1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING %
3: % %
4: % `Preparing an article for publication in an Institute of Physics %
5: % Publishing journal using LaTeX' %
6: % %
7: % LaTeX source code `ioplau2e.tex' used to generate `author %
8: % guidelines', the documentation explaining and demonstrating use %
9: % of the Institute of Physics Publishing LaTeX preprint files %
10: % `iopart.cls, iopart12.clo and iopart10.clo'. %
11: % %
12: % `ioplau2e.tex' itself uses LaTeX with `iopart.cls' %
13: % %
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: %
16: %
17: % First we have a character check
18: %
19: % ! exclamation mark " double quote
20: % # hash ` opening quote (grave)
21: % & ampersand ' closing quote (acute)
22: % $ dollar % percent
23: % ( open parenthesis ) close paren.
24: % - hyphen = equals sign
25: % | vertical bar ~ tilde
26: % @ at sign _ underscore
27: % { open curly brace } close curly
28: % [ open square ] close square bracket
29: % + plus sign ; semi-colon
30: % * asterisk : colon
31: % < open angle bracket > close angle
32: % , comma . full stop
33: % ? question mark / forward slash
34: % \ backslash ^ circumflex
35: %
36: % ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
37: % abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
38: % 1234567890
39: %
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41: %
42: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
43: %\newcommand{\gguide}{{\it Preparing graphics for IOP journals}}
44: %Uncomment next line if AMS fonts required
45: %\usepackage{iopams}
46:
47: \usepackage{graphicx}
48:
49:
50: \begin{document}
51:
52:
53: %------------------------BEGINNING OF CERN TITLE PAGE----------------------
54:
55:
56: \thispagestyle{empty}
57:
58: \begin{flushright}
59: CERN-PH-TH/2005-263\\
60: hep-ph/0512253
61: \end{flushright}
62:
63: \vspace{1.6truecm}
64: \begin{center}
65: \boldmath
66: \large\bf Highlights of the $B$-Physics Landscape
67: \unboldmath
68: \end{center}
69:
70: \vspace{0.9truecm}
71: \begin{center}
72: Robert Fleischer\\[0.1cm]
73: {\sl CERN, Department of Physics, Theory Division\\
74: CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}
75: \end{center}
76:
77: \vspace{1.3truecm}
78:
79: \begin{center}
80: {\bf Abstract}
81: \end{center}
82:
83: {\small
84: \vspace{0.2cm}\noindent
85: The exploration of the quark-flavour sector of the Standard Model is one of the hot
86: topics in particle physics of this decade. In these studies, which show a fruitful interplay
87: between theory and experiment, the $B$-meson system offers a particularly interesting
88: laboratory. After giving an introduction to quark-flavour mixing and CP violation as well
89: as to the theoretical tools to deal with non-leptonic $B$ decays, we discuss popular
90: avenues for new physics to enter the roadmap of quark-flavour physics. This allows us
91: to have a detailed look at the $B$-factory benchmark modes $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$,
92: $B^0_d\to \phi K_{\rm S}$ and $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$, with a particular emphasis of the
93: impact of new physics. We then perform an analysis of the $B\to\pi K$ puzzle, which
94: may indicate new sources of CP violation in the electroweak penguin sector, and
95: discuss its implications for rare $B$ and $K$ decays. The next topic is given by
96: $b\to d$ penguin processes, which are now starting to become accessible
97: at the $B$ factories, thereby representing a new territory of the $B$-physics
98: landscape. Finally, we discuss the prospects for $B$-decay studies at the
99: Large Hadron Collider, where the $B^0_s$-meson system plays an outstanding
100: r\^ole.
101: }
102:
103: \vspace{1.5truecm}
104:
105: \begin{center}
106: {\sl Invited topical review for Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics}
107: \end{center}
108:
109:
110: \vfill
111: \noindent
112: CERN-PH-TH/2005-263\\
113: December 2005
114:
115: \newpage
116: \thispagestyle{empty}
117: \vbox{}
118: \newpage
119:
120: \setcounter{page}{1}
121:
122:
123: %------------------------END OF CERN TITLE PAGE------------------------------
124:
125:
126:
127: \title[Highlights of the B-Physics Landscape]{Highlights of
128: the B-Physics Landscape}
129:
130: \author{R Fleischer}
131:
132: \address{CERN, Department of Physics, Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23,
133: Switzerland}
134: \ead{robert.fleischer@cern.ch}
135: \begin{abstract}
136: The exploration of the quark-flavour sector of the Standard Model is one of the hot
137: topics in particle physics of this decade. In these studies, which show a fruitful interplay
138: between theory and experiment, the $B$-meson system offers a particularly interesting
139: laboratory. After giving an introduction to quark-flavour mixing and CP violation as well
140: as to the theoretical tools to deal with non-leptonic $B$ decays, we discuss popular
141: avenues for new physics to enter the roadmap of quark-flavour physics. This allows us
142: to have a detailed look at the $B$-factory benchmark modes $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$,
143: $B^0_d\to \phi K_{\rm S}$ and $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$, with a particular emphasis of the
144: impact of new physics. We then perform an analysis of the $B\to\pi K$ puzzle, which
145: may indicate new sources of CP violation in the electroweak penguin sector, and
146: discuss its implications for rare $B$ and $K$ decays. The next topic is given by
147: $b\to d$ penguin processes, which are now starting to become accessible
148: at the $B$ factories, thereby representing a new territory of the $B$-physics
149: landscape. Finally, we discuss the prospects for $B$-decay studies at the
150: Large Hadron Collider, where the $B^0_s$-meson system plays an outstanding
151: r\^ole.
152: \end{abstract}
153:
154: %Uncomment for PACS numbers title message
155: \pacs{11.30.Er, 12.15.Hh, 13.25.Hw}
156: % Keywords required only for MST, PB, PMB, PM, JOA, JOB?
157: %\vspace{2pc}
158: %\noindent{\it Keywords}: Article preparation, IOP journals
159: % Uncomment for Submitted to journal title message
160: %\submitto{\JPA}
161: % Comment out if separate title page not required
162: \maketitle
163:
164:
165:
166:
167: %
168: %
169: %
170: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
171: %
172: %
173: %
174: The history of CP violation, i.e.\ the non-invariance of the weak interactions
175: with respect to a combined charge-conjugation (C) and parity (P)
176: transformation, goes back to the year 1964, where this phenomenon was
177: discovered through the observation of $K_{\rm L}\to\pi^+\pi^-$ decays
178: \cite{CP-obs}, which exhibit a branching ratio at the $10^{-3}$ level. This
179: surprising effect is a manifestation of {\it indirect} CP violation, which arises
180: from the fact that the mass eigenstates $K_{\rm L,S}$ of the neutral kaon
181: system, which shows $K^0$--$\bar K^0$ mixing, are not eigenstates of the
182: CP operator. In particular, the $K_{\rm L}$ state is governed by the CP-odd
183: eigenstate, but has also a tiny admixture of the CP-even eigenstate, which
184: may decay through CP-conserving interactions into the $\pi^+\pi^-$ final state.
185: These CP-violating effects are described by the following observable:
186: \begin{equation}\label{epsK}
187: \varepsilon_K=(2.280\pm0.013)\times10^{-3}\times e^{i\pi/4}.
188: \end{equation}
189: On the other hand, CP-violating effects may also arise directly at the decay-amplitude
190: level, thereby yielding {\it direct} CP violation. This phenomenon, which leads to a
191: non-vanishing value of a quantity Re$(\varepsilon_K'/\varepsilon_K)$, could
192: eventually be established in 1999 through the NA48 (CERN) and KTeV
193: (FNAL) collaborations \cite{eps-prime}; the final results of the corresponding
194: measurements are given by
195: \begin{equation}\label{epsp-eps-final}
196: \mbox{Re}(\varepsilon_K'/\varepsilon_K)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
197: (14.7\pm2.2)\times10^{-4}&\mbox{(NA48 \cite{NA48-final})}\\
198: (20.7\pm2.8)\times10^{-4}&\mbox{(KTeV \cite{KTeV-final}).}
199: \end{array}
200: \right.
