $\Lambda/E_M \ll
173: 1$. A formalism for systematically expanding QCD in this fashion is the
174: soft-collinear effective theory (SCET)~\cite{SCET}. In nonleptonic B-decays the
175: expected accuracy of these expansions are
176: \begin{align} \label{expn}
177: & {\rm SU(2)} & \frac{m_{u,d}}{\Lambda} \sim 0.03 \ll 1 \,,\\
178: & {\rm SU(3)} & \frac{m_{u,d}}{\Lambda} \ll 1 ,\
179: \frac{m_{s}}{\Lambda} \sim 0.3 \ll 1 \,, \nn \\
180: & {\rm SCET} & \frac{\Lambda}{E_M} \sim \frac{2\Lambda}{m_b}
181: \sim 0.2 \ll 1
182: \,. \nn
183: \end{align}
184: The flavor symmetries SU(2) and SU(3) provide amplitude relations between
185: different nonleptonic channels, thereby reducing the number of hadronic
186: parameters. The expansion in $\Lambda/m_b\sim \Lambda/E_M$ also reduces the
187: number of hadronic parameters. In this case the expansion yields factorization
188: theorems for the amplitudes in terms of moments of universal hadronic functions.
189:
190: In this paper we study standard model predictions for $B\to K\pi$, $K\bar K$,
191: and $\pi\pi$ decays. These channels provide 25 observables, of which 19 have
192: been measured or bounded as summarized in Table~\ref{dataall}. We make use of
193: the expansions in Eq.~(\ref{expn}), focusing on SCET. Our goal is to quantify the
194: extent to which the current data agrees or disagrees with the standard model in
195: the presence of hadronic uncertainties, and to provide a roadmap for looking for
196: deviations in future precision measurements of these decays.
197: \begin{table}[t!]
198: %\mbox{
199: \begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
200: & ${\rm Br}\times 10^6$ & $A_{\rm CP}=-C$ & $S$ \\\hline
201: $\pi^+ \pi^- $ &\ $5.0\pm 0.4$ \ & \ $0.37\pm 0.10$ \ &\ $-0.50\pm 0.12$ \ \\
202: $\pi^0 \pi^0$ & $1.45\pm 0.29$ & $0.28\pm 0.40$ & \\
203: $\pi^+ \pi^0$ & $5.5\pm 0.6$ & $0.01 \pm 0.06$ & $-$ \\\hline
204: %
205: $\pi^- \bar K^0 $ &\ $24.1\pm 1.3$ \ & \ $-0.02\pm 0.04$ \
206: & $-$\ \\
207: $\pi^0 K^-$ & $12.1\pm 0.8$ & $0.04\pm 0.04$ & $-$\\
208: $\pi^+ K^-$ & $18.9\pm 0.7$ & $-0.115\pm 0.018$ & $-$ \\
209: $\pi^0 \bar K^0$ & $11.5\pm 1.0$ & $-0.02 \pm 0.13$ & $0.31 \pm 0.26$ \\\hline
210: %
211: $K^+K^-$ & $0.06\pm 0.12 $&\ & \ \ \\
212: $K^0 \bar K^0$&$0.96 \pm 0.25$&\ & \ \\
213: $\bar K^0 K^-$&$1.2\pm0.3$&\ & $-$ \\
214: \hline
215: %$K^{\star 0}\pi^+$&$11.4 \pm 1.0$&\ & \\
216: %$K^{\star +}\pi^0$& $6.9\pm 2.3$&\ & \\
217: %$K^{\star 0}\pi^0$& $1.7\pm 0.8$&\ & \\
218: %$K^{\star +}\pi^-$& $11.7\pm 2.1$&\ & \\
219: \end{tabular}
220: {\caption {Current $B \to \pi\pi$, $K\pi$, and $K\bar K$
221: data~\cite{HFAG,Babar,Belle,Cleo2,CDF}. The $S$ for $\pi K$ is $S(\pi^0 K_S)$.
222: }\label{dataall}}
223: %}
224: \end{table}
225:
226: The SU(2) isospin symmetry is known to hold to a few percent accuracy, and thus
227: almost every analysis of nonleptonic decays exploits isospin symmetry.
228: (Electroweak penguin contributions are simply $\Delta I=1/2$ and $\Delta I=3/2$
229: weak operators, and are not what we mean by isospin violation.) Methods for
230: determining or bounding $\alpha$ (or $\gamma$) using isospin have been discussed
231: in~\cite{GL,isospinbound} and are actively used in $B\to\pi\pi$ and $B\to
232: \rho\rho$ decays. In $B\to\rho\rho$ this yields $\alpha_{\rho\rho}= 96^\circ \pm
233: 13^\circ$~\cite{HFAG}. For $B\to\pi\pi$ this analysis has significantly larger
234: errors, since the $A_c$ amplitudes are larger and the asymmetry $C(\pi^0\pi^0)$
235: is not yet measured well enough to constrain the hadronic parameters. Isospin
236: violating effects have been studied in~\cite{isospinbreaking}. For $B\to K\pi$
237: and $B\to K\bar K$ an SU(2) analysis is not fruitful since there are more
238: isospin parameters than there are measurements, so further information about the
239: hadronic parameters is mandatory.
240:
241: In $B\to \pi\pi$, even if $C(\pi^0\pi^0)$ were known precisely it would still be
242: important to have more information about the amplitudes $A_u$ and $A_c$ than
243: isospin provides. For example, isospin allows us to test whether
244: $\gamma_{\pi\pi}$ differs from the value obtained by global
245: fits~\cite{CKMfitter,UTfit},
246: \begin{align}
247: \gamma_{\rm\, global}^{\rm\, CKMfitter}
248: &= 58.6^\circ {}^{+6.8^\circ}_{-5.9^\circ}
249: \,,\nn\\
250: \gamma_{\rm\, global}^{\rm\, UTfit}
251: &= 57.9^\circ \pm 7.4^\circ \,.
252: \end{align}
253: However, a deviation in $\gamma$ is not the only way that new physics can appear
254: in $B\to\pi\pi$ decays. Simply fitting the full set of SU(2) amplitudes can
255: parameterize away a source of new physics. For example, Ref.~\cite{Baek:2005cg}
256: has argued that it is impossible to see new physics in the $(\pi\pi)_{I=0}$
257: amplitudes in an isospin based fit. Thus, it is important to consider the
258: additional information provided by SU(3) or factorization, since this allows us
259: to make additional tests of the standard model. The expansion parameters here
260: are larger, and so for these analyses it becomes much more important to properly
261: assess the theoretical uncertainties in order to interpret the data.
262:
263: The analysis of $B\to K\pi$ decays has a rich history in the standard model,
264: provoked by the CLEO measurements~\cite{CLEO} that indicated that these decays
265: are dominated by penguin amplitudes that were larger than expected. The
266: dominance by loop effects makes these decays an ideal place to look for new
267: physics effects. Some recent new physics analyses can be found in
268: Refs.~\cite{Kpinewphysics}. This literature is divided on whether or not there
269: are hints for new physics in these decays. The main obstacle is the assessment
270: of the uncertainty of the standard model predictions from hadronic interactions.
271:
272: Several standard model analyses based on the limit $m_s/\Lambda \ll 1$ (ie SU(3)
273: symmetry) have been reported
274: recently~\cite{SU3gronau,SU3buras,SU3Li,Suprun,SU3Wu,SU3other} (see
275: also~\cite{su3,graphical2,burasfleischer} for earlier work). In the $\Delta S = 1$ decays the electroweak
276: penguin amplitudes can not be neglected, since they are enhanced by CKM factors.
277: Unfortunately the number of precise measurements makes it necessary to introduce
278: additional ``dynamical assumptions'' to reduce the number of hadronic parameters
279: beyond those in SU(3). In some cases efforts are made to estimate a subset of
280: the SU(3) violating effects to further reduce the uncertainty. The dynamical
281: assumptions rely on additional knowledge of the strong matrix elements and in
282: the past were motivated by naive factorization or the large $N_c$ limit of QCD.
283: Our current understanding of the true nature of factorization in QCD allows some
284: of these assumptions to be justified by the $\Lambda/E_M$ expansion. However, it
285: should be noted that a priori there is no reason to prefer these factorization
286: predictions to others that follow from the $\Lambda/m_b$ expansion (such as the
287: prediction that certain strong phases are small).
288:
289: In Ref.~\cite{SU3gronau} a $\chi^2$-fit was performed with $\gamma$ as a fit
290: parameter, including decays to $\eta$ and $\eta'$. The result $\gamma=61^\circ
291: \pm 11^\circ$ agrees well with global CKM fits. Here evidence for deviations
292: from the standard model would show up as large contributions to the $\chi^2$.
293: The most recent analysis~\cite{Suprun} has ${\rm Br}(K^+\pi^-)$, ${\rm
294: Br}(K^0\pi^0)$, and $A_{\rm CP}(K^0\pi^0)$ contributing $\Delta \chi^2 = 2.7$,
295: $5.9$, and $2.9$ respectively, giving some hints for possible deviations from
296: the standard model. Ref.~\cite{SU3buras} extracted hadronic paramters from
297: $B\to\pi\pi$ decays, and used these results together with SU(3) and the neglect
298: of exchange, penguin annihilation, and all electroweak penguin topologies except
299: for the tree to make predictions for $B\to K\pi$ and $B\to K\bar K$ decays. They
300: find large annihilation amplitudes, a large phase and magnitude for an amplitude
301: ratio $\tilde C/\tilde T$ which is interpretted as large $P_{ut}$ penguin
302: amplitudes. The deviation of ${\rm Br}(K^+\pi^-)/{\rm Br}(\bar K^0\pi^0)$ from
303: standard model expectations was interpreted as evidence for new physics in
304: electroweak penguins.
305:
306: There has been tremendous progress over the last few years in understanding
307: charmless two-body, non-leptonic $B$ decays in the heavy quark limit of
308: QCD~\cite{QCDF,PQCD,charmingpenguins,earlier,pipiChay,bprs,Bauer:2001cu,Mantry:2003uz,diff1,diff2,FH,pQCDKpi,BW,BS,Lee,Kagan}.
309: In this limit one can prove factorization theorems of the matrix elements
310: describing the strong dynamics in the decay into simpler structures such as
311: light cone distribution amplitudes of the mesons and matrix elements describing
312: a heavy to light transition~\cite{QCDF} (for earlier work see
313: Refs.~\cite{earlier}). It is very important that these results are obtained from
314: a systematic expansion in powers of $\lqcd/m_b$. The development of
315: soft-collinear effective theory (SCET)~\cite{SCET} allowed these decays to be
316: treated in the framework of effective theories, clarifying the separation of
317: scales in the problem, and allowing factorization to be generalized to all
318: orders in $\alpha_s$. In Ref.~\cite{Bauer:2001cu} a proof of factorization was
319: given for $B\to DM^-$ type decays. Power corrections can also be investigated
320: with SCET and in Ref.~\cite{Mantry:2003uz} a factorization theorem was proven
321: for the color-suppressed $\bar B^0\to D^0 M^0$ decays, and extended to
322: isosinglet light mesons in Ref.~\cite{Blechman:2004vc}. Predictions from these
323: results agree quite well with the available data, in particular the prediction
324: of equal rates and strong phase shift for $D$ and $D^*$ channels.
325:
326: Factorization for $B\to M_1 M_2$ decays involves three distinct distance scales
327: $m_b^2 \gg E_M\Lambda \gg \Lambda^2$. For $B\to M_1 M_2$ decays a factorization
328: theorem was proposed by Beneke, Buchalla, Neubert and Sachrajda~\cite{QCDF},
329: often referred to as the QCDF result in the literature. Another proposal is a
330: factorization formula which depends on transverse momenta, which is referred to
331: as PQCD~\cite{PQCD}. The factorization theorem derived using
332: SCET~\cite{bprs,pipiChay} agrees with the structure of the QCDF proposal if
333: perturbation theory is applied at the scales $m_b^2$ and $m_b\Lambda$. (QCDF
334: treats the $c\bar c$ penguins perturbatively, while in our analysis they are
335: left as a perturbative contribution plus an unfactorized large ${\cal O}(v)$
336: term.) Due to the charm mass scale the identification of a convergent
337: expansion for the $c\bar c$ penguins remains
338: unclear~\cite{charmingpenguins,FH,diff1,diff2}. For further discussion
339: see~\cite{diff1,diff2}.) The SCET result improved the factorization formula by
340: generalizing it to allow each of the scales $m_b^2$, $E_M\Lambda$, and
341: $\Lambda^2_{\rm QCD}$ to be discussed independently. In particular, it was
342: possible to show that a reduced set of universal parameters for these decays can
343: already be defined after integrating out the scale $m_b^2$~\cite{bprs}, opening
344: up the ability to make predictions for nonleptonic decays without requiring an
345: expansion in $\alpha_s(\sqrt{E\Lambda})$. (If the $m_b^2$ and $m_b\Lambda$
346: scales were separated in pQCD then this same result would be found for this
347: first stage of factorization.) As a secondary step, additional predictions can
348: be explored by doing a further expansion in $\alpha_s$ at the intermediate
349: scale. The expense of the second expansion comes in principle with the benefit
350: of a further reduction in the number of hadronic parameters and additional
351: universality. In this paper we will explore the implications the first step of
352: factorization has for $B\to K\pi$ decays.
353:
354: There are several ways results from factorization can be used to analyze the
355: data depending on i) whether perturbation theory is used at the intermediate
356: $E_M\Lambda$ scale as mentioned above, and ii) whether light-cone sum rules,
357: models, or data is used to determine the hadronic parameters. In the
358: QCDF~\cite{QCDF} and PQCD~\cite{PQCD} analyses perturbation theory is used at
359: the scale $E_M\Lambda$ and light-cone sum rules~\cite{Ball,Koj} or simple
360: estimates were used for numerical values of most of the hadronic parameters.
361: Nonleptonic decay have also been studied with light-cone sum rules~\cite{Khodj}.
362: With this input, all nonleptonic observables can be predicted and confronted
363: with the experimental data. In both QCDF and PQCD a subset of power corrections
364: are identified, parameterized in terms of new unknowns, and included in the
365: numerical analysis. These power corrections are crucial to get reasonable agreement
366: with the data. In these analyses
367: it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the model independent
368: predictions from the heavy quark limit and the model dependent input from
369: hadronic parameters. Ciucchini et al. have argued that so called charming
370: penguins could be larger than expected and include unknowns to parameterize
371: these effects~\cite{charmingpenguins}. Fitting the hadronic parameters to
372: non-leptonic data in some channels and using the results to make predictions for
373: other channels, as we advocate in this paper, has the advantage of avoiding model
374: dependent input. Fits in QCDF have been performed in~\cite{CKMfitter}. So far
375: restrictions on the size of leading and subleading hadronic parameters necessary
376: to guarantee convergence have not been explored. Other fits based purely on
377: isospin symmetry have been explored in~\cite{isofits,bprs}.
378:
379: In Ref.~\cite{bprs,gammafit,GHLP} the factorization theorem was used in a
380: different way, focusing on $B\to \pi\pi$ decays. Here perturbation theory was
381: only used at the $m_b^2$ scale and fits to nonleptonic data were performed for
382: the hadronic parameters in the LO factorization theorem. The problematic
383: contributions from charm-quark penguins were treated using only isospin
384: symmetry. (This is also a good approach if power corrections spoil the
385: expansion for this observable. Note that it avoids expanding the amplitude which
386: has possible contamination from ``chirally enhanced'' power
387: corrections~\cite{QCDF}.) Here we continue this program for $B\to K\pi$ and
388: $B\to K\bar K$ decays (along with there comparison with $B\to \pi\pi$). For
389: simplicity we refer to this as an ``SCET'' analysis, although it should be
390: emphasized that other approaches to using the SCET-factorization theorem are
391: possible. A key utility of factorization for nonleptonic decays is that the
392: $\Lambda/E$ and $\alpha_s(m_b)$ expansions are systematic and give us a method
393: to estimate the theory uncertainty. Based on these uncertainties we investigate
394: if the theory at leading order is able to explain the observed data. When
395: deviations are found there are several possible explanations, all of which are
396: interesting: either the expansions inherent in the theoretical analysis are
397: suspect, or there are statistical fluctuations in the data, or we are seeing
398: first hints of physics beyond the standard model.
399:
400:
401:
402: This paper is organized as follows: In section~\ref{sec:theory} we discuss the
403: theory input required to describe the decays of a $B$ meson to two light
404: pseudoscalar mesons. We briefly review the electroweak Hamiltonian at $\mu=m_b$
405: and then we discuss the counting of the number of parameters required to
406: describe these decays using SU(2), SU(3), and SCET analyses. We finish this
407: section by giving a general parameterization of the decay amplitudes in SU(2).
408: (In the appendix we give the relations between our parameters and the graphical
409: amplitudes~\cite{graphical1,graphical2,graphical3}.) In
410: section~\ref{sec:SCETtheory} we give the expressions of the decay amplitudes in
411: SCET. We begin by giving the general expressions at leading order in the power
412: expansion, but correct to all orders in $\alpha_s$ and comment about new
413: information that arises from combining these SCET relations with the SU(3)
414: flavor symmetry. We then use the Wilson coefficients at leading order in
415: $\alpha_s(m_b)$ and give expressions for the decay amplitudes at that order. We
416: finish this section with a discussion of our estimate of the uncertainties which
417: arise from unknown ${\cal O}(\alpha_s(m_b))$ and ${\cal O}(\lqcd/E)$
418: corrections. A detailed discussion of the implications of the SCET results is
419: given in section~\ref{sec:SCETimplications}. We emphasize that within factorization
420: the ratios of
421: color suppressed and color allowed amplitudes ($C/T$ and $EW^C/EW^T$) can
422: naturally be of order unity at LO in the power counting, contrary to
423: conventional wisdom~\cite{bprs}. We also perform an error analysis for the
424: Lipkin and CP-sum rules in $B\to K\pi$ decays, and discuss predictions for the
425: relative signs of the $CP$ asymmetries. We then review the information one can
426: obtain from only the decays $B \to \pi \pi$, before we discuss in detail the
427: implications of the SCET analysis for the decays $B \to K \pi$ and $B \to KK$.
428:
429:
430:
431: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
432: \section{Theory Input}
433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
434: \label{sec:theory}
435: %
436: \subsection{The electroweak Hamiltonian}
437: \label{sec:hamiltonian}
438: %
439: The electroweak Hamiltonian describing $\Delta b=1$ transitions $b\to f$ is
440: given by
441: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Hw}
442: H_W = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{p=u,c} \lambda_p^{(f)}
443: \Big( C_1 O_1^p + C_2 O_2^p
444: +\!\!\! \sum_{i=3}^{10,7\gamma,8g}\!\! C_i O_i \Big),
445: \end{eqnarray}
446: where the CKM factor is $\lambda_p^{(f)} = V_{pb} V^*_{pf}$. The standard basis
447: of operators are (with $O^p_{1}\leftrightarrow O^p_{2}$ relative
448: to~\cite{fullWilson})
449: \begin{eqnarray}\label{fullops}
450: O_1^p \!\! &=&\!\! (\overline{p} b)_{V\!-\!A}
451: (\overline{f} p)_{V\!-\!A}, \ \
452: O_2^p = (\overline{p}_{\beta} b_{\alpha})_{V\!-\!A}
453: (\overline{f}_{\alpha} p_{\beta})_{V\!-\!A}, \nonumber \\
454: O_{3,4} \!\! &=& \!\! \big\{ (\overline{p} b)_{V\!-\!A}
455: (\overline{q} q)_{V\! - \!A}\,, (\overline{f}_{\beta} b_{\alpha})_{V\!-\!A}
456: (\overline{q}_{\alpha} q_{\beta})_{V\! - \!A} \big\}, \nonumber \\
457: O_{5,6} \!\! &=& \!\! \big\{ (\overline{f} b)_{V\!-\!A}
458: (\overline{q} q)_{V\! + \!A}\,, (\overline{f}_{\beta} b_{\alpha})_{V\!-\!A}
459: (\overline{q}_{\alpha} q_{\beta})_{V\! + \!A} \big\}, \nonumber \\
460: O_{7,8} \!\! &=& \frac{3e_q}{2}\!\! \big\{ (\overline{f} b)_{V\!-\!A}
461: (\overline{q} q)_{V\! + \!A}\,, (\overline{f}_{\beta} b_{\alpha})_{V\!-\!A}
462: (\overline{q}_{\alpha} q_{\beta})_{V\! + \!A} \big\}, \nonumber \\
463: O_{9,10} \!\! &=& \frac{3e_q}{2}\!\! \big\{ (\overline{f} b)_{V\!-\!A}
464: (\overline{q} q)_{V\! - \!A}\,, (\overline{f}_{\beta} b_{\alpha})_{V\!-\!A}
465: (\overline{q}_{\alpha} q_{\beta})_{V\! - \!A} \big\}, \nonumber \\
466: O_{7\gamma,8g} \!\! &=&\!\! -\frac{m_b}{8\pi^2}\ \overline{f}\, \sigma^{\mu\nu}
467: \{e F_{\mu\nu},g G_{\mu\nu}^a T^a\} (1\!+\! \gamma_5) b \,.
468: \end{eqnarray}
469: Here the sum over $q=u,d,s,c,b$ is implicit, $\alpha, \beta$ are color indices
470: and $e_q$ are electric charges. The $\Delta S=0$ and $\Delta S=1$ effective
471: Hamiltonian is obtained by setting $f=d$ and $f=s$ in
472: Eqs.~(\ref{Hw},\ref{fullops}), respectively. The Wilson coefficients are known
473: to NLL order~\cite{fullWilson}. At LL order taking $\alpha_s(m_Z)=0.118$,
474: $m_t=174.3$, and $m_b=4.8\,{\rm GeV}$ gives $C_{7\gamma}(m_b)=-0.316$,
475: $C_{8g}(m_b) =-0.149$ and
476: \begin{eqnarray}
477: &&
478: C_{1-10}(m_b) = \{
479: 1.107\,,
480: -.249\,,
481: .011\,,
482: -.026\,,
483: .008\,,
484: -.031 \,,
485: \nn\\
486: && \ \
487: 4.9 \!\times\! 10^{-4} \,,
488: 4.6 \!\times\! 10^{-4} \,,
489: -9.8 \!\times\! 10^{-3} \,,
490: 1.9 \!\times\! 10^{-3} \} \,.
491: \end{eqnarray}
492: %The coefficients in Eq.~(\ref{Hw}) are also known at NLL
493: %order~\cite{fullWilson}. In the NDR scheme
494: %\begin{align}
495: % &
496: %C_{1-6}(m_b) = \{
497: % 1.079\,,
498: % -.177\,,
499: % .012\,,
500: % -.034\,,
501: % .010\,,
502: % -.040 \} \,.
503: %% \nn\\
504: %% && \ \
505: %% 4.9 \!\times\! 10^{-4} \,,
506: %% 4.6 \!\times\! 10^{-4} \,,
507: %% -9.8 \!\times\! 10^{-3} \,,
508: %% 1.9 \!\times\! 10^{-3} \} \,.
509: %\end{align}
510:
511: Below the scale $\mu \sim m_b$ one can integrate out the $b \bar b$ pairs in the
512: operators $O_{3-10}$. The remaining operators have only one $b$-quark field, and
513: sums over light quarks $q=u,d,s,c$. This gives rise to a threshold
514: correction to the Wilson coefficients,
515: \begin{eqnarray}
516: C_i^-(m_b) = C_i^+(m_b) \Big[1 + \frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi} \delta r_s^T +
517: \frac{\alpha}{4 \pi} \delta r_c^T \Big]\,,
518: \end{eqnarray}
519: where $C^+$ and $C^-$ are the Wilson coefficients with and without dynamical $b$
520: quarks, and $\delta r_s^T$ and $\delta r_c^T$ are given in Eqs.~(VII.31)
521: and~(VII.32) of~\cite{fullWilson}. This changes the numerical values of the
522: Wilson coefficients by less than 2\%. Integrating out dynamical b quarks allows
523: for additional simplifications for the electroweak penguin operators, since now
524: for the flavor structure we have
525: \begin{align}
526: \frac{3}{2}\, e_q (\bar f b)(\bar q q)
527: &= \frac{1}{2}\, (\bar f b) ( 2 u \bar u- d \bar d - s \bar s + 2c \bar c)
528: \\
529: &\!\!\!\!
530: = \frac{3}{2} \, (\bar f b) ( u \bar u) + \frac{3}{2}(\bar f b) ( c \bar c)
531: - \frac12 \!\!\!\! \sum_{q=u,d,s,c}\!\!\! (\bar f b) (q\bar q)
532: \,.\nn
533: \end{align}
534:
535: The operators $O_9$ and $O_{10}$ have the regular $(V-A)\times(V-A)$ Dirac
536: structure, and can therefore be written as linear combinations of the operators
537: $O_{1-4}$,
538: \begin{align} \label{O9O10}
539: O_9 &= \frac32\, O_2^u + \frac32\, O_2^c - \frac12\, O_3 \,, \\
540: O_{10} &= \frac32\, O_1^u + \frac32\, O_1^c - \frac12\, O_4 \,. \nn
541: \end{align}
542: This is not possible for the operators $O_7$ and $O_8$, which have
543: $(V-A)\times(V+A)$ Dirac structure. Thus, integrating out the dynamical $b$
544: quarks removes two operators from the basis. To completely integrate out the
545: dynamics at the scale $m_b$ we must match onto operators in SCET, as discussed
546: in section~\ref{sec:SCETtheory} below.
547:
548: %
549: \subsection{Counting of Parameters}
550: \label{sec:counting}
551: %
552:
553:
554: Without any theoretical input, there are 4 real hadronic parameters for each
555: decay mode (one complex amplitude for each CKM structure) minus one overall
556: strong phase. In addition, there are the weak CP violating phases that we want
557: to determine. For $B \to \pi \pi$ decays there are a total of 11 hadronic
558: parameters, while in $B \to K \pi$ decays there are 15 hadronic parameters.
559:
560: Using isospin, the number of parameters is reduced. Isospin gives one amplitude
561: relation for both the $\pi \pi$ and the $K \pi$ system, thus eliminating 4
562: hadronic parameters in each system (two complex amplitudes for each CKM
563: structure). This leaves 7 hadronic parameters for $B \to \pi \pi$ and 11 for $B
564: \to K \pi$. An alternative way to count the number of parameters is to construct
565: the reduced matrix elements in SU(2). The electroweak Hamiltonian mediating the
566: decays $B \to \pi \pi$ has up to three light up or down quarks. Thus, the
567: operator is either $\Delta I = 1/2$ or $\Delta I = 3/2$. The two pions are
568: either in an $I=0$ or $I=2$ state (the $I=1$ state is ruled out by Bose
569: symmetry). This leaves 2 reduced matrix elements for each CKM structure, $\langle {\bf 0} || {\bf 1/2} || {\bf 1/2} \rangle$
570: and $\langle {\bf
571: 2} || {\bf 3/2} || {\bf 1/2} \rangle$. For $B \to K \pi$ decays the
572: electroweak Hamiltonian has either $\Delta I = 0$ or $\Delta I = 1$. The $K \pi$
573: system is either in an $I=1/2$ or $I=3/2$ state thus there are three reduced
574: matrix elements per CKM structure, $\langle {\bf 3/2} || {\bf 1} ||
575: {\bf 1/2} \rangle$, $\langle {\bf 1/2} || {\bf 1} || {\bf 1/2}
576: \rangle$ and $\langle {\bf 1/2} || {\bf 0} || {\bf 1/2} \rangle$.
577: Finally, $K\bar K$ is either an $I=0$ or $I=1$, and there are again three
578: reduced matrix elements per CKM structure, $\langle {\bf 0} || {\bf 1/2}
579: || {\bf 1/2} \rangle$, $ \langle {\bf 1} || {\bf 1/2} || {\bf 1/2}
580: \rangle$, and $\langle {\bf 1} || {\bf 3/2} || {\bf 1/2} \rangle$.
581:
582: The SU(3) flavor symmetry relates not only the decays $B \to \pi \pi$ and $B \to
583: K \pi$, $B \to K K$, but also $B \to \pi \eta_8$, $B \to \eta_8 K$ and $B_s$
584: decays to two light mesons. The decomposition of the amplitudes in terms of
585: SU(3) reduced matrix elements can be obtained
586: from~\cite{Zeppenfeld,SavageWise,GrinsteinLebed}. The Hamiltonian can transform
587: either as a ${\bf \overline 3}^s$, ${\bf \overline 3}^a$, ${\bf 6}$ or ${\bf
588: \overline {15}}$. Thus, there are 7 reduced matrix elements per CKM
589: structure, $\langle {\bf 1} || {\bf \overline 3}^s || {\bf 3} \rangle$, $\langle
590: {\bf 1} || {\bf \overline 3}^a || {\bf 3} \rangle$, $\langle {\bf 8} || {\bf
591: \overline 3}^s || {\bf 3} \rangle$, $\langle {\bf 8} || {\bf \overline 3}^a ||
592: {\bf 3} \rangle$, $\langle {\bf 8} || {\bf 6}^s || {\bf 3} \rangle$, $\langle
593: {\bf 8} || {\bf \overline {15} }^s || {\bf 3} \rangle$ and $\langle {\bf 27} ||
594: {\bf \overline{15}}^s || {\bf 3} \rangle$. The ${\bf \overline 3}^a$ and ${\bf
595: \overline 3}^s$ come in a single linear combination so this leaves 20 hadronic
596: parameters to describe all these decays minus 1 overall phase (plus additional
597: parameters for singlets and mixing to properly describe $\eta$ and $\eta'$). Of
598: these hadronic parameters, only 15 are required to describe $B \to \pi \pi$ and
599: $B \to K \pi$ decays (16 minus an overall phase). If we add $B \to K K $ decays
600: then 4 more paramaters are needed (which are solely due to electroweak
601: penguins). This is discussed further in section~\ref{sec:SU3relations}.
602:
603: \begin{table}
604: \begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c|c|c|}
605: & no & & & SCET & SCET \\[-2pt]
606: & expn. & \raisebox{1.6ex}[0pt]{SU(2)} %& no $C_{7,8}$
607: & \raisebox{1.6ex}[0pt]{SU(3)}
608: & +SU(2)&+SU(3) \\\hline
609: $B \to \pi \pi$ & 11 & 7/5 & & 4 &\\ \cline{1-3}\cline{5-5}
610: $B \to K \pi$ & 15& 11 & \raisebox{1.6ex}[0pt]{15/13} &
611: +5(6) & \raisebox{1.6ex}[0pt]{4} \\ \hline
612: $B \to K \bar K$ & 11 & 11 & +4/0 & +3(4) & +0
613: \end{tabular}
614: \caption{
615: %
616: Number of real hadronic parameters from different expansions in QCD. The first column
617: shows the number of theory inputs with no approximations, while the next columns
618: show the number of parameters using only SU(2),
619: using only SU(3), using SU(2) and SCET, and using SU(3) with SCET. For the
620: cases with two numbers, $\#/\#$, the second follows from the first after
621: neglecting the small penguin coefficients, ie setting $C_{7,8}=0$. In SU(2)
622: + SCET $B\to K\pi$ has 6 parameters, but 1 appears already in $B\to \pi\pi$,
623: hence the $+5(6)$. The notation is analogous for the $+3(4)$ for
624: $B\to K\bar K$.
625: \label{table_parameters}
626: %
627: }
628: \end{table}
629: The number of parameters that occur at leading order in different expansions of
630: QCD are summarized in Table~\ref{table_parameters}, including the SCET
631: expansion. Here by SCET we mean after factorization at $m_b$ but without using
632: any information about the factorization at $\sqrt{E\Lambda}$. The SCET results
633: are discussed further in section~\ref{sec:SCETtheory}, but we summarize them
634: here. The parameters with isospin+SCET are
635: \begin{align} \label{params}
636: & \pi\pi: &\{& \zeta^{B\pi}\!+\! \zeta_J^{B\pi},\beta_\pi \zeta_J^{B\pi},
637: P_{\pi\pi} \} \,, \\
638: & K\pi: &\{& \zeta^{B\pi}\!+\! \zeta_J^{B\pi},\beta_{\bar K} \zeta_J^{B\pi},
639: \zeta^{B\bar K}+\zeta_J^{B\bar K}, \beta_\pi \zeta_J^{B\bar K},
640: P_{K\pi} \} \,, \nn \\
641: & K\bar K: &\{& \zeta^{B\bar K}+ \zeta_J^{B\bar K},\beta_K \zeta_J^{B\bar K},
642: P_{K\bar K} \} \,. \nn
643: \end{align}
644: Here $P_{M_1 M_2}$ are complex penguin amplitudes and the remaining parameters
645: are real.\footnote{The penguin amplitudes are kept to all orders in
646: $\Lambda/m_b$ since so far there is no proof that the charm mass $m_c$ does
647: not spoil factorization, with large $\alpha_s(2m_c) v$ contributions competing
648: with $\alpha_s(m_b)$ hard-charm loop corrections~\cite{bprs}. This is
649: controversial~\cite{diff1,diff2}. Our analysis treats these contributions in
650: the most conservative possible manner. } In $B\to \pi\pi$ the moment parameter
651: $\beta_\pi$ is not linearly independent from the parameters $\zeta^{B\pi}$ and
652: $\zeta^{B\pi}_J$, and only the product $\beta_\pi \zeta_J^{B\pi}$ was counted as
653: a parameter. In any case it is fairly well known from fits to
654: $\gamma^*\gamma\to\pi^0$~\cite{pigammafit} $3\beta_\pi\equiv \langle
655: x^{-1}\rangle_\pi \simeq 3.2\pm 0.2$. In isospin + SCET $B\to K\pi$ has 6
656: parameters, but the first one listed in (\ref{params}) appears already in $B\to
657: \pi\pi$, hence the $+5$ in Table~\ref{table_parameters}. If the ratio
658: $\beta_K/\beta_\pi$ was known from elsewhere then one more parameter can be
659: removed for $K\pi$ (leaving +4). For $B\to K\bar K$ we have $4$ SCET
660: parameters. One of these appears already in $B\to K\pi$, hence the +3, and if
661: $\beta_K/\beta_{\bar K}$ is known from other processes it would become $+2$.
662:
663: Taking SCET + SU(3) we have the additional relations $\zeta^{B\pi} = \zeta^{B K}
664: = \zeta^{B\bar K}$, $\zeta_J^{B\pi} = \zeta_J^{B K} = \zeta_J^{B\bar K}$,
665: $\beta_\pi=\beta_K=\beta_{\bar K}$, and $A_{cc}^{\pi\pi}= A_{cc}^{K\pi} =
666: A_{cc}^{K\bar K}$ which reduces the number of parameters considerably.
667:
668: Note that there are good indications that the parameters $\zeta^{BM}$ and
669: $\zeta^{BM}_J$ are positive numbers in the SCET factorization theorem.
670: ($\beta_K$, $\beta_\pi$, $\beta_{\bar K}$ are also positive.) This follows from:
671: i) the fact that $\zeta^{BM}+\zeta^{BM}_J$ are related to form factors for
672: heavy-to-light transitions which with a suitable phase convention one expects
673: are positive for all $q^2$, ii) that $\zeta^{BM}_J$ is positive (from the
674: relatively safe assumption that radiative corrections at the scale
675: $\sqrt{E\Lambda}$ do not change the sign of $\zeta_J^{M_1M_2}$ and that
676: $\zeta_J\propto \beta_\pi\lambda_B>0$), and finally iii) that the fit to
677: $B\to\pi\pi$ data gives $\zeta^{B\pi},\zeta_J^{B\pi}>0$ so that SU(3) implies
678: $\zeta^{BK},\zeta_J^{BK}>0$. We will see that this allows some interesting
679: predictions to be made even without knowing the exact values of the parameters.
680:
681:
682:
683:
684: In using the expansions in (\ref{expn}) it is important to keep in mind the
685: hierarchy of CKM elements, and the rough hierarchy of the Wilson coefficients
686: \begin{align}
687: C_1 \gtrsim C_2 \gg C_{3-6} \gg C_{9,10} \gtrsim C_{7,8} \,.
688: \end{align}
689: Some authors attempt to exploit the numerical values of the Wilson coefficients
690: in the electroweak Hamiltonian to further reduce the number of parameters. A
691: common example is the neglect of the coefficients $C_{7,8}$ relative to
692: $C_{9,10}$. In Eq.~(\ref{O9O10}) the electroweak penguin operators $O_9$ and
693: $O_{10}$ were written as linear combinations of $O_{1-4}$. This implies that if
694: one neglects the electroweak penguin operators $Q_7$ and $Q_8$, then no new
695: operators are required to describe the EW penguin effects. In some cases this
696: leads to additional simplifications. One can show that for $B \to \pi \pi$
697: decays the $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitudes multiplying the CKM structures $\lambda_u$
698: and $\lambda_c$ are identical~\cite{graphical2,burasfleischer}. Thus, SU(2) gives one
699: additional relation between complex amplitudes in the $\pi\pi$ system, reducing
700: the hadronic parameters to 5. For $B \to K \pi$ decays the operators giving rise
701: to the $A_{3/2}$ reduced matrix elements are identical for the $\lambda_u$ and
702: $\lambda_c$ CKM structures only if SU(3) flavor symmetry is
703: used~\cite{NeubertRosner}. Thus, for these decays two hadronic parameters can be
704: eliminated after using SU(3), leaving 13. Considering $B\to K\bar K$ adds two
705: additional parameters. Note that dropping $C_{7,8}$ makes it impossible to fit
706: for new physics in these coefficients. In our SCET analysis all contributions
707: $C_{7-10}$ are included without needing additional hadronic parameters.
708:
709: Finally, some analyses use additional ``dynamical assumptions'' and drop certain
710: combinations of reduced matrix elements in SU(3). For example, the number of
711: parameters is often reduced by neglecting parameters corresponding to the so
712: called annihilation and exchange contributions.
713:
714:
715: %
716: \subsection{General parameterization of the amplitudes using SU(2)}
717: \label{sec:parametrization}
718: %
719: Using the SU(2) flavor symmetry, the most general amplitude parameterization for
720: the decay $B \to \pi \pi$ is
721: \begin{align}\label{pipigeneral}
722: A(\bar B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-) &= -\lambda_u^{(d)} T_{\pi\pi} - \lambda_c^{(d)}
723: P_{\pi\pi}\\
724: A(\bar B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0) &= \! - \lambda_u^{(d)} C_{\pi\pi} -\! \lambda_c^{(d)}
725: ({EW}^T_{\pi\pi} - P_{\pi\pi}) \nn\\
726: \sqrt{2} A(B^- \to \pi^- \pi^0) &= -\lambda_u^{(d)} ( T _{\pi\pi}+
727: C_{\pi\pi}) - \lambda_c^{(d)} {EW}^T_{\pi\pi}\nn
728: \end{align}
729: where we have used the unitarity of the CKM matrix
730: $\lambda_t^{(f)}=-\lambda_u^{(f)}-\lambda_c^{(f)}$. The amplitude parameter $
731: {EW}^T_{\pi\pi}$ receives contributions only through the electroweak penguin
732: operators $O_{7-10}$. For $B \to K \pi$ decays we write
733: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Kpigeneral}
734: A(B^-\to \pi^- \bar K^0) &=& \lambda_u^{(s)} A_{K \pi} +
735: \lambda_c^{(s)} P_{K \pi} \\
736: \sqrt2 A(B^-\to \pi^0 K^-) &=&
737: -\lambda_u^{(s)} ( C_{K \pi} + T_{K \pi} + A_{K \pi})\nn\\
738: && \hspace{-1cm}-
739: \lambda_c^{(s)} (P_{K \pi} + {EW}^T_{K \pi}) \nn \\
740: A(\bar B^0\to \pi^+ K^-) &=&
741: -\lambda_u^{(s)} T_{K \pi}\nn\\
742: && \hspace{-1cm} - \lambda_c^{(s)} (P_{K \pi} + {EW}^C_{K \pi}) \nonumber\\
743: \sqrt2 A(\bar B^0\to \pi^0 \bar K^0) &=&
744: - \lambda_u^{(s)} C_{K \pi} \nn\\
745: && \hspace{-1cm} + \lambda_c^{(s)} (P_{K \pi} -
746: {EW}^T_{K \pi}+ {EW}^C_{K \pi})
747: \nonumber
748: \end{eqnarray}
749: Finally for $B \to K \bar K$ decays there is no SU(2) relation between the
750: amplitudes and we define
751: \begin{eqnarray}\label{KKgeneral}
752: A(B^-\to K^- K^0) &=& \lambda_u^{(d)} A_{KK} + \lambda_c^{(d)} P_{KK}\nn \\
753: %
754: A(\bar B^0\to K^0 \bar K^0) &=& \lambda_u^{(d)} B_{KK} \nn\\
755: && \hspace{-1cm} + \lambda_c^{(d)} (P_{KK}+PA_{KK}+EW_{KK})\nn \\
756: %
757: A(\bar B^0\to K^- K^+) &= & \lambda_u^{(d)} E_{KK} - \lambda_c^{(d)} PA_{KK}
758: \,.
759: %
760: \end{eqnarray}
761:
762: As mentioned before, after eliminating $\lambda_t^{(f)}$ there are four complex
763: hadronic parameters for $B \to \pi \pi$ and six for $B \to K \pi$. The
764: additional relation one obtains in the limit $C_{7,8} \to 0$ is
765: \begin{align}
766: \label{EWTrelation}
767: {EW}^T_{\pi\pi} &= \frac{3}{2} \frac{C_9+C_{10}}{C_1+C_2} ( {T}_{\pi\pi}
768: + C_{\pi\pi})\,,
769: \end{align}
770: where we have neglected terms quadratic in $C_9$ or $C_{10}$.
771:
772: The $EW$ amplitudes are purely from electroweak penguins, however there are also
773: electroweak penguin contributions in the other amplitudes as discussed further
774: in section~\ref{sectEW}. Also, the hadronic parameters in
775: Eqs.~(\ref{pipigeneral})-(\ref{KKgeneral}) are a minimal basis of isospin
776: amplitudes, {\em not} graphical amplitude parameters. In the appendix we show
777: how these amplitude parameters are related to the graphical amplitudes discussed
778: in~\cite{graphical1,graphical2,graphical3}.
779:
780: %
781: \subsection{Additional relations in the SU(3) limit}
782: \label{sec:SU3relations}
783: %
784:
785: In the limit of exact SU(3) flavor symmetry the parameters in the $\pi\pi$
786: system and the $K \pi$ system satisfy the two simple
787: relations~\cite{graphical1,Zeppenfeld,GrinsteinLebed}
788: \begin{eqnarray}
789: \label{SU3relation}
790: T_{\pi \pi}+ C_{\pi \pi} = T_{K \pi}+ C_{K \pi} \nn\\
791: {EW}^T_{\pi\pi} = {EW}^T_{K\pi} \,.