201: \end{equation}
202:
203: In this decade, there are huge experimental efforts to further
204: explore CP violation and the quark-flavour sector of the Standard Model
205: (SM). In these studies, the main actor is
206: the $B$-meson system, where we distinguish between charged and neutral
207: $B$ mesons, which are characterized by the following valence-quark contents:
208: \begin{equation}
209: B^+\sim u \bar b, \quad B^+_c\sim c \bar b, \quad B^0_d\sim d \bar b, \quad
210: B^0_s\sim s \bar b.
211: \end{equation}
212: The asymmetric $e^+e^-$ $B$ factories at SLAC and KEK with their detectors
213: BaBar and Belle, respectively, can only produce $B^+$ and $B^0_d$ mesons
214: (and their anti-particles) since they operate at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance,
215: and have already collected ${\cal O}(10^8)$ $B\bar B$ pairs of this kind.
216: Moreover, first $B$-physics results from run II of the Tevatron were
217: reported from the CDF and D0 collaborations, including also $B^+_c$
218: and $B^0_s$ studies, and second-generation $B$-decay
219: studies will become possible at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
220: at CERN, in particular thanks to the LHCb experiment, starting in the
221: autumn of 2007. For the more distant future,
222: an $e^+$--$e^-$ ``super-$B$ factory'' is under consideration, with an
223: increase of luminosity by up to two orders of magnitude with respect to the
224: currently operating machines. Moreover, there are plans to measure the
225: very ``rare" kaon decays $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ and $K_{\rm L}\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$, which are absent at the tree level within the SM, at CERN and KEK/J-PARC.
226:
227: In 2001, CP-violating effects were discovered in the $B$-meson system
228: with the help of $B_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ decays by the BaBar and Belle
229: collaborations \cite{CP-B-obs}, representing the first observation of CP violation
230: outside the kaon system. This particular kind of CP violation originates
231: from the interference between $B^0_d$--$\bar B^0_d$ mixing and
232: $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$, $\bar B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ decay processes,
233: and is referred to as ``mixing-induced" CP violation. In the summer of 2004,
234: also direct CP violation could be detected in $B_d\to\pi^\mp K^\pm$ decays
235: \cite{CP-B-dir}, thereby complementing the measurement of a non-zero
236: value of $\mbox{Re}(\varepsilon_K'/\varepsilon_K)$.
237:
238: Studies of CP violation and flavour physics are particularly interesting since
239: ``new physics" (NP), i.e.\ physics lying beyond the SM, typically leads to
240: new sources of flavour and CP violation. Furthermore, the origin of the
241: fermion masses, flavour mixing, CP violation etc.\ lies completely in the
242: dark and is expected to involve NP, too. Interestingly, CP violation
243: offers also a link to cosmology. One of the key features of our Universe is the
244: cosmological baryon asymmetry of ${\cal O}(10^{-10})$. As was pointed
245: out by Sakharov \cite{sach}, the necessary conditions for the generation of
246: such an asymmetry include also the requirement that elementary interactions
247: violate CP (and C). Model calculations of the baryon asymmetry indicate, however,
248: that the CP violation present in the SM seems to be too small to generate
249: the observed asymmetry \cite{shapos}. On the one hand, the required new sources
250: of CP violation could be associated with very high energy scales, as in
251: ``leptogenesis", where new CP-violating effects appear in decays of heavy
252: Majorana neutrinos \cite{LG-rev}. On the other hand, new sources of
253: CP violation could also be accessible in the laboratory, as they arise
254: naturally when going beyond the SM.
255:
256: Before searching for NP, it is essential to understand first the picture of
257: flavour physics and CP violation arising in the framework of the SM,
258: where the Cabibbo--Kobayashi--Maskawa (CKM) matrix -- the
259: quark-mixing matrix -- plays the key r\^ole \cite{cab,KM}. The
260: corresponding phenomenology is extremely rich \cite{CKM-book}. In general,
261: the key problem for the theoretical interpretation is related to strong
262: interactions, i.e.\ to ``hadronic" uncertainties. A famous example is
263: $\mbox{Re}(\varepsilon_K'/\varepsilon_K)$, where we
264: have to deal with a subtle interplay between different contributions
265: which largely cancel \cite{epsp-rev}. Although the non-vanishing value of this
266: quantity has unambiguously ruled out ``superweak" models of
267: CP violation \cite{superweak}, it does currently not allow a stringent
268: test of the SM.
269:
270: In the $B$-meson system, there are various strategies to eliminate
271: the hadronic uncertainties in the exploration of CP violation (simply
272: speaking, there are many $B$ decays). Moreover, we may also search
273: for relations and/or correlations that hold in the SM but could well be
274: spoiled by NP. These topics will be the focus of this review. The
275: outline is as follows: in Section~\ref{sec:CKM}, we discuss the quark
276: mixing in the SM by having a closer look at the CKM matrix and the
277: associated unitarity triangles. The main actor of this review -- the
278: $B$-meson system -- will then be introduced in Section~\ref{sec:B}.
279: There we turn to the formalism of $B^0_q$--$\bar B^0_q$ mixing
280: ($q\in\{d,s\}$), give an introduction to non-leptonic $B$ decays, which play
281: the key r\^ole for CP violation, and discuss popular avenues for NP to enter
282: the strategies to explore this phenomenon. In Section~\ref{sec:bench}, we
283: then apply these considerations to the $B$-factory benchmark modes
284: $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$, $B^0_d\to \phi K_{\rm S}$ and $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$,
285: and address the possible impact of NP. Since the data for certain $B\to\pi K$
286: decays show a puzzling pattern for several years, we have devoted
287: Section~\ref{sec:BpiK-puzzle} to a detailed discussion of this ``$B\to\pi K$
288: puzzle" and its interplay with rare $K$ and $B$ decays. In Section~\ref{sec:bd-pengs},
289: we focus on $b\to d$ penguin processes, which are now coming within experimental
290: reach at the $B$ factories, thereby offering an exciting new playground. Finally,
291: in Section~\ref{sec:LHC}, we discuss $B$-decay studies at the LHC, where the
292: physics potential of the $B^0_s$-meson system can be fully exploited.
293: The conclusions and a brief outlook are given in Section~\ref{sec:concl}.
294:
295: For textbooks dealing with CP violation, the reader is referred to
296: Refs.~\cite{BLS-textbook}--\cite{KK-textbook}, while a selection of
297: alternative recent reviews can be found in Refs.~\cite{nir-rev}--\cite{ali-ichep}.
298:
299:
300: %
301: %
302: %
303: \section{Quark Mixing in the Standard Model}\label{sec:CKM}
304: %
305: %
306: %
307: \subsection{The CKM Matrix}
308: %
309: %
310: %
311: In the SM, CP-violating phenomena may originate from the
312: charged-current interaction processes of the quarks, $D\to U W^-$,
313: where $D\in\{d,s,b\}$ and $U\in\{u,c,t\}$ denote the down- and up-type quark
314: flavours, respectively, and the $W^-$ is the usual $SU(2)_{\rm L}$
315: gauge boson. The generic ``coupling strengths'' $V_{UD}$ of these
316: processes are the elements of a $3\times 3$ matrix, the CKM matrix
317: \cite{cab,KM}. It connects the electroweak states $(d',s',b')$ of the down,
318: strange and bottom quarks with their mass eigenstates $(d,s,b)$ through
319: the following unitary transformation:
320: \begin{equation}\label{ckm}
321: \left(\begin{array}{c}
322: d'\\
323: s'\\
324: b'
325: \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
326: V_{ud}&V_{us}&V_{ub}\\
327: V_{cd}&V_{cs}&V_{cb}\\
328: V_{td}&V_{ts}&V_{tb}
329: \end{array}\right)\cdot
330: \left(\begin{array}{c}
331: d\\
332: s\\
333: b
334: \end{array}\right)
335: \equiv \hat V_{\rm CKM} \cdot
336: \left(\begin{array}{c}
337: d\\
338: s\\
339: b
340: \end{array}\right),
341: \end{equation}
342: and is, therefore, a unitary matrix. Since this feature ensures the absence
343: of flavour-changing neutral-current (FCNC) processes at the tree level in the SM,
344: it is at the basis of the Glashow--Iliopoulos--Maiani (GIM) mechanism \cite{GIM}.