792: \end{eqnarray}
793: Thus, the hadronic parameters in the combined $K \pi$, $\pi \pi$ system can be
794: described by 8 complex parameters (15 real parameters after removing an overall phase), if no additional assumptions are made.
795: A
796: choice for these parameters is
797: \begin{eqnarray}
798: T_{\pi\pi}\,,\quad C_{\pi\pi}\,,\quad P_{\pi\pi}\,,\quad A_{K \pi}\,,\nonumber\\
799: {EW}^T_{K \pi}\,,\quad {EW}^C_{K \pi}, \quad \Delta C, \quad \Delta P
800: \end{eqnarray}
801: where we have defined
802: \begin{eqnarray}
803: \Delta C &\equiv& C_{K \pi} - C_{\pi \pi} \nn\\
804: \Delta P &\equiv& P_{\pi \pi} - P_{K \pi}
805: \end{eqnarray}
806: This can also be seen by relating these amplitude parameters directly to reduced
807: matrix elements in SU(3), which can be done with the help of the results in
808: Ref.~\cite{GrinsteinLebed}. As before, if the small Wilson coefficients $C_7$
809: and $C_8$ are neglected, we can again use the relation in
810: Eq.~(\ref{EWTrelation}) to eliminate one of the 8 complex hadronic parameters.
811:
812: Four additional relations exist if the amplitudes for $B \to KK$ are included
813: \begin{eqnarray} \label{KKsu3}
814: A_{KK} &=& A_{K\pi} \\
815: P_{KK} &=& P_{K\pi} \nn \\
816: E_{KK} &=& T_{K\pi} \!-\! T_{\pi\pi} = - \Delta C \nn \\
817: PA_{KK} &=& P_{\pi\pi} \!-\! P_{K\pi} \!-\! EW^C_{K\pi}
818: = \Delta P - EW^C_{K\pi} \nn \,.
819: \end{eqnarray}
820: In the limit of vanishing Wilson coefficients $C_7$ and $C_8$ there are two additional relation~\cite{graphical2}
821: \begin{eqnarray}
822: EW^C_{K \pi} &=& \frac{3}{4} \left[ \frac{C_9-C_{10}}{C_1-C_2} \left( A_{K\pi} - T_{\pi\pi} + C_{K \pi} + B_{KK}\right)\right.\nn\\
823: &&\hspace{-1cm}\left.- \frac{C_9+C_{10}}{C_1+C_2} \left( A_{K\pi} - T_{\pi\pi} + C_{K \pi} -2C_{\pi\pi}- B_{KK}\right)\right]\nn\\
824: EW_{KK} &=& \frac{3}{2} \frac{C_9+C_{10}}{C_1+C_2} \left( B_{KK} - A_{KK} + E_{KK} \right)ñ
825: \end{eqnarray}
826:
827: %
828: \subsection{Sum-Rules in $B\to K\pi$}
829: \label{sec:Sum-Rules}
830: %
831: In this section we review the derivation of two sum-rules for $B\to K\pi$, the
832: Lipkin sum-rule~\cite{Lipkin,GR2,soni} and CP
833: sum-rule~\cite{CPsum}. Higher order terms are kept and
834: will be used later on in assessing the size of hadronic corrections to these sum
835: rules using factorization. To begin we rewrite the SU(2) parameterization of the
836: amplitudes as
837: \begin{align}
838: A(B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0) \\
839: &\hspace{-1.4cm} = \lambda_c^{(s)} P_{K\pi} \Big[ 1 -
840: \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_A e^{-i\gamma} e^{i\phi_A} \Big]\,, \nn \\
841: A(\bar B^0 \to \pi^+K^-) & \nn\\
842: &\hspace{-1.4cm} = - \lambda_c^{(s)} P_{K\pi} \Big[ 1 \!+\!
843: \frac{1}{2}\big(
844: \epsilon_C^{ew} e^{i\phi_C^{ew}} \!-\! \epsilon_T e^{i\phi_T-i\gamma}\big)
845: \Big], \nn \\
846: \sqrt{2} A(B^- \to \pi^0K^-) \nn\\
847: &\hspace{-1.4cm} = - \lambda_c^{(s)} P_{K\pi} \Big[ 1\!+\!
848: \frac{1}{2} \big( \epsilon_{T}^{ew} e^{i\phi_T^{ew}} \!-\! \epsilon
849: e^{i\phi-i\gamma}
850: \big) \Big], \nn \\
851: \sqrt{2} A(\bar B^0 \to \pi^0\bar K^0) \nn\\
852: &\hspace{-1.4cm} = \lambda_c^{(s)} P_{K\pi} \Big[ 1\!-\! \frac{1}{2} \big(
853: \epsilon_{ew} e^{i\phi_{ew}}\!-\! \epsilon_C e^{i\phi_C-i\gamma} \big)
854: \Big], \nn
855: \end{align}
856: where
857: \begin{align}
858: \frac12\, \epsilon_T e^{i\phi_T} &=
859: \bigg| \frac{\lambda_u^{(s)}}{\lambda_c^{(s)}} \bigg| \
860: \frac{(-T_{K\pi})}{P_{K\pi}} \,, \\
861: %
862: \ \ \frac12\, \epsilon_C e^{i\phi_C}
863: &= \Big| \frac{\lambda_u^{(s)}}{\lambda_c^{(s)}} \Big| \
864: \frac{(-C_{K\pi})}{P_{K\pi}} \,, \nn \\
865: %
866: \ \ \frac12\, \epsilon_A e^{i\phi_A}
867: &= \Big| \frac{\lambda_u^{(s)}}{\lambda_c^{(s)}} \Big| \
868: \frac{(-A_{K\pi})}{P_{K\pi}} \,,
869: \nn\\
870: %
871: \frac12 \, \epsilon\: e^{i\phi} &=
872: \Big| \frac{\lambda_u^{(s)}}{\lambda_c^{(s)}} \Big| \
873: \frac{(-T_{K\pi}- C_{K\pi}-A_{K\pi})}{P_{K\pi}} \,,
874: \nn
875: \end{align}
876: and
877: \begin{align}
878: %
879: \frac12\, \epsilon_T^{ew}\: e^{i\phi_T^{ew}} &=
880: \frac{{EW}_{K\pi}^T}{P_{K\pi}} \,,
881: %
882: \\
883: \frac12\, \epsilon_C^{ew} \: e^{i\phi_C^{ew}} &= \
884: \frac{{EW}_{K\pi}^C}{P_{K\pi}} \,,
885: \nn\\
886: %
887: \frac12\, \epsilon_{ew} \: e^{i\phi_{ew}}&=
888: \frac{{EW}_{K\pi}^T-{EW}_{K\pi}^C}{P_{K\pi}} \,.\nn
889: \end{align}
890: These parameters satisfy
891: \begin{align} \label{relation}
892: \epsilon\: e^{i\phi} &= \epsilon_T\, e^{i\phi_T} + \epsilon_C\, e^{i\phi_C}
893: + \epsilon_A\, e^{i\phi_A} \\
894: \epsilon_{ew} e^{i\phi_{ew}} &= \epsilon^{ew}_T e^{i\phi^{ew}_T} -
895: \epsilon^{ew}_C e^{i\phi^{ew}_C} \nn\,.
896: \end{align}
897: The non-electroweak $\epsilon$-parameters are suppressed by the small ratio of
898: CKM factors $|\lambda_u^{(s)}/\lambda_c^{(s)}| \simeq 0.024$ but are then
899: enhanced by a factor of $\sim 4$--$15$ by the ratio of hadronic amplitudes. The
900: electroweak $\epsilon$-parameters are simply suppressed by their small Wilson
901: coefficients and end up being similar in size to the non-electroweak
902: $\epsilon$'s.
903:
904: Next we define deviation parameters for the branching ratios
905: \begin{align}
906: R_1 &= \frac{2 {\rm Br}(B^-\to \pi^0K^-)}
907: {{\rm Br}(B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0)} -1
908: \,,\\
909: %
910: R_2 &= \frac{ {\rm Br}(\bar B^0\to \pi^-K^+)\tau_{B^-}}
911: {{\rm Br}(B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0)\tau_{B^0}} -1
912: \,,\nn\\
913: %
914: R_3 &= \frac{2 {\rm Br}(\bar B^0\to \pi^0\bar K^0)\tau_{B^-}}
915: {{\rm Br}(B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0)\tau_{B^0}} -1
916: \,,\nn
917: %
918: \end{align}
919: and also rescaled asymmetries
920: \begin{align}
921: &\Delta_1 = (1+R_1) A_{\rm CP}(\pi^0 K^-)
922: \,,\\
923: %
924: &\Delta_2 = (1+R_2)A_{\rm CP}(\pi^- K^+)
925: \,,\nn\\
926: %
927: &\Delta_3 = (1+ R_3) A_{\rm CP}(\pi^0 \bar K^0)
928: \,,\nn \\
929: %
930: &\Delta_4 = A_{\rm CP}(\pi^- \bar K^0) \,. \nn
931: \end{align}
932: The division by ${\rm Br}(\pi^- \bar K^0)$ in the $\Delta_i$ asymmetries is not
933: necessary but we find it convenient for setting the normalization. Expanding in
934: $\epsilon_A$ we find that to second order in the $\epsilon$ parameters the $R_i$
935: are
936: \begin{align}
937: R_1 &= \big[\epsilon_T^{ew}\cos\phi_T^{ew} \!-\! \epsilon \cos\phi
938: \cos\gamma +\epsilon_A \cos\phi_A \cos\gamma \big] \nn\\
939: &+\! \Big[ \frac14\big( \epsilon^2 \!+\! \epsilon_T^{ew\,2}
940: \!-\! \epsilon_A^{2} \big)
941: \!-\! \frac{1}{2}\:
942: \epsilon\,\epsilon_T^{ew} \cos\gamma \cos(\phi\!-\!\phi_T^{ew}) \nn\\
943: &\ \ \ + (\epsilon_T^{ew}\cos\phi_T^{ew} \!-\! \epsilon \cos\phi
944: \cos\gamma )\, \epsilon_A \cos\phi_A \cos\gamma \nn\\
945: & \ \ \ + \epsilon_A^2 \cos^2\phi_A \cos^2\gamma
946: \Big] ,\nn\\
947: %
948: R_2 &= \big[\epsilon_C^{ew}\cos\phi_C^{ew} \!-\! \epsilon_T \cos\phi_T
949: \cos\gamma \!+\! \epsilon_A \cos\phi_A \cos\gamma \big] \nn\\
950: &+\! \Big[ \frac14\big( \epsilon_T^2 \!+\! \epsilon_C^{ew\,2}
951: \!-\! \epsilon_A^{2} \big)
952: \!-\! \frac{1}{2}\:
953: \epsilon_T\,\epsilon_C^{ew} \cos\gamma \cos(\phi_{C}^{ew}\!-\!\phi_T )
954: \nn\\
955: &\ \ \ + (\epsilon_C^{ew}\cos\phi_C^{ew} \!-\! \epsilon _T\cos\phi_T
956: \cos\gamma ) \, \epsilon_A \cos\phi_A \cos\gamma \nn\\
957: & \ \ \ + \epsilon_A^2 \cos^2\phi_A \cos^2\gamma
958: \Big] ,\nn\\
959: %
960: R_3 &= \big[\!-\!\epsilon^{ew}\cos\phi_{ew}
961: \!+\! \epsilon_C \cos\phi_C \cos\gamma %\nn\\
962: % &
963: \!+\!\epsilon_A \cos\phi_A \cos\gamma \big] \nn\\
964: &+\! \Big[ \frac14\big( \epsilon^{ew\,2} \!+\! \epsilon_C^{ew\,2}
965: \!-\! \epsilon_A^{2} \big)
966: \!-\! \frac{1}{2}\:
967: \epsilon_C\,\epsilon^{ew} \cos\gamma \cos(\phi_{ew}\!-\!\phi_C) \nn\\
968: &\ \ \ - (\epsilon^{ew}\cos\phi^{ew} \!-\! \epsilon_C\cos\phi_C
969: \cos\gamma )\, \epsilon_A \cos\phi_A \cos\gamma \nn\\
970: &\ \ \ + \epsilon_A^2 \cos^2\phi_A \cos^2\gamma
971: \Big] ,
972: \end{align}
973: and the $\Delta_i$ are
974: \begin{align}
975: %
976: \Delta_1 &= \sin\gamma\big[ -\epsilon \sin\phi
977: -\frac12\, \epsilon\, \epsilon_T^{ew} \sin(\phi\!-\!\phi_T^{ew}) \big]
978: \nn\\
979: & \ \ \ \times \big[ 1 + \epsilon_A \cos\phi_A \cos\gamma ]
980: , \nn \\
981: %
982: \Delta_2 &= \sin\gamma\big[-\epsilon_T \sin\phi_T
983: -\frac12\, \epsilon_T\, \epsilon_C^{ew} \sin(\phi_T\!-\!\phi_c^{ew})
984: \big] \nn\\
985: & \ \ \ \times \big[ 1 + \epsilon_A \cos\phi_A \cos\gamma ]
986: ,\nn\\
987: %
988: \Delta_3 &= \sin\gamma\big[\epsilon_C \sin\phi_C
989: -\frac12\, \epsilon_C\, \epsilon^{ew} \sin(\phi_C\!-\!\phi_{ew})
990: \big] \nn\\
991: & \ \ \ \times \big[ 1 + \epsilon_A \cos\phi_A \cos\gamma ]
992: ,\nn\\
993: %
994: \Delta_4 &= \sin\gamma\big[-\epsilon_A \sin\phi_A \big]
995: \big[ 1 + \epsilon_A \cos\phi_A \cos\gamma ]\,.
996: %
997: \end{align}
998: Note that these rescaled CP-Asymmetries are independent of the electroweak
999: penguin $\epsilon$'s at ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$. This is not true for the original
1000: asymmetries $A_{\rm CP}$.
1001:
1002: Sum rules are derived by taking combinations of the $R_i$ and $\Delta_i$ which
1003: cancel the ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$ terms. The Lipkin sum rule is the statement
1004: that
1005: \begin{align} \label{Lipkinsum}
1006: & R_1 -R_2 + R_3 = {\cal O}(\epsilon^2) \nn \\
1007: & = \frac{1}{4} \big(\epsilon^2 - \epsilon_T^2 + \epsilon_C^2 -
1008: \epsilon_A^2 +\epsilon_T^{ew\,2} - \epsilon_C^{ew\,2} +\epsilon^{ew\,2}
1009: \big) \nn\\
1010: & +\epsilon_A^2 \cos^2(\phi_A) \cos^2(\gamma)
1011: -\frac{1}{2}\, \cos(\gamma) \big[
1012: \epsilon_T^{ew} \epsilon \cos(\phi\!-\!\phi_T^{ew})
1013: \nn\\
1014: &
1015: -\epsilon_T \epsilon_C^{ew} \cos(\phi_T\!-\!\phi_C^{ew})
1016: + \epsilon_C \epsilon^{ew} \cos(\phi_C\!-\!\phi_{ew}) \big] \,,
1017: \end{align}
1018: where we used the real part of Eq.~(\ref{relation}). The CP-sum rule is the
1019: statement that using the imaginary part of Eq.~(\ref{relation}) the ${\cal
1020: O}(\epsilon)$ terms cancel in the sum
1021: \begin{align} \label{Deltasum}
1022: & \Delta_1 -\Delta_2 +\Delta_3 - \Delta_4 = {\cal O}(\epsilon^2) \nn \\
1023: &= -\frac{1}{2} \sin(\gamma) \big[ \epsilon_T^{ew}
1024: \epsilon \sin(\phi-\phi_T^{ew})
1025: - \epsilon_T \epsilon_C^{ew} \sin(\phi_T-\phi_C^{ew})
1026: \nn \\
1027: &\ \
1028: -\epsilon_C \epsilon^{ew} \sin(\phi_C -\phi_{ew}) \big] \,.
1029: \end{align}
1030: The accuracy of these sum rules can be improved if we can determine these ${\cal
1031: O}(\epsilon^2)$ terms using factorization. This is done in
1032: section~\ref{sect_sumSCET}.
1033:
1034: %
1035: \section{Amplitude parameters in SCET}
1036: \label{sec:SCETtheory}
1037: %
1038:
1039: \subsection{General LO expressions}
1040: \label{sec:LOexpressions}
1041:
1042: The factorization of a generic amplitude describing the decay of a $B$ meson to
1043: two light mesons, $B\to M_1 M_2$, has been analyzed using SCET~\cite{bprs}. Here
1044: $M_1$ and $M_2$ are light (non-isosinglet) pseudoscalar or vector mesons. The
1045: SCET analysis involves two stages of factorization, first between the scales
1046: $\{m_b \mbox{ or } E_M\}^2\gg E_M\lqcd$, and second between $E_M\lqcd
1047: \gg\lqcd^2$. Here we only consider the first stage of factorization where we
1048: integrate out the scales $\{m_b,E_M\}$, and keep the most general
1049: parameterization for physics at lower scales. It was shown in Ref.~\cite{bprs}
1050: that a significant universality is already obtained after this first stage, in
1051: particular there is only one jet function which also appears in semileptonic
1052: decays to pseudoscalars and longitudinal vectors. This leads to the universality
1053: of the function we call $\zeta_J^{BM}(z)$. We note that this also proves that
1054: the second stage of matching is {\em identical} to that for the form factor, so
1055: the SCET results for form factors in Refs.~\cite{ff} can immediately be applied
1056: to nonleptonic decays if desired. A summary of the analysis of SCET operators
1057: and matrix elements is given in Appendix~\ref{appSCET}.
1058:
1059: After factorization at the scale $m_b$ the general LO amplitude for any $B\to M_1
1060: M_2$ process can be written
1061: \begin{eqnarray} \label{A0newfact}
1062: A \!\!&=&\!\!
1063: %A_{0}^{c\bar c}\!+\!
1064: \frac{G_F m_B^2}{\sqrt2}\! \bigg[ \bigg\{
1065: f_{M_1}\! \int_0^1\!\!\!\!du\, dz\,
1066: T_{1\!J}(u,z) \zeta^{BM_2}_{J}(z) \phi^{M_1}(u)
1067: \nn \\
1068: &&\hspace{0.0cm}
1069: + f_{M_1} \zeta^{BM_2}\!\! \int_0^1\!\!\!\! du\, T_{1\zeta}(u) \phi^{M_1}(u)
1070: \bigg\} \!+\! \Big\{ 1\leftrightarrow 2\Big\} \nn\\
1071: && \hspace{0.0cm} + \lambda_c^{(f)} A_{c\bar c}^{M_1M_2} \bigg] ,
1072: \end{eqnarray}
1073: where $\zeta^{BM}$ and $\zeta^{BM}_J$ are non-perturbative parameters describing
1074: $B \to M$ transition matrix elements, and $A_{\rm c\bar c}^{M_1 M_2}$
1075: parameterizes complex amplitudes from charm quark contractions for which
1076: factorization has not been proven. Power counting implies $\zeta^{BM}\sim
1077: \zeta^{BM}_J\sim (\Lambda/Q)^{3/2}$. $T_{1\!J}(u,z)$ and $T_{1\zeta}(u)$ are
1078: perturbatively calculable in an expansion in $\alpha_s(m_b)$ and depend upon the
1079: process of interest.
1080:
1081: It is useful to define dimensionless hatted amplitudes
1082: \begin{eqnarray}
1083: \hat A = \frac{A}{N_0} ({\rm GeV}^{-1}) \,,\quad
1084: N_0 = \frac{G_F m_B^2}{\sqrt{2}} \,.
1085: \end{eqnarray}
1086: Using Eq.~(\ref{A0newfact}) we
1087: find that the amplitude parameters in the $B \to \pi\pi$ system
1088: are
1089: \begin{eqnarray}
1090: \label{pipiamps}
1091: \hat T_{\pi \pi} &=& - f_\pi \left[ \langle c_{1u}
1092: +c_{4u}-c_{1t}^{ew}-c_{4t}\rangle_\pi \zeta^{B \pi} \right.\nn\\
1093: &&\left. \hspace{0.38cm}
1094: + \langle (b_{1u} +b_{4u}-b_{1t}-b_{4t})
1095: \zeta_J^{B \pi}\rangle_\pi \right]\nn\\
1096: %
1097: \hat C_{\pi \pi} &=& -
1098: f_\pi \left[ \langle c_{2u} -c_{2t}^{\rm ew}+c_{3t}^{\rm ew} +c_{4t}-c_{4u}
1099: \rangle_\pi \zeta^{B \pi} \right.\nn\\
1100: &&\left. \hspace{0.38cm}
1101: + \langle (b_{2u} -b_{2t}^{\rm ew}+b_{3t}^{\rm ew} +b_{4t}-b_{4u}
1102: )\zeta_J^{B \pi} \rangle_\pi \right]\nn\\
1103: %
1104: \hat P_{\pi \pi} &=& -A_{cc}^{\pi \pi}
1105: + f_\pi \left[ \langle c_{1t}^{\rm ew} + c_{4t}\rangle_\pi \zeta^{B \pi}
1106: \right.\nn\\
1107: &&\left.\hspace{0.38cm}
1108: + \langle (b_{1t}^{\rm ew} + b_{4t})\zeta_J^{B \pi} \rangle_\pi \right]\nn\\
1109: \hat {EW}^T_{\pi \pi} &=&
1110: f_\pi \left[ \langle c_{1t}^{\rm ew}+c_{2t}^{\rm ew}-c_{3t}^{\rm ew} \rangle_\pi \zeta^{B\pi}\right.\nn\\
1111: &&\left. \hspace{0.38cm}
1112: + \langle (b_{1t}^{\rm ew}+b_{2t}^{\rm ew} - b_{3t}^{\rm ew})\zeta_J^{B\pi}\rangle_\pi \right]\,.
1113: \end{eqnarray}
1114: For the $B \to K\pi$ system we find
1115: \begin{align}
1116: \label{Kpiamps}
1117: \hat T_{K \pi} &= - f_K \left[ \langle c_{1u}
1118: -c_{1t}^{\rm ew}-c_{4t}+c_{4u}\rangle_{\bar K} \zeta^{B \pi} \right.\nn\\
1119: &\left. \hspace{.38cm}
1120: + \langle (b_{1u} -b_{1t}^{\rm ew}-b_{4t}+b_{4u})\zeta_J^{B \pi}
1121: \rangle_{\bar K} \right]\nn\\
1122: %
1123: \hat C_{K \pi} &= -
1124: f_\pi \left[ \langle c_{2u} -c_{2t}^{\rm ew}+c_{3t}^{\rm ew} \rangle_\pi
1125: \zeta^{B\bar K} \right.\nn\\
1126: &\left. \hspace{.38cm}
1127: + \langle (b_{2u} -b_{2t}^{\rm ew}+b_{3t}^{\rm ew}) \zeta_J^{B
1128: \bar K} \rangle_\pi \right]\nn\\
1129: &\hspace{0.cm}
1130: + f_{K} \left[ \langle c_{4t}-c_{4u}\rangle_{\bar K} \zeta^{B \pi}+ \langle
1131: (b_{4t}-b_{4u}) \zeta_J^{B \pi} \rangle_{\bar K}\right]\nn\\
1132: %
1133: \hat P_{K \pi} &= -A_{cc}^{K \pi} +f_K \left[ \langle
1134: c_{4t}\rangle_{\bar K} \zeta^{B \pi}
1135: + \langle b_{4t}\zeta_J^{B \pi}\rangle_{\bar K} \right]\nn\\
1136: \hat A_{K \pi} &= f_K \left[ \langle c_{4t}-c_{4u}\rangle_{\bar K}
1137: \zeta^{B \pi}
1138: + \langle (b_{4t}-b_{4u}) \zeta_J^{B \pi} \rangle_{\bar K}\right]\nn\\
1139: %
1140: \hat {EW}^T_{K \pi} &=
1141: f_K \left[ \langle c_{1t}^{\rm ew} \rangle_{\bar K} \zeta^{B\pi}
1142: + \langle b_{1t}^{\rm ew} \zeta_J^{B\pi} \rangle_{\bar K}\right]
1143: \nn\\
1144: &\hspace{0.7cm}
1145: +f_\pi \left[ \langle c_{2t}^{\rm ew}-c_{3t}^{\rm ew} \rangle_\pi \zeta^{B \bar K}\right.\nn\\
1146: &\left.\hspace{1.3cm}
1147: + \langle (b_{2t}^{\rm ew} - b_{3t}^{\rm ew}) \zeta_J^{B \bar K} \rangle_\pi \right]\nn\\
1148: %
1149: \hat {EW}^C_{K \pi} &= f_K \left[ \langle c_{1t}^{\rm ew}\rangle_{\bar K} \zeta^{B \pi}
1150: + \langle b_{1t}^{\rm ew}\zeta_J^{B \pi} \rangle_{\bar K} \right]\,.
1151: \end{align}
1152: Note that the dominant non-factorizable charm electroweak penguin contribution, is
1153: absorbed into $A_{cc}$. Finally, for the $B \to KK$ system we
1154: find
1155: \begin{align} \label{KKamps}
1156: \hat A_{KK} &= \hat B_{KK}\\
1157: &= f_K \left[ \langle c_{4t}-c_{4u} \rangle_K \zeta^{B \bar K}
1158: + \langle \left( b_{4t}-b_{4u}\right) \zeta^{B \bar K}_J \rangle_K \right]\nn\\
1159: \hat P_{KK} &= -A_{cc}^{K\bar K}
1160: + f_K \left[ \langle c_{4t} \rangle_K \zeta^{B \bar K}
1161: + \langle b_{4t} \zeta^{B \bar K}_J \rangle_{K} \right] \nn\\
1162: \hat E_{KK} &= \hat {PA}_{KK} = \hat {EW}_{KK} = 0 \,. \nn
1163: \end{align}
1164: In Eqs.~(\ref{pipiamps}-\ref{KKamps}) we have defined
1165: \begin{eqnarray}
1166: \langle c_i \rangle_M &=& \int_0^1 \!\!du \,\, c_i(u) \phi_M(u) \,, \\
1167: \langle b_i\, \zeta_J^{BM_2} \rangle_{M_1} &=& \int_0^1 \!\!du\int_0^1 \!\! dz \,\, b_i(u,z)
1168: \phi_{M_1}(u)\zeta_J^{BM_2}(z)\,. \nn
1169: \end{eqnarray}
1170: We have also decomposed the Wilson coefficients of SCET operators defined
1171: in~\cite{bprs} as
1172: \begin{eqnarray}
1173: c_i^{(f)} &=& \lambda_u^{(f)} c_{iu} + \lambda_t^{(f)} c_{it} \nn\\
1174: b_i^{(f)} &=& \lambda_u^{(f)} b_{iu} + \lambda_t^{(f)} b_{it}
1175: \end{eqnarray}
1176: and in some equations we have split the contributions from strong ($O_{3-6}$)
1177: and electroweak penguin operators ($O_{7-10}$) to the $c_{it}$ and
1178: $b_{it}$
1179: \begin{eqnarray}
1180: c_{it} &=& c_{it}^p + c_{it}^{\rm ew} \,, \nn\\
1181: b_{it} &=& b_{it}^p + b_{it}^{\rm ew} \,.
1182: \end{eqnarray}
1183: Note that to all orders in perturbation theory one has~\cite{graphical3}
1184: \begin{eqnarray}
1185: c_{1t}^p = c_{2t}^p = c_{3u} = c_{3t}^p = 0\nn\\
1186: b_{1t}^p = b_{2t}^p = b_{3u} = b_{3t}^p = 0 \,.
1187: \end{eqnarray}
1188:
1189: All the hadronic information is contained in the SCET matrix elements
1190: $\zeta^{B\pi}$, $\zeta_J^{B\pi}$, $\zeta^{BK}$, $\zeta_J^{BK}$,
1191: $A_{cc}^{\pi\pi}$ and $A_{cc}^{K\pi}$, the decay constants $f_\pi$ and $f_K$,
1192: and the light cone distribution functions of the light mesons $\phi_\pi(x)$,
1193: $\phi_K(x)$, and $\phi_{\bar K}(x)$.
1194:
1195: The Wilson coefficients $c_i$ and $b_i$ are insensitive to the long distance
1196: dynamics and can therefore be calculated using QCD perturbation theory in terms
1197: of the coefficients of the electroweak Hamiltonian, $C_i$. Any physics beyond
1198: the standard model which does not induce new operators in $H_W$ at $\mu=m_W$
1199: will only modify the values of these Wilson coefficients, while keeping the
1200: expressions for the amplitude parameters in Eqs.~(\ref{pipiamps}--\ref{KKamps})
1201: the same.
1202:
1203: We caution that although the amplitudes $\hat A_{K\pi}$ and $\hat A_{KK}$ do get
1204: penguin contributions at this order, they will have subleading power
1205: contributions from operators with large Wilson coefficients that can compete.
1206: Therefore their leading order expressions presented here should not be used for
1207: numerical predictions. As mentioned earlier, the penguin amplitudes are kept to all
1208: orders in $\Lambda/E$. In all other amplitudes the power corrections are
1209: expected to be genuinely down by $\Lambda/E$ when the hadronic parameters are of
1210: generic size. In the observables explored numerically below it will be valid
1211: within our uncertainties to drop the small $\hat A_{K\pi}$ and $\hat A_{KK}$
1212: amplitudes and so this point will not hinder us.
1213:
1214:
1215: %
1216: \subsection{SU(3) limit in SCET}
1217: \label{sec:SU3SCET}
1218: %
1219:
1220:
1221: In the SU(3) limit the hadronic parameters for pions and kaons are equal.
1222: This implies that
1223: \begin{eqnarray}
1224: && \zeta^{B \pi} =\zeta^{B\bar K}\,, \qquad\quad
1225: \zeta_J^{B \pi} =\zeta_J^{B\bar K}\,,\nn\\[4pt]
1226: && \langle c_i \rangle_K = \langle c_i \rangle_\pi \,,
1227: \\[4pt]
1228: && \langle b_i \zeta_J^{B\bar K} \rangle_\pi =
1229: \langle b_i \zeta_J^{B \pi} \rangle_K = \langle b_i \zeta_J^{B \pi}
1230: \rangle_\pi= \langle b_i \zeta_J^{B \bar K}
1231: \rangle_K
1232: \nn\,.
1233: \end{eqnarray}
1234: Furthermore
1235: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Accsu3}
1236: A_{cc}^{K \pi} = A_{cc}^{\pi \pi} = A_{cc}^{K \bar K} \,.
1237: \end{eqnarray}
1238: To see this note that in SCET the light quark in the operator with two charm
1239: quarks is collinear and can therefore not be connected initial $B$ meson without
1240: further power suppression. Without the use of SCET this so called ``penguin
1241: annihilation'' contribution would spoil the relation in Eq.~(\ref{Accsu3}).
1242:
1243: Using this we find two additional relations which are not true in a general SU(3)
1244: analysis but are true in the combined SCET + SU(3) limit
1245: \begin{eqnarray}
1246: %
1247: \Delta C &=& C_{K\pi} - C_{\pi\pi} = 0 \,,\\
1248: %
1249: \Delta P - {EW}^C_{K \pi} &=& P_{\pi\pi} - P_{K\pi}- {EW}^C_{K \pi}
1250: =0 \,, \nn
1251: %
1252: \end{eqnarray}
1253: where the zeroes on the RHS are ${\cal O}(m_s/\Lambda)+{\cal
1254: O}(\Lambda/E)$. Using the SU(3) relation in Eq.~(\ref{KKsu3}) we see that
1255: these amplitudes are equal to ``exchange'' or ``penguin annihilation''
1256: amplitudes that are power suppressed in SCET.
1257:
1258: %
1259: \subsection{Results at LO in $\alpha_s(m_b)$}
1260: \label{sec:treeresults}
1261: %
1262: While the $c_i$ are known at order $\alpha_s$, the $b_i$ are currently only
1263: known at tree level. For consistency, we thus keep only the tree level
1264: contributions to the $c_i$ as well. In this case they are independent of the
1265: light cone fraction $u$ and thus $c_i(u) \equiv c_i$, and there occurs a single
1266: nontrivial moment of the light-cone distribution function from the $b_i$ terms.
1267: Since the parameter $A_{cc}^{M_1 M_2}\propto \alpha_s(2m_c)$ it would be
1268: inconsistent to drop the $\alpha_s$ corrections in the penguin amplitudes.
1269: However, as long as we have the free complex parameter $A_{cc}^{M_1 M_2}$ these
1270: corrections are simply absorbed when we work with the full penguin amplitudes
1271: $P_{M_1 M_2}$ using only isospin symmetry. This is also true of chirally
1272: enhanced power corrections in $P_{M_1 M_2}$.
1273:
1274: Using LL values for the Wilson coefficients we find for the non-electroweak
1275: amplitudes at $\mu=m_b=4.8\,{\rm GeV}$
1276: \begin{eqnarray}\label{cexpr}
1277: c_{1u} &=&
1278: C_1 \!+\! \frac{C_2}{N_c} = 1.025 \\
1279: c_{2u} &=&
1280: C_2 \!+\! \frac{C_1}{N_c} = 0.121\nn\\
1281: c_{4t}^p &=& - \Big(C_4 + \frac{C_3}{N_c}\Big)+{\cal O}(C_1 \alpha_s)
1282: = 0.022 +{\cal O}(\alpha_s) \nn \,.
1283: \end{eqnarray}
1284: Here ${\cal O}(C_1\alpha_s ) $ indicate unsuppressed $\alpha_s$ corrections
1285: that were computed in Ref.~\cite{QCDF} and verified in~\cite{pipiChay}. The contributions from the
1286: operators $O_{7-10}$ give
1287: \begin{eqnarray}
1288: c_{1t}^{\rm ew} &=&
1289: - \frac32 \Big( C_{10} \!+\! \frac{C_9}{N_c} \Big) = 0.0021\nn\\
1290: c_{2t}^{\rm ew}&=& - \frac32 \Big(C_9 \!+\! \frac{C_{10}}{N_c}\Big) = 0.0138
1291: \nn \\
1292: c_{3t}^{\rm ew} &=&
1293: - \frac32 \Big( C_7 + \frac{C_8}{N_c}\Big) = -0.0010\nn\\
1294: c_{4t}^{\rm ew} &=&\frac{1}{2} \Big(C_{10} + \frac{C_9}{N_c}\Big) = -0.00068
1295: \,.
1296: \end{eqnarray}
1297: The coefficients $b_i(u,z)$ are
1298: independent of the variable $z$ at leading order and we write $b_i(u,z) \equiv
1299: b_i(u)$. For the non-electroweak amplitudes we have
1300: \begin{eqnarray}\label{bexpr}
1301: b_{1u}(u)&=&
1302: C_1 + \Big(1 + \frac{1}{\bar u} \Big)
1303: \frac{C_2}{N_c} \\
1304: &=& 1.025 - \frac{ 0.249}{3\bar u} \nn\\
1305: b_{2u}(u) &=&
1306: C_2 + \Big(1 + \frac{1}{\bar u} \Big)
1307: \frac{C_1}{N_c} \nn\\
1308: &=& 0.121 + \frac{1.107}{3\bar u} \nn\\
1309: b_{4t}^p(u) &=& - C_4 - \Big(1 + \frac{1}{\bar u} \Big)\frac{C_3}{N_c} +{\cal O}(C_1\alpha_s )\nn\\
1310: &=& 0.022 - \frac{0.011}{3\bar u} +{\cal O}(\alpha_s ) \nn
1311: \end{eqnarray}
1312: where ${\cal O}(C_1\alpha_s )$ denotes unknown unsuppressed $\alpha_s$
1313: corrections and $\bar u=1-u$. For the electroweak terms
1314: \begin{eqnarray}
1315: b_{1t}^{\rm ew}(u) &=&
1316: - \frac32 \Big[C_{10} +
1317: \Big(1 + \frac{1}{\bar u} \Big)
1318: \frac{C_9}{N_c} \Big] \nn\\
1319: &=& 0.0021 +\frac{0.0147}{3\bar u} \nn\\
1320: b_{2t}^{\rm ew}(u)&=& - \frac32 \Big[ C_9 + \Big(1 + \frac{1}{\bar u} \Big)
1321: \frac{C_{10}}{N_c} \Big] \nn\\
1322: &=& 0.0138 - \frac{ 0.0029}{3\bar u} \nn\\
1323: b_{3t}^{\rm ew}(u) &=&
1324: - \frac32 \Big[ C_7
1325: + \Big(1 - \frac{1}{\bar u} \Big)
1326: \frac{C_8}{N_c} \Big] \nn\\
1327: &=& -0.00010 + \frac{0.00069}{3 u} \nn\\
1328: b_{4t}^{\rm ew}(u) &=&\frac{1}{2} \Big[C_{10} +\Big(1 + \frac{1}{\bar u}
1329: \Big)\frac{C_9}{N_c} \Big] \nn\\
1330: &=& -0.00068 - \frac{0.0049}{3\bar u}
1331: \,.
1332: \end{eqnarray}
1333: Note that only $b_{3t}^{\rm ew}$ involves $u$ and that this coefficient only
1334: appears convoluted with pions in Eqs.~(\ref{pipiamps}-\ref{KKamps}). For pions
1335: one can take $1/u\to 1/\bar u$ using charge conjugation and isospin. Since the
1336: $b$'s then only involve factors of $1/\bar u$ it is useful to define the
1337: nonperturbative parameters
1338: \begin{eqnarray}
1339: \beta_M = \int_0^1\!\!\!du\: \frac{\phi_M(u)}{3\bar u} \,.
1340: \end{eqnarray}
1341:
1342: Using these values for the Wilson coefficients we obtain the amplitude
1343: parameters in terms of the non-perturbative parameters in the $\pi \pi$ system
1344: at $\mu=m_b$
1345: \begin{eqnarray} \label{pipiparamscet}
1346: \hat T_{\pi\pi} &=& -0.131 \big(\zeta^{B\pi} + \zeta_J^{B\pi} \big) +
1347: 0.031\, \beta_\pi \zeta_J^{B\pi}\nn\\
1348: \hat C_{\pi\pi} &=& -0.017 \big( \zeta^{B\pi} + \zeta_J^{B\pi} \big)-
1349: 0.144\, \beta_\pi \zeta_J^{B\pi}\nn\\
1350: \hat{EW}^T_{\pi\pi} &=& 0.0022 \big( \zeta^{B\pi}+\zeta_J^{B\pi} \big) +
1351: 0.0015\, \beta_\pi\zeta_J^{B\pi} \nn\\
1352: %
1353: \hat P_{\pi\pi} &=& -A_{cc}^{\pi\pi} + 0.0030 \, \big( \zeta^{B\pi} +
1354: \zeta_J^{B\pi}\big) \nn\\
1355: && -0.0002\, \beta_\pi \zeta_J^{B\pi}
1356: + \Delta_{\pi\pi}^P \,,
1357: \end{eqnarray}
1358: where $\Delta_{\pi\pi}^P$ is the additional perturbative correction from
1359: $a_{4t}$ and $b_{4t}$ at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s(m_b))$ which can involve larger
1360: Wilson coefficients like $C_{1,2}$. (We could also include large power
1361: corrections in $\Delta_{\pi\pi}^P$ assuming that such a subset could be uniquely
1362: identified in a proper limit of QCD.) We do not need knowledge of
1363: $\Delta_{\pi\pi}^P$ for our analysis since there are two unknowns in each of
1364: $\hat P_{\pi\pi}$ and $A_{cc}^{\pi\pi}$ and we will simply fit for $\hat
1365: P_{\pi\pi}$.
1366:
1367: In the $K \pi$ system we find
1368: \begin{eqnarray}
1369: \label{Kpiparamscet}
1370: %
1371: \hat T_{K\pi} &=& -0.160 \big(\zeta^{B\pi} + \zeta_J^{B\pi} \big)
1372: + 0.040 \,\beta_K \zeta_J^{B\pi} \\
1373: %
1374: \hat C_{K\pi} &=& -0.003 \big(\zeta^{B\pi} + \zeta_J^{B\pi}\big)
1375: + 0.003\, \beta_K \zeta_J^{B\pi}\nn\\
1376: &&-0.014 \big(\zeta^{B K} + \zeta_J^{B K}\big)
1377: - 0.146\, \beta_\pi \zeta_J^{B K}\nn\\
1378: %
1379: \hat{EW}^T_{K\pi} &=& 0.0019 \big(\zeta^{B K}
1380: + \zeta_J^{B K}\big) -0.0005 \beta_\pi
1381: \zeta_J^{B K} \nn\\
1382: && + 0.0003 \big( \zeta^{B\pi}+\zeta_J^{B\pi}\big) + 0.0023\,
1383: \beta_K \zeta_J^{B\pi}\nn\\
1384: %
1385: \hat{EW}^C_{K\pi} &=&
1386: 0.0003 \big(\zeta^{B\pi} + \zeta_J^{B\pi}\big)+0.0023\, \beta_K \zeta_J^{B\pi} \nn \\
1387: %
1388: %
1389: \hat P_{K\pi} &=& -A_{cc}^{K\pi}
1390: + 0.0034 \big( \zeta^{B\pi} + \zeta_J^{B\pi}\big)\nn\\
1391: && - 0.0026\, \beta_K \zeta_J^{B\pi} + \Delta^P_{K\pi} \nn\\
1392: %
1393: \hat A_{K\pi} &=& 0.0034 \big( \zeta^{B\pi} + \zeta^{B\pi}_J ) -
1394: 0.0026 \,\beta_K \zeta_J^{B\pi} +\Delta^A_{K\pi} \nn
1395: \end{eqnarray}
1396: where $\Delta_{K\pi}^P$ and $\Delta_{K\pi}^A$ are analogous corrections to
1397: $\Delta_{\pi\pi}^P$. For $P_{K\pi}$ the perturbative correction competes with
1398: $A_{cc}^{K\pi}$. For $\hat A_{K \pi}$ power corrections could be in excess
1399: of the leading order value, so that any numerical value for this amplitude is
1400: completely unreliable at the order we are working.
1401:
1402:
1403: Finally for the $B\to K\bar K$ amplitudes that have a contribution from the LO
1404: factorization theorem we have
1405: \begin{align}
1406: \label{KKparamscet}
1407: %
1408: \hat A_{K K} &=
1409: 0.0034 (\zeta^{B K} + \zeta_J^{B K})
1410: - 0.0026 \beta_K \zeta_J^{B K}\nn\\
1411: & + {\cal O}(\alpha_s) \nn \\
1412: %
1413: \hat P_{K K} &= - A_{cc}^{K\bar K} + 0.0034 (\zeta^{B K}+\zeta_J^{B
1414: K})\nn\\
1415: & - 0.0026 \beta_K \zeta_J^{B K} + \Delta_{KK}^P
1416: \end{align}
1417: and $\hat B_{K K}=\hat A_{K K}$. Here the value of $\hat A_{KK}$ is not
1418: reliable, since it will have large ${\cal O}(C_1 \Lambda/m_b)$ power corrections
1419: that are likely to dominate.