345: Expressing the non-leptonic charged-current interaction Lagrangian
346: in terms of the mass eigenstates (\ref{ckm}), we obtain
347: \begin{equation}\label{cc-lag2}
348: {\cal L}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize int}}}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize CC}}}=
349: -\frac{g_2}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
350: \bar u_{\mbox{{\scriptsize L}}},& \bar c_{\mbox{{\scriptsize L}}},
351: &\bar t_{\mbox{{\scriptsize L}}}\end{array}\right)\gamma^\mu\,\hat
352: V_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CKM}}}
353: \left(\begin{array}{c}
354: d_{\mbox{{\scriptsize L}}}\\
355: s_{\mbox{{\scriptsize L}}}\\
356: b_{\mbox{{\scriptsize L}}}
357: \end{array}\right)W_\mu^\dagger\,\,+\,\,\mbox{h.c.,}
358: \end{equation}
359: where $g_2$ is the $SU(2)_{\mbox{{\scriptsize L}}}$ gauge coupling,
360: and $W_\mu^{(\dagger)}$ the field of the charged $W$ bosons.
361:
362: Since the CKM matrix elements governing a $D\to U W^-$ transition and its
363: CP conjugate $\bar D\to \bar U W^+$ are related to each other through
364: \begin{equation}\label{CKM-CP}
365: V_{UD}\stackrel{{ CP}}{\longrightarrow}V_{UD}^\ast,
366: \end{equation}
367: we observe that CP violation is associated with complex phases
368: of the CKM matrix.
369:
370:
371: %
372: %
373: %
374: \subsection{The Phase Structure of the CKM Matrix}
375: %
376: %
377: %
378: We have the freedom of redefining the up- and down-type quark fields as follows:
379: \begin{equation}
380: U\to \exp(i\xi_U)U,\quad D\to \exp(i\xi_D)D.
381: \end{equation}
382: Performing such transformations in (\ref{cc-lag2}), the invariance
383: of the charged-current interaction Lagrangian implies the following transformations
384: of the CKM matrix elements:
385: \begin{equation}\label{CKM-trafo}
386: V_{UD}\to\exp(i\xi_U)V_{UD}\exp(-i\xi_D).
387: \end{equation}
388: If we consider a general $N\times N$ quark-mixing matrix, where $N$ denotes the
389: number of fermion generations, and eliminate unphysical phases through these transformations, we are left with the following quantities to parametrize the
390: quark-mixing matrix:
391: \begin{equation}
392: \underbrace{\frac{1}{2}N(N-1)}_{\mbox{Euler angles}} \, + \,
393: \underbrace{\frac{1}{2}(N-1)(N-2)}_{\mbox{complex phases}}=
394: (N-1)^2.
395: \end{equation}
396:
397: Applying this expression to $N=2$ generations, we observe
398: that only one rotation angle -- the Cabibbo angle
399: $\theta_{\rm C}$ \cite{cab} -- is required for the parametrization of the $2\times2$
400: quark-mixing matrix, which can be written as
401: \begin{equation}\label{Cmatrix}
402: \hat V_{\rm C}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
403: \cos\theta_{\rm C}&\sin\theta_{\rm C}\\
404: -\sin\theta_{\rm C}&\cos\theta_{\rm C}
405: \end{array}\right),
406: \end{equation}
407: where the value of $\sin\theta_{\rm C}=0.22$ follows from the experimental
408: data for $K\to\pi\ell\bar\nu_\ell$ decays. On the other hand, in the case of $N=3$ generations, the
409: parametrization of the corresponding $3\times3$ quark-mixing matrix involves
410: three Euler-type angles and a single {\it complex} phase. This complex phase
411: allows us to accommodate CP violation in the SM, as was pointed out by
412: Kobayashi and Maskawa in 1973 \cite{KM}. The corresponding picture
413: is referred to as the Kobayashi--Maskawa (KM) mechanism of CP violation.
414:
415: The Particle Data Group advocates the following ``standard parametrization''
416: \cite{PDG}:
417: \begin{equation}\label{standard}
418: \hspace*{-1.5truecm}\hat V_{\rm CKM}=
419: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
420: c_{12}c_{13}&s_{12}c_{13}&s_{13}e^{-i\delta_{13}}\\ -s_{12}c_{23}
421: -c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_{13}}&c_{12}c_{23}-
422: s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_{13}}&
423: s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}-c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_{13}}&-c_{12}s_{23}
424: -s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_{13}}&c_{23}c_{13}
425: \end{array}\right),
426: \end{equation}
427: with $c_{ij}\equiv\cos\theta_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}\equiv\sin\theta_{ij}$.
428: If we redefine the quark-field phases appropriately, $\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{23}$
429: and $\theta_{13}$ can all be made to lie in the first quadrant. The advantage of
430: this parametrization is that the mixing between two generations $i$ and $j$ vanishes
431: if $\theta_{ij}$ is set to zero. In particular, for
432: $\theta_{23}=\theta_{13}=0$, the third generation decouples, and the
433: submatrix describing the mixing between the first and
434: second generations takes the same form as (\ref{Cmatrix}).
435:
436:
437: %
438: %
439: %
440: \subsection{The Wolfenstein Parametrization}\label{ssec:wolf}
441: %
442: %
443: %
444: The experimental data for the charged-current interactions of the quarks exhibit an interesting hierarchy \cite{PDG}: transitions within the same
445: generation involve CKM matrix elements of ${\cal O}(1)$, those between the first and the second generation are associated with CKM elements of ${\cal O}(10^{-1})$,
446: those between the second and the third generation are related to CKM elements of
447: ${\cal O}(10^{-2})$, and those between the first and third generation are described by
448: CKM matrix elements of ${\cal O}(10^{-3})$. It would be useful for phenomenological applications to have a parametrization of the CKM matrix available that makes this
449: pattern explicit \cite{wolf}. To this end, we introduce a set of new parameters,
450: $\lambda$, $A$, $\rho$ and $\eta$, by imposing the following
451: relations \cite{blo}:
452: \begin{equation}\label{set-rel}
453: s_{12}\equiv\lambda=0.22,\quad s_{23}\equiv A\lambda^2,\quad
454: s_{13}e^{-i\delta_{13}}\equiv A\lambda^3(\rho-i\eta).
455: \end{equation}
456: If we go back to the standard parametrization (\ref{standard}), we
457: obtain an exact parametrization of the CKM matrix in terms of
458: $\lambda$ (and $A$, $\rho$, $\eta$), which allows us to expand each CKM
459: element in powers of the small parameter $\lambda$. Neglecting terms of
460: ${\cal O}(\lambda^4)$ yields the famous ``Wolfenstein
461: parametrization'' \cite{wolf}:
462: \begin{equation}\label{W-par}
463: \hat V_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CKM}}} =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
464: 1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2 & \lambda & A\lambda^3(\rho-i\eta) \\
465: -\lambda & 1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2 & A\lambda^2\\
466: A\lambda^3(1-\rho-i\eta) & -A\lambda^2 & 1
467: \end{array}\right)+{\cal O}(\lambda^4).
468: \end{equation}
469: On the other hand, also higher-order terms of the expansion in $\lambda$
470: can straightforwardly be included by following the recipe described above.