1420:
1421:
1422: \subsection{SCET Relations for EW penguin amplitudes} \label{sectEW}
1423:
1424: Using the SCET results in the previous two sections it is simple to derive
1425: relations that give the electroweak penguin contributions in terms of tree
1426: amplitudes
1427: \begin{align}
1428: \hat T_{M_1 M_2}^0 &= \hat T_{M_1 M_2}\big|_{C_{7-10}=0} \,,\nn\\
1429: \hat C_{M_1 M_2}^0 &= \hat C_{M_1 M_2}\big|_{C_{7-10}=0} \,.
1430: \end{align}
1431: Such relations are useful if one wishes to explore new physics scenarios that modify
1432: the electroweak penguin parameters $C_{7-10}$ in $H_W$. To separate out all
1433: electroweak penguin contributions in $B\to\pi\pi$ and using SCET together with isospin we
1434: define $\hat {EW}^C_{\pi\pi}$ by
1435: \begin{align}
1436: & \hat T_{\pi\pi} = \hat T^0_{\pi\pi} \!+\! {\hat {EW}}_{\pi\pi}^C \,,
1437: & \hat C_{\pi\pi} = \hat C^0_{\pi\pi} \!+\! {\hat {EW}}_{\pi\pi}^T
1438: \!-\! {\hat {EW}}_{\pi\pi}^C \,, \nn\\
1439: & \hat P_{\pi\pi} = \hat P^0_{\pi\pi} \!+\! {\hat {EW}}_{\pi\pi}^C \,.
1440: \end{align}
1441: At LO in SCET we find
1442: \begin{align} \label{EW1}
1443: \hat {EW}_{\pi\pi}^C &= e_1\: \hat T_{\pi\pi}^0 + e_2 \: \hat C_{\pi\pi}^0\,,
1444: \ \nn \\
1445: \hat {EW}_{\pi\pi}^T &=e_3\: \hat T_{\pi\pi}^0 + e_4 \: \hat C_{\pi\pi}^0\,,
1446: \
1447: \end{align}
1448: where dropping $C_{3,4}$ relative to $C_{1,2}$ one finds
1449: \begin{align}
1450: %
1451: e_1 &= \frac{ C_{10} C_1 \!-\! C_9 C_2}
1452: {C_1^2\!-\! C_2^2}
1453: = -2.9\!\times\! 10^{-4}
1454: \,,\\
1455: %
1456: e_2 &= \frac{ C_{9} C_1 \!-\! C_{10} C_2}
1457: {C_1^2\!-\! C_2^2}
1458: = -8.9\!\times\! 10^{-3}
1459: \,,\nn\\
1460: %
1461: e_3 &= \frac{C_1(3C_{10}\!-\!3 C_7 \!-\! 2C_8 \!+\! 3 C_9) \!-\!
1462: 3C_2(C_{10} \!+\! C_8\!+\! C_9)}{2(C_1^2\!-\! C_2^2)}
1463: \nn\\
1464: & = -1.5\times 10^{-2}
1465: \,,\nn\\
1466: %
1467: e_4 &= \frac{
1468: -C_2(3 C_{10} \!-\! 3C_7 \!-\! 2 C_8\!+\! 3C_9)\!+\!3C_1(C_{10} \!+\! C_8 \!+\! C_9) }{2(C_1^2\!-\! C_2^2)}
1469: \nn \\
1470: & = -1.3\times 10^{-2} \,.\nn
1471: \end{align}
1472: The numbers quoted here are for the standard model LL coefficients.
1473:
1474: For $B\to K\pi$ we separate out the electroweak penguin contributions by writing
1475: \begin{align}
1476: & \hat T_{K\pi} \!= \hat T^0_{K\pi} \!+\! \frac23 {\hat {EW}}_{\!K\pi}^C \,,
1477: \qquad
1478: \hat A_{K\pi} = \hat P^0_{K\pi} \!-\! \frac13 {\hat {EW}}_{\! K\pi}^C \,,
1479: \nn \\
1480: & \hat C_{K\pi} = \hat C^0_{K\pi} \!+\! {\hat {EW}}_{\! K\pi}^T
1481: \!-\! \frac23 {\hat {EW}}_{\! K\pi}^C \,,\nn\\
1482: & \hat P_{K\pi} = \hat P^0_{K\pi} \!-\! \frac13 {\hat {EW}}_{\! K\pi}^C \,,
1483: \end{align}
1484: and find that SCET+isospin gives
1485: \begin{align} \label{EW2}
1486: \hat {EW}_{K\pi}^C &= \frac{f_K}{f_\pi}
1487: \Big( e_5\: \hat T_{\pi\pi}^0 + e_6 \: \hat C_{\pi\pi}^0 \Big)
1488: + e_{7} \: \hat T_{K\pi}^0\,,
1489: \ \nn
1490: %
1491: \end{align}
1492: where dropping $C_{3,4}$ relative to $C_{1,2}$
1493: \begin{align}
1494: %
1495: e_5 &= -\frac{3 C_1(C_1 C_{9} \!-\! C_2 C_{10})}{2C_2 (C_1^2\!-\! C_2^2)}
1496: = -6.0 \times 10^{-2} \,, \nn \\
1497: e_6 &= -\frac{3 (C_{10} C_2- C_{9}C_1 )}{2(C_1^2\!-\! C_2^2)}
1498: = -1.3 \times 10^{-2} \,, \nn \\
1499: e_7 &= \frac{3 C_9}{2 C_2} = 5.9\times 10^{-2} \,.
1500: %
1501: \end{align}
1502: For the amplitude $EW^T_{K \pi}$ no such relation exists, if the inverse moments
1503: $\beta_\pi$ and $\beta_K$ are taken as unknowns. One can still use the SU(3)
1504: relation in Eq.~\ref{SU3relation} to equate $EW^T$ in the $K \pi$ and $\pi \pi$
1505: system.
1506:
1507: %
1508: \subsection{Estimate of Uncertainties}
1509: \label{sec:uncertainties}
1510: %
1511:
1512: \label{theoryerror}
1513: These expressions of the amplitude parameters are correct at leading order in
1514: $\lqcd/E_\pi$, and as we explained above, the complete set of Wilson
1515: coefficients is currently only available at tree level. Thus, any amplitude
1516: calculated from these SCET predictions has corrections at order
1517: $\alpha_s(m_b)$ and $\lqcd/E_\pi$. Using simple arguments based on
1518: dimensional analysis, we therefore expect corrections to any of these relations
1519: at the 20\% level. We are working to all orders in
1520: $\alpha_s(\sqrt{\Lambda E})$, and so we avoid adding additional uncertainty from
1521: expanding at this scale.
1522:
1523: Note that we have allowed for a general amplitude $P_{\pi\pi}$, which
1524: contributes to the reduced isospin matrix element $\langle {\bf 1/2} || {\bf 0}
1525: || {\bf 1/2} \rangle$ in the $K \pi$ system, and to the reduced isospin matrix
1526: element $\langle {\bf 0} || {\bf 1/2} || {\bf 1/2} \rangle$ in the $\pi \pi$
1527: system. All power correction contributing to the same reduced matrix element
1528: will be absorbed into the value of the observable $P_{\pi\pi}$. In the
1529: following will thus fit directly for the parameters $P_{\pi\pi}$ and $P_{K\pi}$,
1530: which reduces the theoretical uncertainties significantly. This implies that the
1531: theoretical uncertainties on the amplitude parameters $\hat P_{\pi\pi}$, $\hat
1532: P_{K \pi}$, and $\hat P_{K\bar K}$ are $\sim 3\%$ from isospin rather than $\sim
1533: 20\%$. All other appreciable LO amplitude parameters are considered to have
1534: uncertainties at the 20\% level.
1535:
1536: Using this information, we can now estimate the size of corrections to the
1537: individual observables. For the decays $B \to \pi \pi$, contributions to the
1538: total amplitude from $\hat P_{\pi\pi}$ and other amplitudes are comparable, such
1539: that the whole amplitude receives ${\cal O}(20\%)$ corrections. This leads to
1540: corrections to the branching ratios and CP asymmetries in $B \to \pi \pi$ of
1541: order
1542: \begin{eqnarray}
1543: \Delta {\rm Br}( B \to \pi \pi) &\sim& {\cal O}(40\%)\nn\\
1544: \Delta A_{\rm CP}( B \to \pi \pi) &\sim& {\cal O}(20\%)\,.
1545: \end{eqnarray}
1546: These large uncertainties can be avoided by relying on isospin to define most of
1547: the parameters in the fit, as was done in Ref.~\cite{gammafit} in the
1548: $\epsilon=0$ method for $\gamma$ which has significantly smaller theoretical
1549: uncertainties.
1550:
1551: For $B \to K \pi$ decays, the CKM factors and sizes of Wilson coefficients give
1552: an enhancement of the amplitude parameter $\hat P_{K \pi}$ relative to the other
1553: amplitude parameters by a factor of order 10. Thus, the corrections to the
1554: total decay rates are suppressed by a factor of 10, while corrections to CP
1555: asymmetries, which require an interference between $\hat P_{K\pi}$ with other
1556: amplitudes, remain the same. This gives
1557: \begin{eqnarray}
1558: \Delta {\rm Br}( B \to K \pi) &\sim& {\cal O}(5\%)\nn\\
1559: \Delta A_{\rm CP}( B \to K \pi) &\sim& {\cal O}(20\%)\,.
1560: \end{eqnarray}
1561: One exception is the CP asymmetry in $B \to K^0 \pi^-$, which is strongly
1562: suppressed due to the smallness of the parameter $\hat A_{K \pi}$. At subleading
1563: order $\hat A_{K \pi}$ can receive corrections far in excess of the leading
1564: order value, such that any numerical value of this CP asymmetry is completely
1565: unreliable at the order we are working. We include these estimates of power
1566: corrections into all our discussions below.
1567:
1568:
1569:
1570: %
1571: \section{Implications of SCET}
1572: \label{sec:SCETimplications}
1573: %
1574:
1575: There are several simple observations one can make from the LO SCET expressions
1576: of the amplitude parameters
1577: \begin{enumerate}
1578: \item For $\zeta^{B M_i} \sim \zeta_J^{B M_i}$ one finds that $B\to M_1 M_2$
1579: decays naturally have $\hat C_{M_1 M_2} \sim \hat T_{M_1 M_2}$~\cite{bprs}, so
1580: there is no color suppression. If one instead takes $\zeta^{BM_i} \gg
1581: \zeta_J^{BM_i}$ as in Refs.~\cite{QCDF,PQCD} then the ``color suppressed''
1582: amplitude is indeed suppressed.
1583: %
1584: \item There is no relative phase between the amplitudes $C_{\pi\pi}$,
1585: $T_{\pi\pi}$, $T_{K\pi}$, $C_{K\pi}$, ${EW}^T_{K\pi}$ and ${EW}^C_{K\pi}$ and
1586: the sign and magnitude of these amplitudes can be predicted with SCET. This
1587: allows the uncertainty in the $K\pi$ sum-rules to be determined, as well as
1588: predictions for the relative signs of CP-asymmetries.
1589: %
1590: \item The contributions of electroweak penguins, $C_{7-10}$, can be computed
1591: without introducing additional hadronic parameters as discussed in
1592: Sec.~\ref{sectEW}.
1593: %
1594: \item The amplitude $\hat A_{K \pi}$ is suppressed either by $\Lambda/m_b$, by
1595: small coefficients $C_{3,4}$, or by $\alpha_s(m_b)$ compared with the
1596: larger $T_{K\pi}$ and $C_{K\pi}$ amplitudes
1597: %
1598: \item If one treats $\beta_K$ and $\beta_\pi$ as known, the amplitudes $\hat T_{K \pi}$ and $\hat{EW}^C_{K\pi}$
1599: are determined entirely through the hadronic parameters describing the $B \to
1600: \pi \pi$ system, implying that the branching ratios and CP-asymmetries for
1601: $B\to K^+\pi^-$ and $B^-\to \bar K^0 \pi^-$ only involve $2$ new parameters
1602: beyond $\pi\pi$.
1603: %
1604: \item In the combined SCET + SU(3) limit discussed in section~\ref{sec:SU3SCET}
1605: the parameters $P_{\pi\pi}\simeq P_{K\pi}\simeq P_{K\bar K}$, so we expect
1606: similar complex penguin amplitudes in $B\to K\pi$, $B\to \pi\pi$, and $B\to
1607: K\bar K$. \footnote{The analysis of ``chirally enhanced'' power
1608: corrections in Ref.~\cite{QCDF} indicates that they will not break the
1609: equality in the SU(3) limit.}
1610: \end{enumerate}
1611: Using these observations allows us to make important predictions for the
1612: observables, with and without performing fits to the data. Some of these have
1613: already been discussed and we elaborate on the remaining ones below.
1614:
1615: %
1616: \subsection{The ratio $C/T$ and $EW^C/EW^T$}
1617: \label{sec:C/T}
1618: %
1619:
1620: We first describe in more detail the first point in the above list. Most
1621: literature has assumed that there is a hierarchy between the two amplitude
1622: parameters $C_{M_1 M_2}$ and $T_{M_1 M_2}$, ie. that $\hat C_{M_1 M_2} \ll \hat
1623: T_{M_1 M_2}$. This assumption is based on the fact that in naive factorization
1624: (in which $\zeta_J = 0$) one has $C_{M_1 M_2}/T_{M_1 M_2} \sim c_{2u}/c_{1u}\sim
1625: 0.1$. The smallness of the ratio $c_{2u}/c_{1u}$ is due to the fact that the
1626: dominant Wilson coefficient $C_1$ of the electroweak Hamiltonian is multiplied
1627: by a factor of $1/N_c$ in $c_{2u}$, explaining the name ``color suppressed''
1628: amplitude, plus additional accidental cancellations which reduce the value of
1629: this ratio below 1/3.
1630:
1631:
1632: In SCET, however, the Wilson coefficients $b_{1,2}$ contribute with equal
1633: strength to the overall physical amplitude and can spoil the color
1634: suppression~\cite{bprs}. In the $b_i$ terms for $C_{M_1 M_2}$ a factor of
1635: $1/N_c=1/3$ occurs, however the hadronic parameter in the numerator is the
1636: inverse moment of a light cone distribution function and is $\sim 3$. Thus
1637: numerically $\beta_{\pi,K} \simeq 1$, and setting $\beta_{\pi,K} = 1$ for
1638: illustration we find
1639: \begin{eqnarray}
1640: %
1641: \hat T_{\pi\pi} &=& -0.131 \zeta^{B\pi} -0.099\, \zeta_J^{B\pi} \nn\\
1642: %
1643: \hat C_{\pi\pi} &=& -0.017 \zeta^{B\pi} -
1644: 0.160\, \zeta_J^{B\pi}\nn\\
1645: %
1646: \hat T_{K\pi} &=& -0.160\, \zeta^{B\pi} - 0.120 \zeta_J^{B\pi}\nn\\
1647: %
1648: \hat C_{K\pi} &=& -0.003\, \zeta^{B\pi} -0.001\, \zeta^{B\pi}_J\nn\\
1649: &&-0.014 \zeta^{BK} - 0.159\, \zeta_J^{BK}\,.
1650: %
1651: \end{eqnarray}
1652: Thus, if $\zeta \sim \zeta_J$ it is easy to see that their is no ``color
1653: suppression''. On the other hand if $\zeta \gg \zeta_J$ as chosen in
1654: Refs.~\cite{QCDF,PQCD} then one would have significant color suppression.
1655:
1656: From Eqs.~(\ref{EW1}-\ref{EW2}) the size of the color-suppressed and color
1657: allowed electroweak penguin amplitudes in $\pi\pi$ and $K\pi$ are directly
1658: related to that of $C_{M_1 M_2}$ and $T_{M_1 M_2}$. Thus if $C_{M_1 M_2} \sim
1659: T_{M_1 M_2}$ then SCET predicts that $EW^{C}_{M_1 M_2}\sim EW^T_{M_1 M_2}$.
1660:
1661: \begin{table}[t!]
1662: \begin{tabular}{cc|c}
1663: & Parameter & Measured value \\
1664: \hline
1665: & $m_{B}$ & $(5279.4 \pm 0.5)$ MeV~\cite{pdg}\\
1666: & $\tau_{B^0}$ & $(1.528 \pm 0.009)$ ps~\cite{HFAG}\\
1667: & $\tau_{B^+}$ & $(1.643 \pm 0.010)$ ps~\cite{HFAG}\\
1668: & $\beta$ & $0.379 \pm 0.022$~\cite{HFAG}\\
1669: & $f_\pi$ & $(130.7 \pm 0.4)$ MeV~\cite{pdg}\\
1670: & $f_K$ & $(159.8 \pm 1.5)$ MeV~\cite{pdg} \\
1671: & $|V_{ud}|$ & $0.9739 \pm 0.0003$~\cite{ckm05}\\
1672: & $|V_{us}|$ & $0.2248 \pm 0.0016$~\cite{ckm05}\\
1673: & $|V_{cd}|$ & $0.2261 \pm 0.0010$~\cite{CKMfitter}\\
1674: & $|V_{cs}|$ & $0.9732 \pm 0.0002$~\cite{CKMfitter}\\
1675: & $|V_{cb}|$ & $(41.6 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-3}$~\cite{HFAG,globalfit}\\
1676: \hline
1677: & $|V_{ub}|^{\rm incl}$ & $(4.39 \pm 0.34) \times 10^{-3}$~\cite{HFAG,theoryVub} \\
1678: & $|V_{ub}|^{\rm excl}$ & $(3.92 \pm 0.52) \times 10^{-3}$~\cite{Lattice,agrs,LP} \\
1679: & $|V_{ub}|^{\rm global}_{\rm CKM}$ &
1680: $(3.53 \pm 0.22) \times 10^{-3}$~\cite{CKMfitter} \\
1681: & $|V_{ub}|^{\rm here}$ &
1682: $(4.25 \pm 0.34) \times 10^{-3}$ \\
1683: \hline
1684: \end{tabular}
1685: \caption{Summary of well measured input parameters. For our central value for
1686: $|V_{ub}|$ we use a weighted average of the inclusive~\cite{HFAG} and
1687: exclusive~\cite{LP} with a slightly inflated error. Use $m_t=174.3\,{\rm GeV}$.
1688: \label{tab3}}
1689: \end{table}
1690:
1691:
1692: %
1693: \subsection{$B \to \pi \pi$ with Isospin and ${\rm Im}(C_{\pi\pi}/T_{\pi\pi})=0$}
1694: \label{sec:pipi}
1695: %
1696:
1697: Using only SU(2) there are a total of 5 hadronic parameters describing the
1698: decays $B \to \pi\pi$, in addition to a weak phase. The 6 measurements allow in
1699: principle to determine all of these parameters as was first advocated by Gronau
1700: and London~\cite{GL}. Unfortunately, the large uncertainties in the direct CP
1701: asymmetry of $\bar B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ do not allow for a definitive analysis
1702: at the present time (ie. it currently gives $65^\circ < \alpha <
1703: 200^\circ$~\cite{CKMfitter}). It was shown in Ref.~\cite{gammafit} that one can
1704: use SCET to eliminate one of the 5 hadronic SU(2) parameters, since $\epsilon=
1705: {\rm Im}(C_{\pi\pi}/T_{\pi\pi})\simeq 0$, and then directly fit for the
1706: remaining four hadronic parameters and the weak angle $\gamma$, which
1707: substantially reduces the uncertainty. Using the most recent data shown in
1708: section~\ref{sec:introduction}, we find
1709: \begin{eqnarray} \label{SCETgamma}
1710: \gamma^{\pi\pi} = 83.0^\circ {}^{+7.2^\circ}_{-8.8^\circ} \pm 2^\circ
1711: \end{eqnarray}
1712: where the first error is from the experimental uncertainties, while the second
1713: uncertainty is an estimate of the theoretical uncertainties from the expansions
1714: in SCET, estimated by varying $\epsilon=\pm 0.2$ as explained in
1715: Ref.~\cite{gammafit}. This value is in disagreement with the results from a
1716: global fit to the unitarity triangle
1717: \begin{align}
1718: \gamma_{\rm\, global}^{\rm\, CKMfitter}
1719: &= 58.6^\circ {}^{+6.8^\circ}_{-5.9^\circ}
1720: \,,\nn\\
1721: \gamma_{\rm\, global}^{\rm\, UTfit}
1722: &= 57.9^\circ \pm 7.4^\circ \,,
1723: \end{align}
1724: at the $2$-$\sigma$ level. A more sophisticated statistical analysis can be
1725: found in Ref.~\cite{GHLP}. The errors in Eq.~(\ref{SCETgamma}) are slightly
1726: misleading because they do not remain Gaussian for larger $\epsilon$. At
1727: $\epsilon=0.3$ the deviation drops to $1.5$-$\sigma$, and at $\epsilon=0.4$ it
1728: drops to $0.5$-$\sigma$. The result in Eq.~(\ref{SCETgamma}) is consistent
1729: with the direct measurement of this angle which has larger errors~\cite{HFAG}
1730: \begin{eqnarray}
1731: \gamma^{DK} = 63^\circ {}^{+15^\circ}_{-12^\circ}\,. \qquad
1732: \end{eqnarray}
1733:
1734: It is interesting to note that the global fit for $\beta$ plus the inclusive
1735: determination of $|V_{ub}|$ in table~\ref{tab3} also prefers larger values of
1736: $\gamma$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{figgammaVub}. It will be quite interesting to see
1737: how these hints of discrepancies are sharpened or clarified in the future. In the
1738: remainder of this paper, we will show results for $\gamma = 83^\circ$ and
1739: $\gamma = 59^\circ$ to give the reader an indication of the $\gamma$ dependence
1740: of our results.
1741:
1742: \begin{figure}[t!]
1743: \begin{center}
1744: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{Vubvsgamma1.eps}
1745: \caption{Comparison of constraints on $V_{ub}$ and $\gamma$ from i) the direct
1746: measurement of $\beta$, ii) current HFAG value for inclusive $|V_{ub}|$, iii)
1747: global fit value of $\gamma$, iv) $|V_{ub}|$ as output from the global fit
1748: ~\cite{HFAG,CKMfitter}, and v) results for $\gamma$ from the small $\epsilon$
1749: analysis of $B\to\pi\pi$ decays~\cite{gammafit}. All errors bands are
1750: $1$-$\sigma$.}
1751: \label{figgammaVub}
1752: \end{center}
1753: \end{figure}
1754:
1755: The phase of the amplitude $A_{cc}^{\pi\pi}$ is mostly determined from the CP
1756: asymmetries in $B \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. In particular, as can be seen from the
1757: general parameterization of the amplitudes in Eq.~(\ref{pipigeneral}), the sign
1758: of the direct CP asymmetry $C({\pi^+\pi^-})$ is correlated with the relative
1759: sign between $\hat P_{\pi\pi}$ and $\hat T_{\pi\pi}$ and the sign of the
1760: asymmetry $C({\pi^0\pi^0})$ with that between $\hat C_{\pi\pi}$ and $\hat
1761: P_{\pi\pi}$. Since there is no relative phase between the amplitudes $\hat
1762: C_{\pi\pi}$ and $\hat T_{\pi\pi}$ at LO in SCET, the sign of the direct CP
1763: asymmetry in $B \to \pi^0\pi^0$ is thus expected to be positive based on the
1764: negative experimental value for $C(\pi^+\pi^-)$~\cite{GHLP}. This expectation is in
1765: disagreement with the direct measurement shown in Table~\ref{dataall}. Using the
1766: values of the hadronic parameters from the previous fit we find for $\gamma =
1767: 83^\circ$
1768: \begin{eqnarray}
1769: C(\pi^0 \pi^0) = 0.49 \pm 0.12\pm 0.23\,,
1770: \end{eqnarray}
1771: while for $\gamma = 59^\circ$ we find
1772: \begin{eqnarray}
1773: C(\pi^0 \pi^0) = 0.61 \pm 0.19\pm 0.19\,.
1774: \end{eqnarray}
1775: These values are $1.7 \sigma$ from the measured value, if we add the theoretical
1776: and experimental errors in quadrature.
1777:
1778: %
1779: \subsection{The decays $B \to \pi \pi$ in SCET}
1780: \label{sec:pipi2}
1781: %
1782:
1783: For $\gamma = 83^\circ$ a fit of the four SCET parameters to the $B \to \pi \pi$
1784: data excluding the direct CP asymmetry in $B \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ gives
1785: \begin{align}
1786: \label{pipiparams83}
1787: \zeta^{B \pi} &= (0.088 \pm 0.019 \pm 0.045)\ \Big( \frac{4.25\times
1788: 10^{-3}}{|V_{ub}|}\Big) \nn\\
1789: \zeta_J^{B \pi} &= (0.085 \pm 0.016 \pm 0.031)\ \Big( \frac{4.25\times
1790: 10^{-3}}{|V_{ub}|}\Big) \nn\\
1791: 10^3\hat P^{\pi\pi} &= (5.5 \pm 0.8\pm 1.3)e^{i(151\pm8\pm 6)^\circ},
1792: \end{align}
1793: while for $\gamma = 59^\circ$ we find
1794: \begin{align}
1795: \label{pipiparams59}
1796: \zeta^{B \pi} &= (0.093 \pm 0.023 \pm 0.035)\ \Big( \frac{4.25\times
1797: 10^{-3}}{|V_{ub}|}\Big)\nn\\
1798: \zeta_J^{B \pi} &= (0.10 \pm 0.016 \pm .022)\ \Big( \frac{4.25\times
1799: 10^{-3}}{|V_{ub}|}\Big)\nn\\
1800: 10^3 \hat P^{\pi\pi} &= (2.6 \pm 0.9\pm 0.8)e^{i(103\pm19\pm 16)^\circ}
1801: \! .
1802: \end{align}
1803: The first error is purely from the uncertainties in the experimental data, while
1804: the second error comes from adding our estimate of the theory uncertainties
1805: discussed in section~\ref{theoryerror}. For both values of $\gamma$ one finds
1806: that $|P/T| \sim 0.25$. Note that this ratio of $P/T$ does not include the ratio
1807: of the CKM factors. The ratio relevant for the decays is
1808: $|\lambda_c^{(d)}/\lambda_u^{(d)}| |P/T| \sim 0.6$.
1809:
1810: It is interesting to compare the result for $\hat P^{\pi\pi}$ extracted from the
1811: data with that from the purely perturbative penguin computed in
1812: Ref.~\cite{QCDF} (in two scenarios for the input parameters),
1813: \begin{align}
1814: 10^3\hat P^{\rm default}_{\rm QCDF} &= -1.0 -[ 0.1 + 0.3 i+ \ldots] \\
1815: &\hspace{-0.6cm}
1816: - (1.7 + 0.0 X_H+ .047 X_A^2) -\{0.3 + 0.1 i \}\nn\\
1817: &= -3.1 -0.4i - 0.047 X_A^2 \,, \nn\\
1818: %
1819: 10^3\hat P^{\rm S2}_{\rm QCDF} &= -0.9 -[ 0.0 + 0.1 i+ \ldots] \nn\\
1820: &\hspace{-0.6cm} -(2.0 + 0.0 X_H+ .063 X_A^2) -\{0.3 + 0.3 i \} \nn \\
1821: &= -3.2 -0.4i - 0.063 X_A^2 \,, \nn .
1822: \end{align}
1823: Here the terms $[\ldots]$ are $\alpha_s(m_b)$ corrections, the terms $(\ldots)$
1824: are chirally enhanced power corrections with parameters $X_H$ and $X_A$, and
1825: $\{\ldots \}$ are perturbative corrections to these. We observe that the
1826: magnitude of the perturbative $\pi\pi$ penguin is of similar size to that from
1827: the data for $\gamma=59^\circ$, but has a small strong phase is in contrast to
1828: the large strong phase seen in the data.
1829:
1830: The correlation between $\zeta^{B \pi}$ and $\zeta_J^{B \pi}$ in
1831: Eqs.~(\ref{pipiparams83},\ref{pipiparams59}) is about $-0.8$, so that the
1832: heavy-to-light form factor, which is given by the sum of these two parameters is
1833: determined with much smaller uncertainties than one would obtain by naively
1834: adding the two individual errors in quadrature. For $\gamma = 83^\circ$ we find
1835: \begin{eqnarray}
1836: F^{B\pi}(0) = (0.17 \pm 0.01 \pm 0.03)\ \Big( \frac{4.25\times
1837: 10^{-3}}{|V_{ub}|}\Big)
1838: \end{eqnarray}
1839: while for $\gamma = 59^\circ$ we find
1840: \begin{eqnarray}
1841: F^{B\pi}(0) = (0.19 \pm 0.01 \pm 0.03)\ \Big( \frac{4.25\times
1842: 10^{-3}}{|V_{ub}|}\Big)
1843: \end{eqnarray}
1844:
1845:
1846:
1847: %
1848: \subsection{The decays $B \to K \pi$}
1849: \label{sec:Kpi}
1850: %
1851:
1852: For these decays the penguin amplitudes are enhanced by the ratio of CKM matrix
1853: elements $|\lambda_c^{(s)}/\lambda_u^{(s)}| \sim 40$. Thus, the relevant ratio
1854: of penguin to tree amplitudes is $|\lambda_c^{(s)}/\lambda_u^{(s)}| |P/T| \sim
1855: 10$ and the $B \to K \pi$ decays are penguin dominated. If one were to only keep
1856: the penguin contributions to these decays the relative sizes of the branching
1857: ratios would be determined by simple Clebsch-Gordon coefficients
1858: \begin{align}
1859: \label{clebschrelation}
1860: {\rm Br}(\pi^0 \bar K^0) \simeq {\rm Br}(\pi^0 K^-)\simeq
1861: \frac{{\rm Br}(\pi^+ K^-)}{2} \simeq \frac{{\rm Br}(\pi^- \bar K^0)}{2} \,.
1862: \end{align}
1863: Deviations from this relation are determined at leading order in the power
1864: counting by the non-perturbative parameters $\zeta^{BM}$ and $\zeta_J^{BM}$.
1865: To see how well the current data constrains deviations from this result we
1866: can look at the following ratios of branching fractions
1867: \begin{align} \label{R}
1868: R_1 &= \frac{2 {\rm Br}(B^-\to \pi^0K^-)}{{\rm Br}(B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0)} -1
1869: = 0.004 \pm 0.086 \,,\\
1870: %
1871: R_2 &= \frac{ {\rm Br}(\bar B^0\to \pi^-K^+)\tau_{B^-}}{{\rm Br}(B^- \to \pi^-
1872: \bar K^0)\tau_{B^0}} -1
1873: = -0.157 \pm 0.055 \,,\nn\\
1874: %
1875: R_3 &= \frac{2 {\rm Br}(\bar B^-\to \pi^0\bar K^0)\tau_{B^-}}{{\rm Br}(\bar B^0 \to
1876: \pi^- \bar K^0)\tau_{B^0}} -1
1877: = 0.026 \pm 0.105\,,\nn
1878: %
1879: \end{align}
1880: and the rescaled asymmetries
1881: \begin{align} \label{rAsym}
1882: &\Delta_1 = (1+R_1) A_{\rm CP}(\pi^0 K^-)
1883: = 0.040 \pm 0.040 \,,\\
1884: %
1885: &\Delta_2 = (1+R_2)A_{\rm CP}(\pi^- K^+)
1886: = -0.097 \pm 0.016 \,,\nn\\
1887: %
1888: &\Delta_3 = (1+ R_3) A_{\rm CP}(\pi^0 \bar K^0)
1889: = - 0.021 \pm 0.133\,,\nn \\
1890: %
1891: &\Delta_4 = A_{\rm CP}(\pi^- \bar K^0) = -0.02\pm0.04 \,.
1892: \end{align}
1893:
1894: These ratios have been defined by normalizing each branching ratio to the decay
1895: $B^- \to \pi^0 \bar K^0$. If we drop the small amplitude parameter $A_{K
1896: \pi}$ then this channel measures the penguin,
1897: \begin{eqnarray}
1898: A(B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0) = \lambda_c^{(s)} P_{K \pi}\,,
1899: \end{eqnarray}
1900: and the direct CP asymmetry is expected to be small.
1901:
1902: A simple test for the consistency of the $K\pi$ data is given by the Lipkin
1903: sum-rule for branching ratios~\cite{Lipkin}, and a sum-rule for the
1904: CP-asymmetries~\cite{CPsum}
1905: \begin{eqnarray} \label{sum0}
1906: R_1 - R_2 +R_3 = 0 \,,\quad
1907: \Delta_1 - \Delta_2 + \Delta_3 -\Delta_4 = 0 \,,
1908: \end{eqnarray}
1909: which are both second order in the ratio of small to large amplitudes as
1910: discussed in section~\ref{sec:Sum-Rules}. The current data gives
1911: \begin{eqnarray}
1912: && R_1 - R_2 +R_3 = (0.19 \pm 0.15)^{\rm expt} \,,\nn\\
1913: && \Delta_1 - \Delta_2 + \Delta_3 -\Delta_4 = (0.14 \pm 0.15)^{\rm expt} \,.
1914: \end{eqnarray}
1915: Thus, so far this global test does not show a deviation from the expectation.
1916:
1917: SCET provides us with additional tests for the $K\pi$ data. It turns out
1918: that the current data is not precise enough to determine the values of
1919: $\zeta^{BK}$ and $\zeta_J^{BK}$. These two parameters only contribute
1920: to the two decays $B^- \to \pi^0 K^-$ and $\bar B^0 \to \pi^0 \bar K^0$, which
1921: have neutral pions and larger experimental uncertainties. As we will explain, the data on these
1922: decays seems to favor a negative value of $\zeta_J^{BK}$, but that would imply a negative value for $\lambda_B$, the first inverse moment of the $B$ meson wave function, contrary to any theoretical prejudice. One can use the fact that the only
1923: sizeable strong phase is in the value of the parameter $A_{cc}^{K \pi}$ to
1924: determine the predicted size of the deviations from the above relations and also
1925: the signs and hierarchy for the CP asymmetries.
1926:
1927:
1928:
1929: %
1930: \subsubsection{Sum-Rules in $B\to K\pi$}
1931: \label{sect_sumSCET}
1932: %
1933:
1934: In SCET positive values of $\zeta^{BM}$ and $\zeta_J^{BM}$ imply that the phase
1935: of $-T_{K\pi}$, $-C_{K\pi}$, ${EW}_{K\pi}^{C,T}$, and
1936: ${EW}_{K\pi}^{T}-{EW}_{K\pi}^{C}$ are the same. This can be seen from
1937: Eqs.(\ref{pipiparamscet}-\ref{Kpiparamscet}). Therefore this implies that these
1938: amplitudes have a common strong phase $\delta$ relative to the penguin $\hat
1939: P_{K\pi}$. Using the notation and results from section~\ref{sec:Sum-Rules} we
1940: have
1941: \begin{align}
1942: \phi_T = \phi_C = \phi = \phi_T^{ew} = \phi_C^{ew} = \phi_{ew} = \delta
1943: \,.
1944: \end{align}
1945: At LO in SCET one can drop the $A_{K\pi}$ amplitude ($\epsilon_A=0$) and write
1946: \begin{align}
1947: A(\bar B^0 \to \pi^- \bar K^0) &= \lambda_c^{(s)} P_{K\pi} \,,\\
1948: A(\bar B^0 \to \pi^+K^-) &= - \lambda_c^{(s)} P_{K\pi} \Big[ 1 \!+\!
1949: \frac{e^{i\delta}}{2} \big( \epsilon_C^{ew} \!-\! \epsilon_T e^{-i\gamma} \big)
1950: \Big], \nn \\
1951: \sqrt{2} A(B^- \to \pi^0K^-) &= - \lambda_c^{(s)} P_{K\pi} \Big[ 1\!+\!
1952: \frac{e^{i\delta}}{2} \big( \epsilon_{T}^{ew} \!-\! \epsilon e^{-i\gamma} \big)
1953: \Big], \nn \\
1954: \sqrt{2} A(\bar B^0 \to \pi^0\bar K^0) &= \lambda_c^{(s)} P_{K\pi} \Big[ 1\!-\!
1955: \frac{e^{i\delta}}{2} \big( \epsilon^{ew} \!-\! \epsilon_C e^{-i\gamma} \big)
1956: \Big], \nn
1957: \end{align}
1958: where the $\epsilon$-parameters are all positive and satisfy
1959: \begin{eqnarray}
1960: \epsilon = \epsilon_T + \epsilon_C \,, \quad
1961: \epsilon^{ew} = \epsilon_T^{ew} - \epsilon_C^{ew} \,,
1962: \end{eqnarray}
1963: and
1964: \begin{eqnarray} \label{epsineq}
1965: \epsilon>\epsilon_C \,,\quad
1966: \epsilon>\epsilon_T \,,\quad
1967: \epsilon_T^{ew} > \epsilon_C^{ew}\,,\quad
1968: \epsilon_T^{ew} > \epsilon^{ew} .
1969: \end{eqnarray}
1970:
1971: From the decomposition in terms of SCET parameters we can determine the
1972: magnitudes of the $\epsilon$-parameters in terms of the $\zeta$'s. The rate
1973: ${\rm Br}(B^-\to \pi^- \bar K^0)$ determines
1974: \begin{align}
1975: 10^3 \, |\hat P_{K\pi}|\simeq 5.5 \pm 0.1 \pm 0.1
1976: \end{align}
1977: and using
1978: \begin{align}
1979: \bigg| \frac{\lambda_u^{(s)}}{\lambda_c^{(s)}} \bigg| = 0.0236 \,,
1980: \end{align}
1981: we find
1982: \begin{eqnarray}
1983: \epsilon_T &\simeq& 1.40 (\zeta^{B\pi} \!+\!\zeta_J^{B\pi})
1984: + 0.35 \beta_{\bar K} \zeta_J^{B\pi} \,,\nn\\
1985: \epsilon_C &\simeq& 0.12 (\zeta^{B K} \!+\!\zeta_J^{B K})
1986: + 1.27 \beta_\pi \zeta_J^{B\bar K} \,,\nn\\
1987: && +0.03(\zeta^{B \pi} \!+\!\zeta_J^{B \pi})
1988: - 0.02 \beta_{\bar K} \zeta_J^{B\pi} \nn\\
1989: \epsilon_T^{ew} &\simeq& 0.71 (\zeta^{B K} \!+\!\zeta_J^{B K})
1990: -0.17 \beta_{\pi} \zeta_J^{BK}\nn\\
1991: && + 0.12 (\zeta^{B \pi} \!+\!\zeta_J^{B \pi}) + 0.87 \beta_K \zeta_J^{B
1992: \pi} \,, \nn\\
1993: \epsilon_C^{\rm ew} &\simeq& 0.12 (\zeta^{B\pi} \!+\!\zeta_J^{B\pi})
1994: + 0.87 \beta_\pi \zeta_J^{B\bar K} \,.
1995: \end{eqnarray}
1996: Generically $\zeta^{BM}+\zeta^{BM}_J\sim 0.15-0.25$ and $\zeta^{BM}_J\sim
1997: 0.05-0.15$ so that $\epsilon_T$, $\epsilon_C$, $\epsilon_T^{ew}$,
1998: $\epsilon_C^{ew}$ are $\sim 0.1$--$0.4$ and can be thought of as expansion
1999: parameters.
2000:
2001: To estimate the SM deviations from the results in Eq.~(\ref{sum0}) we take the
2002: ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ terms in Eqs.~(\ref{Lipkinsum},\ref{Deltasum}) and
2003: independently vary the parameters in the conservative ranges
2004: $\zeta^{B\pi}+\zeta^{B\pi}_J= 0.2\pm0.1$, $\beta_{\bar K}\zeta_J^{B\pi} = 0.10
2005: \pm 0.05$, $\zeta^{B\bar K}+\zeta^{B\bar K}_J= 0.2\pm0.1$, $\beta_\pi
2006: \zeta_J^{B\bar K} = 0.10 \pm 0.05$, $\epsilon_A = 0 \pm 0.1$, $\gamma=70^\circ
2007: \pm 15^\circ$, arbitrary $\phi_A$ and all phase differences $\Delta \phi =
2008: 0^\circ \pm 30^\circ$. For the Lipkin sum rule this gives
2009: \begin{eqnarray}\label{sumerrors1}
2010: R_1 - R_2 + R_3 = 0.028 \pm 0.021 \,,
2011: \end{eqnarray}
2012: and for the CP-sum rule
2013: \begin{eqnarray}\label{sumerrors2}
2014: \Delta_1 -\Delta_2 + \Delta_3 -\Delta_4 = 0 \pm 0.013 \,.
2015: \end{eqnarray}
2016: Experimental deviations that are larger than these would be a signal for new
2017: physics. The CP-sum rule has significantly smaller uncertainty than the Lipkin
2018: sum-rule. This can be understood from the expression
2019: \begin{align}
2020: & \Delta_1 -\Delta_2 +\Delta_3 - \Delta_4
2021: = -\frac{1}{2} \sin(\gamma) \big[ \epsilon_T^{ew}
2022: \epsilon \sin(\phi-\phi_T^{ew})\nn \\
2023: &\ \ - \epsilon_T \epsilon_C^{ew} \sin(\phi_T-\phi_C^{ew})
2024: -\epsilon_C \epsilon^{ew} \sin(\phi_C -\phi_{ew}) \big] \nn\\
2025: & \times \big(1+ {\cal O}(\epsilon_A)\big) \,.
2026: \end{align}
2027: All terms involve one of the smaller electroweak penguin $\epsilon$-parameters,
2028: and in SCET all the phase differences are small, both of which give a further
2029: suppression over the Lipkin sum-rule. Since the CP sum-rule is always
2030: suppressed by at least three small parameters it is likely to be very accurate.
2031:
2032: \subsubsection{CP-Asymmetry Sign Correlations} \label{sec:CPsign}
2033:
2034: For the asymmetry parameters up to smaller terms of ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ we
2035: have
2036: \begin{align}
2037: \Delta_1 = -\epsilon \sin(\delta) \sin(\gamma) ,\nn\\
2038: %
2039: \Delta_2 = - \epsilon_T \sin(\delta)\sin(\gamma) ,\nn\\
2040: %
2041: \Delta_3 = \epsilon_C \sin(\delta) \sin(\gamma) .
2042: \end{align}
2043: Thus, we immediately have the following predictions
2044: \begin{align}
2045: \mbox{i) }\ \ & \Delta_1, \Delta_2, -\Delta_3 \mbox{ have
2046: the same sign} \,,\nn\\
2047: \mbox{ii) }\ \ & |\Delta_1| \gtrsim |\Delta_2| \,,\quad
2048: |\Delta_1| \gtrsim |\Delta_3| \,,
2049: \end{align}
2050: where i) depends only on the fact that positive $\zeta$'s gives positive
2051: $\epsilon$-parameters, and ii) follows from including Eq.~(\ref{epsineq}).
2052: Compared to the data in Eq.~(\ref{rAsym}) we see that the central values of
2053: $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ currently have opposite signs, disagreeing from
2054: equality by $\sim 2$$\sigma$ when we take into account the theoretical
2055: uncertainty. The experimental errors are still too large to draw strong
2056: conclusions.