471:
472:
473: \begin{figure}[t]
474: \centerline{
475: \begin{tabular}{ll}
476: {\small(a)} & {\small(b)} \\
477: \qquad \includegraphics[width=6.3truecm]{UT-NLO1-pure.ps}
478: &
479: \qquad \includegraphics[width=6.3truecm]{UT-NLO2-labels.ps}
480: \end{tabular}}
481: \vspace*{-0.2truecm}
482: \caption{The two non-squashed unitarity triangles of the CKM matrix:
483: (a) and (b) correspond to the orthogonality relations (\ref{UT1}) and (\ref{UT2}), respectively. In Asia, the notation $\phi_1\equiv\beta$,
484: $\phi_2\equiv\alpha$ and $\phi_3\equiv\gamma$ is used for the angles of the
485: triangle shown in (a).}
486: \label{fig:UT}
487: \end{figure}
488:
489:
490: %
491: %
492: %
493: \subsection{The Unitarity Triangles of the CKM Matrix}
494: %
495: %
496: %
497: Since the CKM matrix is a unitary matrix, it satisfies
498: \begin{equation}
499: \hat V_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CKM}}}^{\,\,\dagger}\cdot\hat
500: V_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CKM}}}=
501: \hat 1=\hat V_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CKM}}}\cdot\hat V_{\mbox{{\scriptsize
502: CKM}}}^{\,\,\dagger},
503: \end{equation}
504: leading to a set of 12 equations, which consist of 6 normalization
505: and 6 orthogonality relations. The latter can be represented as 6
506: triangles in the complex plane, which have all the same area. The
507: Wolfenstein parametrization of the CKM matrix allows us straightforwardly
508: to explore the generic shape of these triangles: we find two triangles, where
509: one side is suppressed with respect to the others by a factor of ${\cal O}(\lambda^2)$,
510: and another set of two triangles, where one side is even suppressed with respect
511: to the others by a factor of ${\cal O}(\lambda^4)$; however, there are also two
512: triangles, where all three sides are of the same order of magnitude. They
513: are described by the following orthogonality relations:
514: \begin{eqnarray}
515: V_{ud}V_{ub}^\ast+V_{cd}V_{cb}^\ast+V_{td}V_{tb}^\ast & = &
516: 0\label{UT1}\\
517: V_{ud}^\ast V_{td}+V_{us}^\ast V_{ts}+V_{ub}^\ast V_{tb}
518: & = & 0.\label{UT2}
519: \end{eqnarray}
520: If we keep just the leading, non-vanishing terms of the expansion in $\lambda$,
521: these relations give actually the same result, which is given by
522: \begin{equation}
523: \left[(\rho+i\eta)+(1-\rho-i\eta)+(-1)\right]A\lambda^3=0,
524: \end{equation}
525: and describes {\it the} unitarity triangle of the CKM matrix.
526:
527: Following the procedure described in Subsection~\ref{ssec:wolf}, we may also
528: include the next-to-leading order corrections in the $\lambda$ expansion \cite{blo}.
529: The degeneracy between the leading-order triangles corresponding to
530: (\ref{UT1}) and (\ref{UT2}) is then lifted, and we arrive at the situation
531: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:UT}. The triangle sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:UT} (a)
532: is a straightforward generalization of the leading-order case. Its apex takes
533: the following coordinates \cite{blo}:
534: \begin{equation}\label{rho-eta-bar}
535: \bar\rho\equiv\rho\left(1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2\right),\quad
536: \bar\eta\equiv\eta\left(1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2\right),
537: \end{equation}
538: which correspond to the triangle sides
539: \begin{equation}\label{Rb-Rt-def}
540: R_b%\equiv\sqrt{\overline{\rho}^2+\overline{\eta}^2}
541: =\left(1-\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\right)\frac{1}{\lambda}\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|,
542: \quad
543: R_t%\equiv\sqrt{(1-\overline{\rho})^2+\overline{\eta}^2}
544: =\frac{1}{\lambda}\left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{cb}}\right|.
545: \end{equation}
546: This triangle is usually the one considered in the literature, and whenever referring
547: to {\it a} unitarity triangle (UT) in the following discussion, also we shall always
548: mean this triangle. The characteristic feature of the second triangle shown in
549: Fig.~\ref{fig:UT} (b) is the small angle between the basis of the triangle and the
550: real axis, satisfying
551: \begin{equation}
552: \delta\gamma\equiv \gamma-\gamma'=\lambda^2\eta={\cal O}(1^\circ).
553: \end{equation}
554: As we will see below, this triangle is of particular interest for the LHCb
555: experiment.
556:
557:
558: \begin{figure}[t]
559: \centerline{
560: \begin{tabular}{ll}
561: \includegraphics[width=7.0truecm]{CKMfitter-LP05.eps} &
562: \includegraphics[width=9.0truecm]{UTfit-LP05.eps}
563: \end{tabular}}
564: \caption{The most recent analyses of the CKMfitter and
565: UTfit collaborations \cite{CKMfitter,UTfit}.}\label{fig:UTfits}
566: \end{figure}
567:
568:
569: %
570: %
571: %
572: \subsection{The Determination of the Unitarity Triangle}\label{ssec:UT}
573: %
574: %
575: %
576: The next obvious question is how to determine the UT. There are two
577: conceptually different avenues that we may follow to this end:
578: \begin{itemize}
579: \item[(i)] In the ``CKM fits'', theory is used to convert
580: experimental data into contours in the $\bar\rho$--$\bar\eta$ plane. In particular,
581: semi-leptonic $b\to u \ell \bar\nu_\ell$, $c \ell \bar\nu_\ell$ decays and
582: $B^0_q$--$\bar B^0_q$ mixing ($q\in\{d,s\}$) allow us to determine the UT sides
583: $R_b$ and $R_t$, respectively, i.e.\ to fix two circles in the $\bar\rho$--$\bar\eta$
584: plane. Furthermore, the indirect CP violation in the neutral kaon system
585: described by $\varepsilon_K$ can be transformed into a hyperbola.
586: \item[(ii)] Theoretical considerations allow us to convert measurements of
587: CP-violating effects in $B$-meson decays into direct information on the UT angles.
588: The most prominent example is the determination of $\sin2\beta$ through
589: CP violation in $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ decays, but several other strategies
590: were proposed.
591: \end{itemize}
592: The goal is to ``overconstrain'' the UT as much as possible. In the future,
593: additional contours can be fixed in the $\bar\rho$--$\bar\eta$ plane through
594: the measurement of rare decays.
595:
596: In Fig.~\ref{fig:UTfits}, we show the most recent results of the comprehensive
597: analyses of the UT that were performed by the ``CKM Fitter Group'' \cite{CKMfitter}
598: and the ``UTfit collaboration''~\cite{UTfit}. In these figures, we can nicely see the
599: circles that are determined through the semi-leptonic $B$ decays and the
600: $\varepsilon_K$ hyperbolas. Moreover, also the straight lines following from the
601: direct measurement of $\sin 2\beta$ with the help of $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$
602: modes are shown. We observe that the global consistency is very good. However,
603: looking closer, we also see that the most recent average for
604: $(\sin 2\beta)_{\psi K_{\rm S}}$ is now on the lower side, so that the situation in
605: the $\bar\rho$--$\bar\eta$ plane is no longer ``perfect". Moreover, as we
606: shall discuss in detail in the course of this review, there are certain puzzles in the
607: $B$-factory data, and several important aspects could not yet be addressed
608: experimentally and are hence still essentially unexplored. Consequently, we may hope
609: that flavour studies will eventually establish deviations from the SM description
610: of CP violation. Since $B$ mesons play a key r\^ole in these explorations, let us
611: next have a closer look at them.
612:
613:
614: %
615: %
616: %
617: \boldmath
618: \section{The Main Actor: The $B$-Meson System}\label{sec:B}
619: \unboldmath
620: %
621: %
622: %
623: \subsection{A Closer Look at $B_q^0$--$\bar B_q^0$ Mixing}\label{ssec:Bmix}
624: %
625: %
626: %
627: In contrast to their charged counterparts, the neutral $B_q$ ($q\in \{d,s\}$)
628: mesons show $B_q^0$--$\bar B_q^0$ mixing, which we encountered already
629: in the determination of the UT discussed in Subsection~\ref{ssec:UT}. This
630: phenomenon is the counterpart of $K^0$--$\bar K^0$ mixing, and originates,
631: in the SM, from box diagrams, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:boxes}. Thanks to
632: $B_q^0$--$\bar B_q^0$ mixing, an initially, i.e.\ at time $t=0$, present
633: $B^0_q$-meson state evolves into a time-dependent linear combination
634: of $B^0_q$ and $\bar B^0_q$ states:
635: \begin{equation}
636: |B_q(t)\rangle=a(t)|B^0_q\rangle + b(t)|\bar B^0_q\rangle,
637: \end{equation}
638: where $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ are governed by a Schr\"odinger equation of
639: the following form:
640: \begin{equation}\label{SG-OSZ}
641: i\,\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d} t}\left(\begin{array}{c} a(t)\\ b(t)
642: \end{array}\right)=
643: \Biggl[\underbrace{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
644: M_{0}^{(q)} & M_{12}^{(q)}\\ M_{12}^{(q)\ast} & M_{0}^{(q)}
645: \end{array}\right)}_{\mbox{mass matrix}}-
646: \frac{i}{2}\underbrace{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
647: \Gamma_{0}^{(q)} & \Gamma_{12}^{(q)}\\
648: \Gamma_{12}^{(q)\ast} & \Gamma_{0}^{(q)}
649: \end{array}\right)}_{\mbox{decay matrix}}\Biggr]
650: \cdot\left(\begin{array}{c}
651: a(t)\\ b(t)\nonumber
652: \end{array}
653: \right).
654: \end{equation}
655: The special form $H_{11}=H_{22}$ of the Hamiltonian $H$ is an implication
656: of the CPT theorem, i.e.\ of the invariance under combined CP and
657: time-reversal (T) transformations.
658:
659:
660: \begin{figure}
661: \centerline{
662: \includegraphics[width=5.5truecm]{BqBqbar-box1.ps}
663: \hspace*{0.5truecm}
664: \includegraphics[width=5.5truecm]{BqBqbar-box2.ps}
665: }
666: \caption{Box diagrams contributing to $B^0_q$--$\bar B^0_q$ mixing in the
667: SM ($q\in\{d,s\}$).}
668: \label{fig:boxes}
669: \end{figure}
670:
671:
672: In the SM, the mass and decay matrices can be calculated through the
673: dispersive and absorptive parts of the box diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:boxes},
674: respectively, where the former is dominated by top-quark exchanges. Following
675: these lines, we arrive at
676: \begin{equation}\label{Gam12M12-rat}
677: \frac{\Gamma_{12}^{(q)}}{M_{12}^{(q)}}\approx
678: -\frac{3\pi}{2S_0(x_{t})}\left(\frac{m_b^2}{M_W^2}\right)
679: ={\cal O}(m_b^2/m_t^2)\ll 1,
680: \end{equation}
681: where $S_0(x_t\equiv m_t^2/M_W^2)$ is one of the Inami--Lim functions
682: \cite{IL}, describing the dependence on the top-quark mass $m_t$. The ratio
683: in (\ref{Gam12M12-rat}) can be probed experimentally through the following
684: ``wrong-charge'' lepton asymmetries:
685: \begin{equation}\label{ASL}
686: {\cal A}^{(q)}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize SL}}}\equiv
687: \frac{\Gamma(B^0_q(t)\to \ell^-\bar\nu X)-\Gamma(\bar B^0_q(t)\to
688: \ell^+\nu X)}{\Gamma(B^0_q(t)\to \ell^-\bar \nu X)+
689: \Gamma(\bar B^0_q(t)\to \ell^+\nu X)}\approx\left|
690: \frac{\Gamma_{12}^{(q)}}{M_{12}^{(q)}}\right|
691: \sin\delta\Theta^{(q)}_{M/\Gamma},
692: \end{equation}
693: which are a measure of CP violation in $B^0_q$--$\bar B^0_q$ oscillations. In
694: this expression, we have neglected second-order terms in
695: $\Gamma_{12}^{(q)}/M_{12}^{(q)}$, and have introduced
696: \begin{equation}
697: \delta\Theta_{M/\Gamma}^{(q)}\equiv
698: \Theta_{M_{12}}^{(q)}-\Theta_{\Gamma_{12}}^{(q)},
699: \end{equation}
700: with $M_{12}^{(q)}\equiv e^{i\Theta_{M_{12}}^{(q)}}\vert
701: M_{12}^{(q)}\vert$ and $\Gamma_{12}^{(q)}\equiv
702: e^{i\Theta_{\Gamma_{12}}^{(q)}}\vert\Gamma_{12}^{(q)}\vert$.
703: Because of the strong suppression of (\ref{Gam12M12-rat}) and
704: $\sin\delta\Theta^{(q)}_{M/\Gamma}\propto m_c^2/m_b^2$,
705: the asymmetry ${\cal A}^{(q)}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize SL}}}$ is suppressed by
706: a factor of $m_c^2/m_t^2={\cal O}(10^{-4})$ and is hence tiny in the SM.
707: However, this observable may be enhanced through NP effects, thereby
708: representing an interesting probe for physics beyond the SM \cite{LLNP,BBLN-CFLMT}.
709: The current experimental average for the $B_d$-meson system compiled by
710: the ``Heavy Flavour Averaging Group" \cite{HFAG} is given by
711: \begin{equation}
712: {\cal A}^{(d)}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize SL}}}=0.0030\pm0.0078,
713: \end{equation}
714: and does not
715: indicate any non-vanishing effect.
716:
717: In the following discussion, we neglect the tiny CP-violating effects
718: in the $B^0_q$--$\bar B^0_q$ oscillations that are descirbed by
719: (\ref{ASL}). The solution of (\ref{SG-OSZ}) yields then the following
720: time-dependent rates for decays of initially, i.e.\ at time $t=0$,
721: present $B^0_q$ or $\bar B^0_q$ mesons:
722: \begin{equation}\label{rates}
723: \hspace*{-1.2truecm}
724: \Gamma(\stackrel{{\mbox{\tiny (--)}}}{B^0_q}(t)\to f)
725: =\tilde\Gamma_f
726: \left[|g_\mp^{(q)}(t)|^2+|\xi_f^{(q)}|^2|g_\pm^{(q)}(t)|^2-
727: 2\mbox{\,Re}\left\{\xi_f^{(q)}
728: g_\pm^{(q)}(t)g_\mp^{(q)}(t)^\ast\right\}\right].
729: \end{equation}
730: Here the time-independent rate $\tilde\Gamma_f$ corresponds to the
731: ``unevolved'' decay amplitude $A(B^0_q\to f)$, and can be calculated by
732: performing the usual phase-space integrations. The time dependence enters
733: through the functions
734: \begin{eqnarray}
735: |g^{(q)}_{\pm}(t)|^2&=&\frac{1}{4}\left[e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(q)}t}+
736: e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(q)}t}\pm2\,e^{-\Gamma_q t}\cos(\Delta M_qt)
737: \right]\label{g-funct-1}\\
738: g_-^{(q)}(t)\,g_+^{(q)}(t)^\ast&=&\frac{1}{4}\left[e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(q)}t}-
739: e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(q)}t}+2\,i\,e^{-\Gamma_q t}\sin(\Delta M_qt)
740: \right],\label{g-funct-2}
741: \end{eqnarray}
742: where the $\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(q)}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(q)}$
743: are the decay widths of the ``heavy'' and ``light'' mass eigenstates of the
744: $B_q$-meson system, respectively, and
745: \begin{equation}\label{DeltaMq-def}
746: \Delta M_q\equiv M_{\rm H}^{(q)}-M_{\rm L}^{(q)}=2|M_{12}^{(q)}|>0
747: \end{equation}
748: denotes the corresponding mass difference. The rates into the CP-conjugate
749: final state $\bar f$ can straightforwardly be obtained from those in
750: (\ref{rates}) by making the substitutions
751: \begin{equation}
752: \tilde\Gamma_f \,\,\,\to\,\,\,
753: \tilde\Gamma_{\bar f},
754: \quad\,\,\xi_f^{(q)} \,\,\,\to\,\,\,
755: \xi_{\bar f}^{(q)},
756: \end{equation}
757: where
758: \begin{equation}\label{xi-def}
759: \xi_f^{(q)}\equiv e^{-i\Theta_{M_{12}}^{(q)}}
760: \frac{A(\bar B_q^0\to f)}{A(B_q^0\to f)},\quad
761: \xi_{\bar f}^{(q)}\equiv e^{-i\Theta_{M_{12}}^{(q)}}
762: \frac{A(\bar B_q^0\to \bar f)}{A(B_q^0\to \bar f)}
763: \end{equation}
764: describe the interference effects between $B_q^0$--$\bar B_q^0$ mixing
765: and decay processes. Finally,
766: \begin{equation}\label{theta-def}
767: \Theta_{M_{12}}^{(q)}=\pi+2\mbox{arg}(V_{tq}^\ast V_{tb})-
768: \phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B_q),
769: \end{equation}
770: where the CKM factor can be read off from the box diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:boxes}
771: with top-quark exchanges, and $\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B_q)$ is a
772: convention-dependent phase, which is introduced through
773: \begin{equation}\label{CP-def}
774: ({\cal CP})\vert B^{0}_q\rangle=
775: e^{i\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B_q)}
776: \vert\bar B^{0}_q\rangle.
777: \end{equation}
778: This quantity is cancelled in (\ref{xi-def}) through the amplitude ratios, so that
779: $\xi_f^{(q)}$ and $\xi_{\bar f}^{(q)}$ are actually physical observables, as we
780: will see explicitly in Subsection~\ref{ssec:CP-strat}.
781:
782: In the literature, the ``mixing parameter"
783: \begin{equation}\label{mix-par}
784: x_q\equiv\frac{\Delta M_q}{\Gamma_q}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
785: \quad\, 0.774\pm0.008&(q=d)\\
786: > 19.9 \mbox{ @ 95\% C.L.} & (q=s)
787: \end{array}\right.
788: \end{equation}
789: is frequently considered (for the numerical values, see \cite{HFAG}), where
790: \begin{equation}
791: \Gamma_q\equiv\frac{\Gamma^{(q)}_{\rm H}+\Gamma^{(q)}_{\rm L}}{2}=
792: \Gamma^{(q)}_0.
793: \end{equation}
794: It is complemented by the width difference
795: \begin{equation}
796: \Delta\Gamma_q\equiv\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(q)}-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(q)}=
797: \frac{4\mbox{\,Re}\left[M_{12}^{(q)}\Gamma_{12}^{(q)\ast}\right]}{\Delta M_q},
798: \end{equation}
799: which satisfies
800: \begin{equation}\label{DGoG}
801: \frac{\Delta\Gamma_q}{\Gamma_q}\approx-\frac{3\pi}{2S_0(x_t)}
802: \left(\frac{m_b^2}{M_W^2}\right)x_q=-{\cal O}(10^{-2})\times x_q.
803: \end{equation}
804: Consequently, $\Delta\Gamma_d/\Gamma_d\sim 10^{-2}$ is
805: negligibly small, while $\Delta\Gamma_s/\Gamma_s\sim 10^{-1}$ is expected to
806: be sizeable. Although $B^0_d$--$\bar B^0_d$ mixing is now an experimentally
807: well-established phenomenon, its counterpart in the $B_s$-meson system has not
808: yet been observed, and is one of the key targets of the $B$-physics studies at hadron colliders, as we will see in Section~\ref{sec:LHC}, where we shall also have a
809: closer look at the width difference $\Delta\Gamma_s$.
810:
811:
812:
813: \begin{figure}
814: \centerline{
815: \begin{tabular}{lc}
816: {\small(a)} & \\
817: & \includegraphics[width=3.3truecm]{tree.ps}\\
818: {\small(b)} & \\
819: & \includegraphics[width=5.0truecm]{QCD-pen.ps}\\
820: {\small(c)} & \\
821: & \includegraphics[width=8.3truecm]{EW-pen.ps}
822: \end{tabular}}
823: \caption{Feynman diagrams of the topologies characterizing non-leptonic
824: $B$ decays: trees (a), QCD penguins (b), and electroweak penguins
825: (c).}\label{fig:topol}
826: \end{figure}
827:
828:
829:
830: %
831: %
832: %
833: \subsection{Non-Leptonic $B$ Decays}\label{ssec:non-lept}
834: %
835: %
836: %
837: As far as the exploration of CP violation is concerned, non-leptonic $B$ decays
838: play the key r\^ole. In such processes, CP-violating asymmetries can be generated
839: through certain interference effects, as we will see below. The final states of
840: non-leptonic transitions consist only of quarks, and they originate from
841: $b\to q_1 \bar q_2 d (s)$ quark-level processes, with $q_1,q_2\in\{u,d,c,s\}$.
842: There are two kinds of topologies contributing to such decays: ``tree'' and
843: ``penguin'' topologies. The latter consist of gluonic (QCD) and electroweak (EW)
844: penguins. In Fig.~\ref{fig:topol}, we show the corresponding
845: leading-order Feynman diagrams. Depending on the flavour content of their final
846: states, non-leptonic $b\to q_1 \bar q_2 d (s)$ decays can be classified as follows:
847: \begin{itemize}
848: \item $q_1\not=q_2\in\{u,c\}$: {\it only} tree diagrams contribute.
849: \item $q_1=q_2\in\{u,c\}$: tree {\it and} penguin diagrams contribute.
850: \item $q_1=q_2\in\{d,s\}$: {\it only} penguin diagrams contribute.
851: \end{itemize}
852:
853: For the analysis of non-leptonic $B$ decays, low-energy effective Hamiltonians
854: offer the appropriate tool, yielding transition amplitudes of the following structure:
855: \begin{equation}\label{LE-Ham}
856: \langle f|{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|i\rangle=\frac{G_{\rm F}}{\sqrt{2}}
857: \lambda_{\rm CKM}\sum_k C_k(\mu)\langle f|Q_k(\mu)|i\rangle.
858: \end{equation}
859: As usual, $G_{\rm F}$ denotes Fermi's constant, $\lambda_{\rm CKM}$ is an
860: appropriate CKM factor, and $\mu$ a renormalization scale. The technique of
861: the operator product expansion allows us to separate the short-distance
862: contributions to this transition amplitude from the long-distance ones,
863: which are described by perturbative quantities $C_k(\mu)$ (``Wilson
864: coefficient functions'') and non-perturbative quantities
865: $\langle f|Q_k(\mu)|i\rangle$ (``hadronic matrix elements''), respectively.
866: The $Q_k$ are local operators, which are generated through the
867: electroweak interactions and the interplay with QCD, and govern
868: ``effectively'' the considered decay. The Wilson coefficients are -- simply
869: speaking -- the scale-dependent couplings of the vertices described by the $Q_k$,
870: and contain in particular the information about the heavy degrees of freedom,
871: which are ``integrated out" from appearing explicitly in (\ref{LE-Ham}).
872: The $C_k(\mu)$ are calculated with the help of renormalization-group improved perturbation theory, which allows us to systematically sum up terms of the
873: following structure:
874: \begin{equation}
875: \alpha_s^n\left[\log\left(\frac{\mu}{M_W}\right)\right]^n
876: \,\,\mbox{(LO)},\quad\,\,\alpha_s^n\left[\log\left(\frac{\mu}{M_W}\right)
877: \right]^{n-1}\,\,\mbox{(NLO)},\quad ...\quad;
878: \end{equation}
879: detailed discussions of these rather technical aspects can be found in
880: \cite{B-LH98}.
881:
882: For the phenomenology of CP violation, non-leptonic $B$ decays with
883: $\Delta C=\Delta U=0$ play the key r\^ole. As can be seen in
884: Fig.~\ref{fig:topol}, transitions of this kind receive contributions both from
885: tree and from penguin topologies. Consequently, these decays involve, in
886: the SM, two heavy degrees of freedom, the $W$ boson and the
887: top quark. Once the corresponding fields are integrated out, their presence
888: is only felt through the initial conditions of the renormalization group evolution
889: from $\mu={\cal O}(M_W,m_t)$ down to $\mu={\cal O}(m_b)$. The corresponding
890: initial Wilson coefficients depend on certain Inami--Lim functions \cite{IL},
891: in analogy to the case of $B^0_q$--$\bar B^0_q$ mixing, where $S_0(x_t)$ enters.
892: Because of the unitarity of the CKM matrix, the following relation is implied:
893: \begin{equation}\label{UT-rel}
894: V_{ur}^\ast V_{ub}+V_{cr}^\ast V_{cb}+
895: V_{tr}^\ast V_{tb}=0,
896: \end{equation}
897: where the label $r=d,s$ distinguishes between $b\to d,s$ transitions.
898: Consequently, only {\it two} independent weak amplitudes contribute to
899: any given decay of this category. Using (\ref{UT-rel}) to eliminate
900: $V_{tr}^\ast V_{tb}$, we obtain an effective Hamiltonian of the following form:
901: \begin{equation}\label{e4}
902: {\cal H}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize eff}}}=\frac{G_{\mbox{{\scriptsize
903: F}}}}{\sqrt{2}}\Biggl[\sum\limits_{j=u,c}V_{jr}^\ast V_{jb}\biggl\{
904: \sum\limits_{k=1}^2C_k(\mu)\,Q_k^{jr}+\sum\limits_{k=3}^{10}
905: C_k(\mu)\,Q_k^{r}\biggr\}\Biggr].
906: \end{equation}
907: Here we have introduced another quark-flavour label $j\in\{u,c\}$,
908: and the four-quark operators $Q_k^{jr}$ can be divided as follows:
909: \begin{itemize}
910: \item Current--current operators:
911: \begin{equation}
912: \begin{array}{rcl}
913: Q_{1}^{jr}&=&(\bar r_{\alpha}j_{\beta})_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}
914: (\bar j_{\beta}b_{\alpha})_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}\\
915: Q_{2}^{jr}&=&(\bar r_\alpha j_\alpha)_{\mbox{{\scriptsize
916: V--A}}}(\bar j_\beta b_\beta)_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}.
917: \end{array}
918: \end{equation}
919: \item QCD penguin operators:
920: \begin{equation}\label{qcd-penguins}
921: \begin{array}{rcl}
922: Q_{3}^r&=&(\bar r_\alpha b_\alpha)_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}\sum_{q'}
923: (\bar q'_\beta q'_\beta)_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}\\
924: Q_{4}^r&=&(\bar r_{\alpha}b_{\beta})_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}
925: \sum_{q'}(\bar q'_{\beta}q'_{\alpha})_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}\\
926: Q_{5}^r&=&(\bar r_\alpha b_\alpha)_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}\sum_{q'}
927: (\bar q'_\beta q'_\beta)_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V+A}}}\\
928: Q_{6}^r&=&(\bar r_{\alpha}b_{\beta})_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}
929: \sum_{q'}(\bar q'_{\beta}q'_{\alpha})_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V+A}}}.
930: \end{array}
931: \end{equation}
932: \item EW penguin operators, where the $e_{q'}$ denote the
933: electrical quark charges:
934: \begin{equation}
935: \begin{array}{rcl}
936: Q_{7}^r&=&\frac{3}{2}(\bar r_\alpha b_\alpha)_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}
937: \sum_{q'}e_{q'}(\bar q'_\beta q'_\beta)_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V+A}}}\\
938: Q_{8}^r&=&
939: \frac{3}{2}(\bar r_{\alpha}b_{\beta})_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}
940: \sum_{q'}e_{q'}(\bar q_{\beta}'q'_{\alpha})_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V+A}}}\\
941: Q_{9}^r&=&\frac{3}{2}(\bar r_\alpha b_\alpha)_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}
942: \sum_{q'}e_{q'}(\bar q'_\beta q'_\beta)_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}\\
943: Q_{10}^r&=&
944: \frac{3}{2}(\bar r_{\alpha}b_{\beta})_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}
945: \sum_{q'}e_{q'}(\bar q'_{\beta}q'_{\alpha})_{\mbox{{\scriptsize V--A}}}.
946: \end{array}
947: \end{equation}
948: \end{itemize}
949: Here $\alpha$, $\beta$ are $SU(3)_{\rm C}$ indices, ${\rm V \pm A}$ refers
950: to $\gamma_\mu(1\pm\gamma_5)$, and $q'\in\{u,d,c,s,b\}$ runs over the
951: active quark flavours at $\mu={\cal O}(m_b)$. For such a renormalization
952: scale, the Wilson coefficients of the
953: current--current operators are $C_1(\mu)={\cal O}(10^{-1})$ and
954: $C_2(\mu)={\cal O}(1)$, whereas those of the penguin operators are found to
955: be at most of ${\cal O}(10^{-2})$ \cite{B-LH98}.
956:
957: The short-distance part of (\ref{e4}) is nowadays under full control. On the other
958: hand, the long-distance piece suffers still from large theoretical uncertainties.
959: For a given non-leptonic decay $\bar B \to \bar f$, it is described by the hadronic
960: matrix elements $\langle \bar f|Q_k(\mu)|\bar B\rangle$ of the
961: four-quark operators. A popular way of dealing with these quantities is to
962: assume that they ``factorize'' into the product of the matrix elements of
963: two quark currents at some ``factorization scale'' $\mu=\mu_{\rm F}$.
964: This procedure can be justified in the large-$N_{\rm C}$ approximation
965: \cite{largeN}, where $N_{\rm C}$ is the number of $SU(N_{\rm C})$ quark colours,
966: and there are decays, where this concept is suggested by
967: ``colour transparency" arguments \cite{QCDF-old}. However, it is in general
968: not on solid ground. Interesting theoretical progress could be made
969: through the development of the ``QCD factorization" (QCDF) \cite{BBNS}
970: and ``perturbative QCD" (PQCD) \cite{PQCD} approaches, and most recently
971: through the ``soft collinear effective theory'' (SCET) \cite{SCET}. Moreover,
972: also QCD light-cone sum-rule techniques were applied to non-leptonic
973: $B$ decays \cite{LCSR}. An important target of these analyses is given by
974: $B\to\pi\pi$ and $B\to\pi K$ decays. Thanks to the $B$ factories, the
975: corresponding theoretical results can now be confronted with experiment.
976: Since the data indicate large non-factorizable corrections
977: \cite{BFRS}--\cite{CGRS}, the long-distance contributions to these decays
978: remain a theoretical challenge.
979:
980:
981: %
982: %
983: %
984: \subsection{Strategies for the Exploration of CP Violation}\label{ssec:CP-strat}
985: %
986: %
987: %
988: Let us consider a non-leptonic decay $\bar B\to\bar f$ that is described by
989: the low-energy effective Hamiltonian in (\ref{e4}). The corresponding
990: decay amplitude is then given as follows:
991: \begin{eqnarray}
992: \lefteqn{\hspace*{-1.3truecm}A(\bar B\to \bar f)=\langle \bar f\vert
993: {\cal H}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize eff}}}\vert\bar B\rangle}\nonumber\\
994: &&\hspace*{-1.3truecm}=\frac{G_{\mbox{{\scriptsize F}}}}{\sqrt{2}}\left[
995: \sum\limits_{j=u,c}V_{jr}^\ast V_{jb}\left\{\sum\limits_{k=1}^2
996: C_{k}(\mu)\langle \bar f\vert Q_{k}^{jr}(\mu)\vert\bar B\rangle
997: +\sum\limits_{k=3}^{10}C_{k}(\mu)\langle \bar f\vert Q_{k}^r(\mu)
998: \vert\bar B\rangle\right\}\right].~~~\mbox{}\label{Bbarfbar-ampl}
999: \end{eqnarray}
1000: Concerning the CP-conjugate process $B\to\ f$, we have
1001: \begin{eqnarray}
1002: \lefteqn{\hspace*{-1.3truecm}A(B \to f)=\langle f|
1003: {\cal H}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize
1004: eff}}}^\dagger|B\rangle}\nonumber\\
1005: &&\hspace*{-1.3truecm}=\frac{G_{\mbox{{\scriptsize F}}}}{\sqrt{2}}
1006: \left[\sum\limits_{j=u,c}V_{jr}V_{jb}^\ast \left\{\sum\limits_{k=1}^2
1007: C_{k}(\mu)\langle f\vert Q_{k}^{jr\dagger}(\mu)\vert B\rangle
1008: +\sum\limits_{k=3}^{10}C_{k}(\mu)\langle f\vert Q_k^{r\dagger}(\mu)
1009: \vert B\rangle\right\}\right].~~~\mbox{}\label{Bf-ampl}
1010: \end{eqnarray}
1011: If we use now that strong interactions are invariant under CP transformations
1012: (omitting the ``strong CP problem" \cite{strong-CP}, which leads to negligible
1013: effects in the processes considered here), insert $({\cal CP})^\dagger({\cal CP})=\hat 1$
1014: both after the $\langle f|$ and in front of the $|B\rangle$, and take the
1015: relation $({\cal CP})Q_k^{jr\dagger}({\cal CP})^\dagger=Q_k^{jr}$
1016: into account, we arrive at
1017: \begin{eqnarray}
1018: \lefteqn{\hspace*{-1.3truecm}A(B \to f)=
1019: e^{i[\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B)-\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(f)]}}\nonumber\\
1020: &&\hspace*{-1.3truecm}\times\frac{G_{\mbox{{\scriptsize F}}}}{\sqrt{2}}
1021: \left[\sum\limits_{j=u,c}V_{jr}V_{jb}^\ast\left\{\sum\limits_{k=1}^2
1022: C_{k}(\mu)\langle \bar f\vert Q_{k}^{jr}(\mu)\vert\bar B\rangle
1023: +\sum\limits_{k=3}^{10}C_{k}(\mu)
1024: \langle \bar f\vert Q_{k}^r(\mu)\vert\bar B\rangle\right\}\right],
1025: \end{eqnarray}
1026: where the convention-dependent phases $\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B)$
1027: and $\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(f)$ are defined in analogy to (\ref{CP-def}).
1028: Consequently, we may write
1029: \begin{eqnarray}
1030: A(\bar B\to\bar f)&=&e^{+i\varphi_1}
1031: |A_1|e^{i\delta_1}+e^{+i\varphi_2}|A_2|e^{i\delta_2}\label{par-ampl}\\
1032: A(B\to f)&=&e^{i[\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B)-\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(f)]}
1033: \left[e^{-i\varphi_1}|A_1|e^{i\delta_1}+e^{-i\varphi_2}|A_2|e^{i\delta_2}
1034: \right].\label{par-ampl-CP}
1035: \end{eqnarray}
1036: Here the CP-violating phases $\varphi_{1,2}$ originate from the CKM factors
1037: $V_{jr}^\ast V_{jb}$, and the CP-conserving ``strong'' amplitudes
1038: $|A_{1,2}|e^{i\delta_{1,2}}$ involve the hadronic matrix elements of the
1039: four-quark operators. In fact, these expressions are the most general forms
1040: of any non-leptonic $B$-decay amplitude in the SM, i.e.\ they do not only
1041: refer to the $\Delta C=\Delta U=0$ case described by (\ref{e4}).
1042: Using (\ref{par-ampl}) and (\ref{par-ampl-CP}), we obtain
1043: the following CP asymmetry:
1044: \begin{eqnarray}
1045: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}&\equiv&\frac{\Gamma(B\to f)-
1046: \Gamma(\bar B\to\bar f)}{\Gamma(B\to f)+\Gamma(\bar B
1047: \to \bar f)}=\frac{|A(B\to f)|^2-|A(\bar B\to \bar f)|^2}{|A(B\to f)|^2+
1048: |A(\bar B\to \bar f)|^2}\nonumber\\
1049: &=&\frac{2|A_1||A_2|\sin(\delta_1-\delta_2)
1050: \sin(\varphi_1-\varphi_2)}{|A_1|^2+2|A_1||A_2|\cos(\delta_1-\delta_2)
1051: \cos(\varphi_1-\varphi_2)+|A_2|^2}.\label{direct-CPV}
1052: \end{eqnarray}
1053: We observe that a non-vanishing value can be generated through the
1054: interference between the two weak amplitudes, provided both a non-trivial
1055: weak phase difference $\varphi_1-\varphi_2$ and a non-trivial strong phase
1056: difference $\delta_1-\delta_2$ are present. This kind of
1057: CP violation is referred to as ``direct'' CP violation, as it originates
1058: directly at the amplitude level of the considered decay. It is the
1059: $B$-meson counterpart of the effect that is probed through
1060: $\mbox{Re}(\varepsilon_K'/\varepsilon_K)$ in the neutral kaon
1061: system, and could recently be established with the help of
1062: $B_d\to\pi^\mp K^\pm$ decays \cite{CP-B-dir}, as we will see in
1063: Subsection~\ref{ssec:Bpi+pi-}.
1064:
1065: Since $\varphi_1-\varphi_2$ is in general given by one of the UT angles --
1066: usually $\gamma$ -- the goal is to extract this quantity from the measured
1067: value of ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}$. Unfortunately, hadronic uncertainties affect this
1068: determination through the poorly known hadronic matrix elements in
1069: (\ref{Bbarfbar-ampl}). In order to deal with this problem, we may proceed along
1070: one of the following two avenues:
1071: \begin{itemize}
1072: \item[(i)] Amplitude relations can be used to eliminate the
1073: hadronic matrix elements. We distinguish between exact relations,
1074: using pure ``tree'' decays of the kind $B\to KD$ \cite{gw,ADS} or
1075: $B_c\to D_sD$ \cite{fw}, and relations, which follow from the flavour symmetries
1076: of strong interactions, i.e.\ isospin or $SU(3)_{\rm F}$, and involve
1077: $B_{(s)}\to\pi\pi,\pi K,KK$ modes~\cite{GHLR}.
1078: \item[(ii)] In decays of neutral $B_q$ mesons ($q\in\{d,s\}$), interference effects
1079: between $B^0_q$--$\bar B^0_q$ mixing and decay processes may induce
1080: ``mixing-induced CP violation''. If a single CKM amplitude governs the decay,
1081: the hadronic matrix elements cancel in the corresponding
1082: CP asymmeties; otherwise we have to use again amplitude relations.
1083: The most important example is the decay $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ \cite{bisa}.
1084: \end{itemize}
1085:
1086: As neutral $B_q$ mesons play an outstanding r\^ole for the exploration
1087: of CP violation, let us have a closer look at their CP asymmetries.
1088: A particularly simple -- but also very interesting -- situation arises
1089: if we restrict ourselves to decays into final states $f$ that are eigenstates of
1090: the CP operator, i.e.\ satisfy the relation
1091: \begin{equation}\label{CP-eigen}
1092: ({\cal CP})|f\rangle=\pm |f\rangle.
1093: \end{equation}
1094: Looking at (\ref{xi-def}), we see that $\xi_f^{(q)}=\xi_{\bar f}^{(q)}$ in this case.
1095: If we use the decay rates in (\ref{rates}), we arrive at a time-dependent CP
1096: asymmetry of the following structure:
1097: \begin{eqnarray}
1098: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}(t)&\equiv&\frac{\Gamma(B^0_q(t)\to f)-
1099: \Gamma(\bar B^0_q(t)\to f)}{\Gamma(B^0_q(t)\to f)+
1100: \Gamma(\bar B^0_q(t)\to f)}\nonumber\\
1101: &=&\left[\frac{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_q\to f)\,\cos(\Delta M_q t)+
1102: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_q\to f)\,\sin(\Delta
1103: M_q t)}{\cosh(\Delta\Gamma_qt/2)-{\cal A}_{\rm
1104: \Delta\Gamma}(B_q\to f)\,\sinh(\Delta\Gamma_qt/2)}\right],\label{time-dep-CP}
1105: \end{eqnarray}
1106: where
1107: \begin{equation}\label{CPV-OBS}
1108: {\cal A}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize dir}}}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B_q\to f)\equiv
1109: \frac{1-\bigl|\xi_f^{(q)}\bigr|^2}{1+\bigl|\xi_f^{(q)}\bigr|^2},\qquad
1110: {\cal A}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize mix}}}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize
1111: CP}}}(B_q\to f)\equiv\frac{2\,\mbox{Im}\,\xi^{(q)}_f}{1+
1112: \bigl|\xi^{(q)}_f\bigr|^2}.
1113: \end{equation}
1114: Since we may write
1115: \begin{equation}
1116: {\cal A}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize dir}}}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B_q\to f)=
1117: \frac{|A(B^0_q\to f)|^2-|A(\bar B^0_q\to \bar f)|^2}{|A(B^0