2057:
2058: Note that a prediction $|\Delta_1| \approx |\Delta_2|$ was made for the
2059: CP-asymmetries in Ref.~\cite{GR2} based on the expectation that the color
2060: suppressed amplitudes are small. The CP-sum rule $\Delta_1-\Delta_2+\Delta_3=0$
2061: was discussed in Ref.~\cite{CPsum} (3rd reference) to take into account the
2062: possibly large color suppressed contributions. Given $\zeta^{B\pi}\sim
2063: \zeta_J^{B\pi}$, SCET predicts that the phase of the color suppressed $C_{K\pi}$
2064: amplitude is nearly equal to that of the $T_{K\pi}$ amplitude so the hierarchy
2065: of the asymmetries is actually reinforced by a significant $C_{K\pi}$. Our
2066: prediction that $|\Delta_1| \gtrsim |\Delta_2|$ with $\Delta_{1,2}$ having equal
2067: signs can also be compared to prediction for the analagous CP-asymmetries in the
2068: QCDF approach~\cite{QCDF} (4th reference). Four different scenarios for the
2069: hadronic parameters were considered S1,S2,S3,S4, and all four sets of model
2070: parameters exhibit the sign correlation. (However all four of the scenarios also
2071: underestimate the size of $|A_{\rm CP}(\pi^+ K^-)|$ by more than a factor of two due
2072: mostly to the fact that the purely perturbative penguin for $K\pi$ is somewhat
2073: small.)
2074:
2075: For the branching ratio deviation parameters we have up to smaller terms of
2076: ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ that
2077: \begin{align} \label{Rinow}
2078: R_1 &= \cos(\delta) \big[\epsilon_T^{ew} \!-\! \epsilon \cos(\gamma) \big]
2079: ,\nn\\
2080: %
2081: R_2 &= \cos(\delta) \big[ \epsilon_C^{ew} \!-\!\epsilon_T \cos(\gamma)\big]
2082: ,\nn\\
2083: %
2084: R_3 &= \cos(\delta) \big[ \epsilon_C \cos(\gamma) \!-\! \epsilon^{ew} \big]
2085: .
2086: \end{align}
2087: The use of conservative errors on the $\zeta$-parameters leaves too much freedom
2088: to make sign predictions for the $R_i$'s. However, definite sign predictions
2089: will be possible using Eq.~(\ref{Rinow}) when the $\zeta$ parameters are pinned
2090: down by $B\to\pi$ and $B\to K$ form factor results in the future. Alternatively
2091: accurate measurements of the $R_i$ plus $A_{\rm CP}(K^+\pi^-)$ will determine the
2092: hadronic parameters needed to predict the magnitude of the remaining
2093: $\Delta_i$'s.
2094:
2095: In the next section we turn to more direct comparisons of the SCET predictions
2096: with the data by fixing the parameters with the well measured observables and
2097: then predicting the rest.
2098:
2099:
2100: \subsubsection{$B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ and $B \to \pi^- \bar K^+$}
2101:
2102: The amplitude parameters $\hat T_{K \pi}$, $\hat A_{K \pi}$ and $\hat{EW}^C_{K
2103: \pi}$ are determined in terms of the parameters $\zeta^{B \pi}$ and
2104: $\zeta_J^{B \pi}$ obtained previously from the decays $B \to \pi\pi$. Thus, only
2105: two new parameters are required for the decays $B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ and
2106: $\bar B^0 \to \pi^+K^-$: the magnitude and phase of $P^{K \pi}$. Since the
2107: ratio of $\lambda_u \hat A_{K \pi} \ll \lambda_c \hat P_{K \pi} \sim 0.001$, one
2108: predicts a negligible CP asymmetry in $\bar B^-\to \pi^- \bar K^0$ in agreement
2109: with the data. The best sensitivity on the two parameters is from ${\rm Br}(B^-
2110: \to \pi^- \bar K^0)$ and $A_{\rm CP}(B^0 \to \pi^+K^-)$. Using these two
2111: observables we find two solutions for $A_{cc}^{K \pi}$ for $\gamma = 83^\circ$
2112: \begin{align}
2113: 10^3\, \hat P^{K\pi} = \left\{
2114: \begin{array}{l} (5.5 \pm 0.1\pm0.1)e^{i(144\pm 8\pm11)^\circ}
2115: \\
2116: (5.5 \pm 0.1\pm0.1)e^{i(32\pm 7\pm10)^\circ} \end{array} \right.
2117: \end{align}
2118: while for $\gamma = 59^\circ$ we find
2119: \begin{eqnarray}
2120: 10^3\, \hat P^{K\pi} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} (5.5 \pm 0.1\pm0.1)e^{i(144\pm 9\pm11)^\circ}\\ (5.5 \pm 0.1\pm0.1)e^{i(36\pm 8\pm10)^\circ} \end{array} \right.
2121: \end{eqnarray}
2122:
2123:
2124: The confidence level plot for the magnitude and phase of $P^{K\pi}$ is shown on
2125: the left of Fig.~\ref{fig1}. For the $\gamma=59^\circ$ result the magnitude
2126: indicates a large SU(3) violating correction at leading order in $\Lambda/E_\pi$
2127: or a large $\Lambda/E_\pi$ correction in the SU(3) limit (which disfavors this
2128: solution). Taking the $\gamma=83^\circ$ we see that of the two solutions the
2129: first has a phase which agrees well with the SU(3) relation to the phase in
2130: $\pi\pi$, while the second phase is quite different.
2131:
2132: For $\gamma=83^\circ$ the first solution, however, does not give good agreement
2133: with the third piece of data, the branching ratio ${\rm Br}(B^0 \to \pi^+K^-) =
2134: (18.2 \pm 0.8)\times 10^{-6}$, while the second agrees considerably better. We
2135: find
2136: \begin{eqnarray}
2137: {\rm Br}(\pi^+K^-) = \left\{
2138: \begin{array}{l} (24.0 \pm 0.2\pm1.2)\times 10^{-6}
2139: \\
2140: (21.3 \pm 0.2\pm1.3)\times 10^{-6} \end{array} \right.
2141: \end{eqnarray}
2142: For $\gamma = 59^\circ$ this branching ratio has much less discriminating power between these two solutions and we find
2143: \begin{eqnarray}
2144: {\rm Br}(\pi^+K^-) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
2145: (22.5 \pm 0.2\pm1.2)\times 10^{-6}\\
2146: (22.7 \pm 0.3\pm1.2)\times 10^{-6}
2147: \end{array} \right.
2148: \end{eqnarray}
2149: This is can also be clearly seen in the confidence level plot for $P^{K\pi}$ on
2150: the right of Fig.~\ref{fig1}, where we have included the branching ratio
2151: measurement in the fit. Note, however that both solutions have trouble
2152: explaining the small branching ratio ${\rm Br}(B^0 \to \pi^+K^-)$, making the
2153: large difference in the branching ratios of $B \to \pi^+ K^-$ and $B \to \pi^-
2154: \bar K^0$ quite difficult to explain at LO in the $\Lambda/m_b\ll 1$ limit of QCD.
2155:
2156: \begin{figure}[t!]
2157: \begin{center}
2158: \includegraphics[width=9.0cm]{confidencez1.eps}
2159: \caption{Confidence level plots for the complex parameter $A_{cc}^{K \pi}$ for $\gamma=83^\circ$ (left hand side) and $\gamma=59^\circ$ (right hand side). On the top we show the confidence levels without using $Br(\bar B^0 \to \pi^+K^-)$, while the bottom plot includes this branching ratio. We also show the value of $P_{\pi\pi}$, which is idential to the $P_{K \pi}$ in the SU(3) limit. }
2160: \label{fig1}
2161: \end{center}
2162: \end{figure}
2163:
2164:
2165:
2166:
2167: \subsubsection{Predictions for other $K\pi$ and $K\bar K$ observables}
2168:
2169: Using the hadronic parameters extracted from the $B \to \pi \pi$ decays ($\zeta^{B\pi}$, $\zeta_J^{B\pi}$ and $P_{\pi\pi}$), the
2170: value for $P_{K \pi}$ determined from the decays $B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ and
2171: $\bar B^0 \to \pi^- K^+$ decays and independently varying
2172: $\zeta^{BK}+\zeta^{BK}_J = 0.2\pm 0.1$ and $\beta_\pi \zeta^{BK}_J = 0.10\pm
2173: 0.05$, we can calculate all the remaining currently measured $K\pi$ observables.
2174: The results are given in Table~\ref{compare} for $\gamma=83^\circ$ and
2175: $\gamma=59^\circ$, respectively. We also show these results in Figs.~\ref{fig2}
2176: and~\ref{fig3}. The data used in the fit are shown in red below the dashed
2177: dividing line while those above the line are predictions. Note that there is
2178: one more piece of data below the line than there are parameters.
2179:
2180: In Fig.~\ref{fig2} we see that $\gamma=83^\circ$ gives a good match to the $B\to
2181: \pi\pi$ data except for the asymmetry $C(\pi^0\pi^0)$. When taking into account
2182: the theoretical error the most striking disagreements are the ${\rm
2183: Br}(K^-\pi^+)$ at $2.3\sigma$ and the CP-asymmetry $A_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^0)$ at
2184: $2.6\sigma$. All other predictions agree within the uncertainties. Note that one could demand that $A_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^0)$ be reproduced, which would imply a negative value of $\zeta_J^{BK}$ (a naive fit for $\gamma = 83^\circ$ gives $\zeta_J^{BK}\sim -0.15$). Note however, that this would imply that both perturbation theory at the intermediate scale $\mu = \sqrt{E \Lambda}$ and SU(3) are badly broken.
2185:
2186: The situation in Fig.~\ref{fig3} with $\gamma=59^\circ$ is similar except that
2187: the theoretical prediction for ${\rm Br}(\pi^+\pi^0)$ moves somewhat. The ${\rm
2188: Br}(K^-\pi^+)$ deviation is reduced to $1.6\sigma$ and asymmetry $A(K^-\pi^0)$
2189: is still $2.6\sigma$. All other predictions agree within the uncertainties.
2190:
2191:
2192:
2193: \begin{table}[t!]
2194: %\mbox{
2195: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
2196: & Expt. & Theory & Theory \\[-2pt]
2197: & & ($\gamma=83^\circ$) & ($\gamma=59^\circ$) \\[2pt]
2198: \hline
2199: Data in Fit \\
2200: \hline
2201: $S({\pi^+\pi^-})$ &\ $-0.50\pm 0.12$ \
2202: & \ $-0.50\pm 0.10 $ & $-0.51 \pm 0.10 $ \ \\
2203: $C({\pi^+\pi^-})$ & $-0.37\pm 0.10$
2204: & $-0.37\pm 0.07$ & $-0.38\pm 0.07 $\\
2205: ${\rm Br}(\pi^+ \pi^-)$ & $5.0\pm 0.4$
2206: & $5.0 \pm 2.0$ & $4.6 \pm 1.8 $\\
2207: ${\rm Br}(\pi^+\pi^0)$&$5.5\pm 0.6$
2208: & $5.5\pm 2.2$ & $7.3\pm 2.9$ \\
2209: ${\rm Br}(\pi^0\pi^0)$&$1.45\pm 0.29 $
2210: & $1.45\pm 0.58$ & $1.32 \pm 0.53$ \\
2211: ${\rm Br}(\bar{K}^0 \pi^-) $ & $24.1\pm 1.3$
2212: & $24.1\pm 1.2$ & $24.1\pm 1.2$ \\
2213: $A({ {K}^-\!\pi^+})$ & $-0.115\pm 0.018$
2214: & $-0.115\pm 0.023$ & $-0.115\pm 0.023$ \\
2215: ${\rm Br}(\bar K^0 K^-)$& $1.2\pm0.3$
2216: & $1.2 \pm 0.5 $ & $1.2 \pm 0.5 $ \\
2217: \hline
2218: Predictions \\
2219: \hline
2220: $A({\pi^+ \pi^0})$& $0.01\pm 0.06$ & $\lesssim 0.05$ & $\lesssim 0.05$ \\
2221: $A({\pi^0\pi^0})$&$0.28\pm 0.40$
2222: & $-0.48\pm 0.19 $ & $-0.52\pm 0.27 $ \\
2223: $S(\pi^0\pi^0)$ & & $0.84 \pm 0.23$ & $-0.14\pm 0.22$ \\
2224: ${\rm Br}(\pi^0\bar{K}^0)$ & $11.5\pm 1.0$
2225: & $10.4 \pm 1.1$ & $10.9 \pm 1.2$ \\
2226: ${\rm Br}(\pi^+{K}^-)$ & $ 18.9\pm 0.7$
2227: & $24.0\pm 2.1$ & $22.5\pm 2.1$ \\
2228: ${\rm Br}(\pi^0{K}^-)$ &$12.1\pm 0.8$
2229: & $14.3\pm 1.5$ & $12.7\pm 1.4$ \\
2230: $S({\pi^0 K_S})$ & $0.31\pm 0.26$
2231: & $0.77\pm 0.16$ & $0.76\pm 0.16$ \\
2232: $A({\pi^0\! {K}^-})$ & $0.04\pm 0.04$
2233: & $-0.183\pm 0.075$ & $-0.184\pm 0.076$ \\
2234: $A({\bar{K}^0\!\pi^0})$ & $-0.02\pm 0.13$
2235: & $0.103\pm 0.058$ & $0.083\pm 0.047$ \\
2236: $A({\pi^-\!\bar{K}^0})$ & $-0.02\pm 0.04 $
2237: & $< 0.1$ & $< 0.1 $ \\
2238: ${\rm Br}(K^0\bar K^0)$ & $0.96 \pm 0.25 $
2239: & $1.1 \pm 0.3$ & $1.1\pm 0.3$ \\
2240: ${\rm Br}(K^+\! K^-)$ & $0.06\pm 0.12$
2241: & $ \lesssim 0.1$ & $\lesssim 0.1$ \\
2242: $A(\bar K^0 K^-)$ & & $\lesssim 0.2 $ & $\lesssim 0.2 $ \\
2243: $A(\bar K^0 K^0)$ & & $\lesssim 0.2 $ & $\lesssim 0.2 $ \\
2244: \hline
2245: \end{tabular}
2246: {\caption {Comparison of LO predictions versus data as in Figs.3,4. ${\rm Br}$'s are
2247: in units of $10^{-6}$. The theory
2248: errors displayed for quantities used in the fit show the relative weight
2249: for these observables from power corrections,
2250: while those for predictions include parameter uncertainty from the fit as
2251: well as from power corrections.
2252: CP asymmetries that are not
2253: shown in the table are not determined at this order.}\label{compare}}
2254: %}
2255: \end{table}
2256:
2257:
2258: For $B\to K\bar K$ the amplitude parameters in SCET satisfy $A_{KK} = B_{KK}$
2259: and $E_{KK} = PA_{KK} = EW_{KK} = 0$, and we obtain the prediction
2260: \begin{eqnarray}
2261: {\rm Br}(B^- \to K^- \bar K^0) &=& {\rm Br}(\bar B^0 \to K^0 \bar K^0)
2262: \end{eqnarray}
2263: which agrees well with the latest data, and the expectation that $A_{\rm CP}(B^-
2264: \to K^- \bar K^0)$, $A_{\rm CP}(\bar B^0 \to K^0 \bar K^0)$, and ${\rm Br}(\bar
2265: B^0 \to K^- \bar K^+)$ will be suppressed.
2266:
2267: Unfortunately, without the use of SU(3) we do not have enough experimental
2268: information to determine the hadronic parameters required to predict the $B\to
2269: K^0\bar K^0$ absolute branching ratio. It is however interesting to extract the
2270: penguin amplitude and compare with the other channels. We find
2271: \begin{align}
2272: 10^3 |\hat P_{K\bar K}| = 5.3 \pm 0.8
2273: \end{align}
2274: Comparing with the penguin amplitudes extracted in $\pi\pi$ and in $K\pi$ we see
2275: that the combined SU(3) and SCET prediction, $P_{\pi\pi}\sim P_{K\pi}\sim
2276: P_{K\bar K}$, works quite well if $\gamma=83^\circ$.
2277:
2278:
2279:
2280:
2281: \section{Conclusions}
2282: \label{sec:conclusions}
2283: %
2284: \begin{figure}[t!]
2285: \begin{center}
2286: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{figresults83.eps}
2287: \caption{Comparison of theory and experiment for all available data in $B \to
2288: \pi \pi$ and $B \to K \pi$ decays, with $\gamma=83^\circ$. The 8 pieces of data in red
2289: (below the dashed line) have been used to determine the SCET hadronic parameters
2290: $\zeta^{B\pi}$, $\zeta_J^{B\pi}$, $P_{\pi\pi}$, $P_{K\pi}$ and $|P_KK|$, with
2291: $\zeta^{BK}$ and $\zeta_J^{BK}$ fixed as described in the text. The data above the line are predictions. The CP
2292: asymmetry in $B^- \to K^0 \pi^-$ is expected to be small, but its numerical
2293: value is not predicted reliably.
2294: \label{fig2}}
2295: \end{center}
2296: \end{figure}
2297:
2298: \begin{figure}[t!]
2299: \begin{center}
2300: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{figresults59.eps}
2301: \caption{Same as Fig.3, but with $\gamma=59^\circ$.
2302: \label{fig3}}
2303: \end{center}
2304: \end{figure}
2305:
2306: Decays of $B$ mesons to two pseudoscalar mesons provide a rich environment to
2307: test our understanding of the standard model and to look for physics beyond the
2308: standard model. The underlying electroweak physics mediating these decays are
2309: contained in the Wilson coefficients of the electroweak Hamiltonian as well as
2310: CKM matrix elements. In order to test cleanly the standard model predictions for
2311: these short distance parameters, one requires a good understanding of the
2312: QCD matrix elements of the effective operators, which can not be calculated
2313: perturbatively.
2314:
2315: At the present time, there are 5 well measured (with $< 100\%$ uncertainty)
2316: observables in $B \to \pi \pi$, 5 in $B \to K \pi$ and 2 in $B \to K K$. Using
2317: only isospin symmetry (with corrections suppressed by $m_{u,d}/\Lambda$),
2318: the number of hadronic parameters required to describe these decays
2319: is 7, 11 and 11, respectively. The number of hadronic parameters can be reduced
2320: by two in the $\pi \pi$ system, if one drops the two operators $O_7$ and $O_8$,
2321: which have small Wilson coefficients in the standard model. If one is willing to
2322: take SU(3) (an expansion in $m_s/\Lambda$) as a good symmetry of QCD, the combined $B \to \pi\pi/K\pi$ system is
2323: described by 15 parameters, while the $B \to KK$ system adds another 4
2324: parameters. Neglecting $O_7$ and $O_8$ with SU(3) reduces the number of
2325: parameters in the $\pi\pi/K\pi/K\bar K$ system to 15. Thus, at the present time
2326: there are more hadronic parameters than there are well measured observables.
2327:
2328: In this paper we have studied these decays in a model independent way using
2329: SCET. This analysis exploits that the hadronic scale $\Lambda$ in QCD is much
2330: smaller than both in the large mass of the heavy quark and the large energy of
2331: the two light mesons. It follows that at leading order in the power expansion
2332: in $\lqcd/Q$, where $Q \sim m_b,E$, and using SU(2), there are four hadronic
2333: parameters describing $B \to \pi \pi$, five additional parameters describing $B
2334: \to K \pi$ and three additional parameters describing $B \to KK$. In the limit
2335: of exact SU(3) the four parameters describing $B \to \pi \pi$ are enough to
2336: describe all of these $B \to PP$ decays in SCET.
2337:
2338: In SCET the electroweak penguin operators $O_{7,8}$ can be included without
2339: adding additional hadronic parameters. One can use the 5 pieces of well
2340: measured $\pi\pi$ data to determine the four hadronic parameters and the weak angle
2341: $\gamma$~\cite{gammafit}, and with the current data one finds $\gamma=83^\circ
2342: \pm 8^\circ \pm 2^\circ$. This is still consistent with the direct measurement
2343: of this angle from $B\to DK$~\cite{HFAG}, but is currently in conflict with the
2344: value of $\gamma$ from a global fit of the unitarity triangle at the $2\sigma$
2345: level. It is too early to tell if this implies larger than expected power
2346: corrections in SCET or might be a first hint at new physics. When we proceed to
2347: analyze the decays $B \to K \pi$, we thus perform our analysis both for $\gamma
2348: = 83^\circ$ and $\gamma = 59^\circ$. For both of these values the direct CP
2349: asymmetry in $B \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ is predicted to have the opposite sign from the
2350: measured value, but is still consistent at the $2\sigma$ level.
2351:
2352: Moving on to $B \to K \pi$ decays, we analyzed the uncertainty in the Lipkin sum
2353: rule~\cite{Lipkin} for branching fractions and the CP-sum rule~\cite{CPsum}
2354: for rescaled CP-asymmetries as defined in Eqs.~(\ref{R},\ref{rAsym}), giving our
2355: result in Eqs.~(\ref{sumerrors1},\ref{sumerrors2}). The CP-sum rule was found to
2356: be particularly accurate due to a suppression by three small parameters in SCET.
2357: The Lipkin sum rule is second order in small parameters and has a theoretical
2358: precision that also makes it an interesting observable. We conclude that both
2359: the Lipkin and CP-sum rules will provide very robust methods for testing the
2360: $K\pi$ data as the experimental errors decrease in the future.
2361:
2362:
2363: Using the expectation that the hadronic parameters $\zeta^{BM}$ and
2364: $\zeta_J^{BM}$ in the factorization theorem are positive, we showed that the rescaled asymmetry
2365: $\Delta_1(\pi^0K^-)$ should have the same sign and larger magnitude than the
2366: rescaled asymmetry $\Delta_2(\pi^-K^+)$ which is well measured. This prediction
2367: is in conflict with the current data by $\sim 2\sigma$. Other sign and magnitude
2368: predictions are discussed in section~\ref{sec:CPsign}.
2369:
2370: The SCET amplitude formulas predict that in addition to the $\pi\pi$ parameters
2371: already determined, only the complex $K\pi$ penguin amplitude is required to
2372: describe the decays $B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ and $B \to \pi^+ K^-$. This happens
2373: because they involve $\zeta^{B\pi}$ and $\zeta_J^{B\pi}$, but do not involve
2374: $\zeta^{B\bar K}$ or $\zeta^{B\bar K}_J$. The well know prediction of a small
2375: CP asymmetry for $B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ is reproduced in SCET. The large
2376: difference in ${\rm Br}(B \to \pi^+ K^-)$ and ${\rm Br}(B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0)$
2377: is difficult to explain in the standard model with SCET. The $\gamma = 59^\circ$
2378: solution is not preferred by the combined SU(3)+SCET limit which predicts
2379: $P_{K\pi}\simeq P_{\pi\pi}$. These amplitudes agree well for $\gamma=83^\circ$.
2380:
2381: Given the current uncertainties in the data, the remaining two hadronic
2382: parameters $\zeta^{BK}$ and $\zeta_J^{BK}$ can not yet be determined reliably. This also means that predictions for
2383: the remaining rates do not depend too sensitively on these parameters. Fixing their
2384: values to be close to those preferred by SU(3), but with 50\%
2385: uncertainty, we obtained predictions for the
2386: remaining observables in Figures~\ref{fig2} and~\ref{fig3}.
2387:
2388: Finally, the decays $B \to KK$ require two additional hadronic parameters, which
2389: can only be determined once better data for both rates and CP asymmetries become
2390: available for these decays. One prediction of SCET, namely that ${\rm Br}(B \to
2391: K^0 \bar K^0) = {\rm Br}(B^- \to K^- \bar K^0)$ is well satisfied by the current
2392: data. In the SU(3) limit one expects that $ P_{K\pi}\sim P_{K\bar K}$, and this
2393: result is in good agreement with the data.
2394:
2395: In conclusion, several predictions of SCET work rather well, while for others
2396: there are discrepancies with the current data. It is too early to tell if the
2397: disagreements between theory and data are due to statistical fluctuations, to
2398: larger than expected power corrections or if they reveal a first glimpse of
2399: physics beyond the standard model. To answer this question, the experimental
2400: uncertainties need to be reduced and the convergence of the SCET expansion of
2401: QCD for nonleptonic decays has to be tested further both with nonleptonic and with semileptonic data~\cite{agrs,Hillf}.
2402:
2403: \begin{acknowledgments}
2404: This work was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High
2405: Energy, Division of High Energy Physics under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098
2406: (C.B.), DOE-ER-40682-143 and DEAC02-6CH03000 (I.R.), the Office of Nuclear
2407: Science and cooperative research agreement DF-FC02-94ER40818 (I.S.), and the
2408: DOE OJI program and Sloan Foundation (I.S.). We would like to thank the
2409: Institute for Nuclear theory (INT), where part of this work was performed, and
2410: D.~Pirjol and Z.~Ligeti for helpful suggestions.
2411: \end{acknowledgments}
2412:
2413: \begin{appendix}
2414:
2415: \section{Operators and Matrix Elements in SCET}\label{appSCET}
2416:
2417: At the scale $\mu\simeq m_b$ the Hamiltonian in Eq.~(\ref{Hw}) is matched onto
2418: operators in SCET. For the first two orders in the power expansion
2419: \begin{align} \label{match}
2420: H_W \!\!&= &\!\! \frac{2G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \sum _{n,\bn} \bigg\{
2421: \sum_i \int [d\omega_{j}]_{j=1}^{3}
2422: c_i^{(f)}(\omega_j) Q_{if}^{(0)}(\omega_j) \nn\\
2423: && \hspace{-1cm}
2424: + \sum_i \int [d\omega_{j}]_{j=1}^{4} b^{(f)}_i(\omega_j)
2425: Q_{if}^{(1)}(\omega_j)
2426: + {\cal Q}_{c\bar c} + \ldots \bigg\} \,,
2427: \end{align}
2428: The Wilson coefficients $c_i$ and $b_i$ are the Wilson coefficients that appear
2429: in Eqs.~(\ref{pipiamps}--\ref{KKamps}). The operators for the $\Delta S=0$
2430: transitions are~\cite{pipiChay,bprs}
2431: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Q0}
2432: Q_{1d}^{(0)} &=& \big[ \bar u_{n,\omega_1} \bnslash P_L b_v\big]
2433: \big[ \bar d_{\bn,\omega_2} \nslash P_L u_{\bn,\omega_3} \big]
2434: \,, \\
2435: Q_{2d,3d}^{(0)} &=& \big[ \bar d_{n,\omega_1} \bnslash P_L b_v \big]
2436: \big[ \bar u_{\bn,\omega_2} \nslash P_{L,R} u_{\bn,\omega_3} \big]
2437: \,,\nn \\
2438: Q_{4d}^{(0)} &=& \big[ \bar q_{n,\omega_1} \bnslash P_L b_v \big]
2439: \big[ \bar d_{\bn,\omega_2} \nslash P_{L}\, q_{\bn,\omega_3} \big]
2440: \,, \nn \\
2441: Q_{5d,6d}^{(0)} &=&
2442: \big[ \bar d_{n,\omega_1} \bnslash P_L b_v \big]
2443: \big[ \bar q_{\bn,\omega_2} \nslash P_{L,R} q_{\bn,\omega_3} \big]
2444: \,, \nn
2445: \end{eqnarray}
2446: and
2447: \begin{eqnarray}
2448: Q_{1d}^{(1)} \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{-2}{m_b}
2449: \big[ \bar u_{n,\omega_1}\, ig\,\slash\!\!\!\!{\cal B}^\perp_{n,\omega_4}
2450: P_L b_v\big]
2451: \big[ \bar d_{\bn,\omega_2} \nslash P_L u_{\bn,\omega_3} \big]
2452: \,, \nn \\
2453: Q_{2d,3d}^{(1)} &=& \frac{-2}{m_b}
2454: \big[ \bar d_{n,\omega_1} \, ig\,\slash\!\!\!\!{\cal B}^\perp_{n,\omega_4}
2455: P_L b_v \big]
2456: \big[ \bar u_{\bn,\omega_2} \nslash P_{L,R} u_{\bn,\omega_3} \big]
2457: \,,\nn \\
2458: Q_{4d}^{(1)} &=& \frac{-2}{m_b}
2459: \big[ \bar q_{n,\omega_1} \, ig\,\slash\!\!\!\!{\cal B}^\perp_{n,\omega_4}
2460: P_L b_v \big]
2461: \big[ \bar d_{\bn,\omega_2} \nslash P_{L}\, q_{\bn,\omega_3} \big]
2462: \,,\nn \\
2463: Q_{5d,6d}^{(1)} &=& \frac{-2}{m_b}
2464: \big[ \bar d_{n,\omega_1} \, ig\,\slash\!\!\!\!{\cal B}^\perp_{n,\omega_4}
2465: P_L b_v \big]
2466: \big[ \bar q_{\bn,\omega_2} \nslash P_{L,R} q_{\bn,\omega_3} \big]
2467: \,, \nn\\
2468: Q_{7d}^{(1)} \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{-2}{m_b}
2469: \big[ \bar u_{n,\omega_1}\, ig\,{\cal B}^{\perp\, \mu}_{n,\omega_4}
2470: P_L b_v\big]
2471: \big[ \bar d_{\bn,\omega_2} \nslash \gamma^\perp_\mu P_R u_{\bn,\omega_3} \big]
2472: \,,\nn\\
2473: Q_{8d}^{(1)} \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{-2}{m_b}
2474: \big[ \bar q_{n,\omega_1}\, ig\,{\cal B}^{\perp\, \mu}_{n,\omega_4}
2475: P_L b_v\big]
2476: \big[ \bar d_{\bn,\omega_2} \nslash \gamma^\perp_\mu P_R q_{\bn,\omega_3} \big]
2477: \,. \nn
2478: \end{eqnarray}
2479: The $\Delta S=1$ operators $Q_{is}^{(0)}$ are obtained by swapping $\bar d\to
2480: \bar s$. The ``quark'' fields with subscripts $n$ and $\bn$ are products of
2481: collinear quark fields and Wilson lines with large momenta $\omega_i$. We have
2482: defined
2483: \begin{align}
2484: \bar u_{n,\omega} &= [ \bar\xi_n^{(u)} W_n\, \delta(\omega\!-\!
2485: \bn\mcdot\cP^\dagger) ]\,, \\
2486: ig\,{\cal B}^{\perp\,\mu}_{n,\omega} &= \frac{1}{(-\omega)}\,
2487: \big[ W^\dagger_n [ i\bn\mcdot D_{c,n} , i D^\mu_{n,\perp} ] W_n
2488: \delta(\omega-\bnP^\dagger) \big] \nn
2489: \end{align}
2490: where $\bar\xi_n^{(u)}$ creates a collinear up-quark moving along the $n$
2491: direction, or annihilates an antiquark. The $b_v$ field is the standard HQET
2492: field. For a complete basis we also need operators with octet bilinears,
2493: $T^A\otimes T^A$, but their matrix elements vanish at LO. The operators
2494: $Q_{7d}^{(1)}$ and $Q_{8d}^{(1)}$ also do not contribute at LO~\cite{bprs}, see also~\cite{Kagan}.
2495:
2496: The leading order factorization theorem in Eq.~(\ref{A0newfact}) is generated by
2497: time ordered products of both the operators $Q^{(0)}$ and $Q^{(1)}$ with
2498: insertions of a subleading Lagrangian. T-products with $Q^{(0)}$ contribute to
2499: terms with $\zeta^{BM}$ and T-products with $Q^{(1)}$ contribute to those with
2500: $\zeta_J^{BM}$. It is convenient to define
2501: \begin{align}
2502: \tilde Q_i^{(0)} &= \big[ \bar q^{i}_{n,\omega_1} \bnslash P_L b_v \big] \,,
2503: \\
2504: \tilde Q_i^{(1)} &= \frac{-2}{m_b} \big[ \bar q^i_{n,\omega_1}\,
2505: ig\,\slash\!\!\!\!{\cal B}^\perp_{n,\omega_4} P_L b_v\big] \,,\nn\\
2506: %
2507: \tilde Q_i^\bn &= \bar q^i_{\bn,\omega_2} \nslash P_{L,R} q^{\prime
2508: i}_{\bn,\omega_3} \,.
2509: \end{align}
2510: In $\tilde Q_i^{(0,1)}$ the flavor of the $\bar q^i_{n,\omega_1}$ terms matches
2511: that of the first bilinear in Eq.~(\ref{Q0}). In $\tilde Q_i^\bn$ the flavor of
2512: $\bar q^i$ and $q^{\prime i}$ match those in the second bilinear of
2513: Eq.~(\ref{Q0}), and we have $P_R$ for $i=3,6$ and $P_L$ otherwise. The
2514: contributions to $B\to M_1 M_2$ at LO are all from $\tilde Q_i^\bn$ times the
2515: time-ordered products
2516: \begin{align} \label{Tproducts}
2517: T_1^i &=\! \mbox{\large $\int$} d^4y\,
2518: T \big[\tilde Q^{(0)}_i(0)\: i{\cal L}^{(1)}_{\xi_n q}(y)\big] \nn\\
2519: & \ \ + \mbox{\large $\int$} d^4y\, d^4y'\,T
2520: \big[\tilde Q^{(0)}_i(0) \: i{\cal L}^{(1)}_{\xi_n q}(y) \: i{\cal
2521: L}_{\xi_n\xi_n}^{(1)}\!(y') \big] \!\nn\\
2522: & \ \ + \mbox{\large $\int$} d^4y\, d^4y'\,T
2523: \big[\tilde Q^{(0)}_i(0) \: i{\cal L}^{(1)}_{\xi_n q}(y) \:
2524: i{\cal L}_{cg}^{(1)}(y')\} \big]\nn \\[4pt]
2525: & \ \
2526: + \mbox{\large $\int$} d^4y\,
2527: T \big[\tilde Q_i^{(0)}(0),i{\cal L}^{(1,2)}_{\xi_n q}(y) \big], \ \nn\\
2528: T_2^i(z) &=\! \mbox{\large $\int$} d^4y \:
2529: T \big[\tilde Q_i^{(1)}(0),i{\cal L}^{(1)}_{\xi_n q}(y) \big] ,
2530: \end{align}
2531: where $z$ and $1-z$ are the momentum fractions carried by the collinear quark
2532: and gluon field in $\tilde Q_i^{(1)}$. Here $T_1$ and $T_2$ are exactly the
2533: same T-products that occur in the heavy-to-light form factors~\cite{bps5}. In
2534: addition we have operators/T-products whose matrix elements give $A_{cc}$ (see
2535: the appendix of Ref.~\cite{diff1} for further discussion of these
2536: contributions). Using the collinear gluon fields defined in Ref.~\cite{bps6}
2537: the Lagrangians in Eq.~(\ref{Tproducts}) are
2538: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Lxxnew}
2539: {\cal L}_{\xi\xi}^{(1)}
2540: &=& \big(\bar \xi_n W\big)\, i\Dslash^\perp_{us}
2541: \frac{1}{\bnP} \big(W^\dagger
2542: i \Dslash^\perp_c \frac{\bnslash}{2} \xi_n \big)
2543: +\mbox{h.c.}\,, \\
2544: %
2545: {\cal L}^{(1)}_{\xi q} &=& \bar\xi_n \: \frac{1}{i\bn\mcdot D_c}\:
2546: ig\, \Bslash_\perp^c W q_{us} \mbox{ + h.c.}\,,\nn\\
2547: %
2548: {\cal L}^{(2)}_{\xi q} &=& \bar\xi_n \frac{\bnslash}{2}
2549: \frac{1}{i\bn\mcdot D_c}\:
2550: ig\, n\mcdot M \, W \, q_{us} \nn\\
2551: %
2552: && + \bar\xi_n \frac{\bnslash}{2}
2553: i\Dslash_\perp^{\,c} \frac{1}{(i\bn\mcdot D_c)^2}\: ig\, \Bslash_\perp^c W
2554: \: q_{us} \mbox{ + h.c.} \,, \nn \\
2555: %
2556: {\cal L}_{cg}^{(1)} &=& \frac{2}{g^2}\: {\rm tr}
2557: \Big\{ \big[i {D}_0^\mu , iD_c^{\perp\nu} \big]
2558: \big[i {D}_{0\mu} , W iD_{us\,\nu}^\perp W^\dagger \big] \Big\}
2559: \,, \nn
2560: \end{eqnarray}
2561: where $i D_0^\mu = i{\cal D}^\mu + g A_{n}^\mu$.
2562:
2563: In this paper we only used this factorization at the scale $m_b$, so the
2564: hadronic paramaters are defined by matrix elements of $T_1$ and $T_2$ and the
2565: $\bn$-collinear operator, namely
2566: \begin{align}
2567: & \langle M_n | T_1^i | B\rangle = {\cal C}_i(B,M) \: m_B\: \zeta^{BM} \,,\\
2568: & \langle M_n | T_2^i(z) | B\rangle = {\cal C}_i(B,M) \: m_B\: \zeta_J^{BM}(z)
2569: \,,
2570: \nn\\
2571: & \langle M_\bn | \tilde Q_i^\bn |
2572: 0\rangle = {\cal C}_i^\prime(B,M) \: m_B\: f_M\: \phi_{M}(u)\nn
2573: \end{align}
2574: where $u$ and $1-u$ are momentum fractions for the quark and antiquark
2575: $\bn$-collinear fields. Here ${\cal C}^i(B,M)$ and ${\cal
2576: C}_i^\prime(B,M)$ are simple Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. Putting the
2577: pieces together we have
2578: \begin{align}
2579: A &= \langle M_1 M_2 | H_W | \bar B \rangle \\
2580: &= \frac{2 G_F m_B^2}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_i {\cal C}_i(B,M_1) \:
2581: {\cal C}_i^\prime(B,M_2)\: f_{M_2} \nn \\
2582: &\ \ \times \bigg[
2583: \int_0^1\!\! du dz \: b_i(u,z) \zeta_J^{B M_1}(z) \phi_{M_2}(u)
2584: \nn\\
2585: &\qquad + \zeta^{B M_1} \int_0^1\!\! du\: c_i(u) \phi_{M_2}(u)
2586: \bigg] + (1\leftrightarrow 2) \,
2587: \nn\\
2588: & + A_{c\bar c}^{M_1 M_2} \,.\nn
2589: \end{align}
2590: This result was used to obtain Eq.~(\ref{pipiamps}--\ref{KKamps}) where the
2591: relevant combinations of ${\cal C}^i\: {\cal C}^{\prime i}$ coefficients can be
2592: read off from Table~I of Ref.~\cite{bprs} (and do not asssume isospin symmetry).
2593: Here $A_{c\bar c}^{M_1 M_2}$ contains Clebsch Gordan coefficients if for example
2594: SU(2) is used to relate these parameters in different channels. For amplitudes
2595: with no penguin contribution we have $A_{c\bar c}^{M_1 M_2}=0$.
2596:
2597:
2598:
2599:
2600:
2601: \section{Relationship between our amplitude parameterization and graphical amplitudes}
2602:
2603: In this appendix we show the relationship between the amplitude parameters defined in Eqs.~(\ref{pipigeneral})-(\ref{KKgeneral}) and the graphical amplitudes defined in~\cite{graphical1,graphical2}. These relations are useful, since one can immediately read off SU(3) relations between different amplitudes, since the graphical amplitudes are SU(3) invariant.
2604: Note that while the amplitude paramters on the right hand side of equations (\ref{B1},\ref{B2}, \ref{B3})
2605: have the same name for the different processes, $\pi\pi$, $K\pi$, and $K\bar K$, they are only equal in the SU(3) limit.
2606:
2607: The relations for the amplitude parameters in $B \to \pi \pi$ are
2608: \begin{eqnarray} \label{B1}
2609: \hat T_{\pi\pi} &=& T + P_{ut}+E+PA_{ut} + EW^C + \frac{EW^A}{2} - \frac{EW^E}{2}\nn\\
2610: && - \frac{EW^P}{2}-\frac{EW^{PA}}{2} \nn\\
2611: \hat C_{\pi\pi} &=& C-P_{ut} -E-PA_{ut}+ \frac{3 EW^T}{2} + \frac{EW^C}{2} \nn\\
2612: && +\frac{EW^P}{2}+\frac{EW^{PA}}{2}+\frac{EW^E}{2}-\frac{EW^A}{2} \nn\\
2613: \hat P_{\pi\pi} &=& P_{ct}+PA_{ct} + EW^C + \frac{EW^A}{2} - \frac{EW^E}{2}\nn\\
2614: &&-\frac{EW^P}{2} - \frac{EW^{PA}}{2}\nn\\
2615: \hat{EW}^T_{\pi\pi} &=& \frac{3}{2} (EW^T + EW^C)\,.
2616: \end{eqnarray}
2617: The amplitude parameters for $B \to K \pi$ decays can be written in terms of graphical amplitudes as follows:
2618: \begin{eqnarray} \label{B2}
2619: \hat T_{K \pi} &=& T+P_{ut}+EW^C-\frac{EW^P}{2}-\frac{EW^E}{2}\nn\\
2620: \hat C_{K \pi} &=& C-P_{ut}+\frac{3EW^T}{2}+\frac{EW^C}{2}\nn\\
2621: &&+\frac{EW^P}{2} + \frac{EW^E}{2}\nn\\
2622: \hat P_{K \pi} &=& P_{ct} + EW^E - \frac{EW^C}{2} - \frac{EW^P}{2} \nn\\
2623: \hat A_{K \pi} &=& P_{ut}+A+ EW^E-\frac{EW^P}{2}-\frac{EW^C}{2}\nn\\
2624: \hat{EW}^T_{K \pi} &=& \frac{3}{2} ( EW^T+EW^C) \nn\\
2625: \hat{EW}^C_{K \pi} &=& \frac{3}{2} ( EW^C-EW^E) \,,
2626: \end{eqnarray}
2627: Finally,for $B \to KK$ decays we find
2628: \begin{eqnarray} \label{B3}
2629: \hat A_{KK} &=& P_{ut}+A-\frac{EW^C}{2}+EW^E-\frac{EW^P}{2}\nn\\
2630: \hat B_{KK} &=& P_{ut}+PA_{ut}-\frac{EW^C}{2}-EW^A\nn\\
2631: \hat E_{KK} &=& -E- PA_{ut}-\frac{EW^A}{2}+\frac{EW^{PA}}{2}\nn\\
2632: \hat P_{KK} &=& P_{ct}-\frac{EW^C}{2}+EW^E-\frac{EW^P}{2}\nn\\
2633: \hat {PA}_{KK} &=& PA_{ct} +\frac{EW^A}{2}-\frac{EW^{PA}}{2} \nn\\
2634: \hat {EW}_{KK} &=& -\frac{3EW^A}{2} -\frac{3EW^E}{2} \,.
2635: \end{eqnarray}
2636:
2637:
2638:
2639:
2640:
2641: \end{appendix}
2642:
2643: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2644:
2645: \input{Kpibib.input}
2646:
2647: \end{thebibliography}
2648:
2649:
2650: \end{document}
2651: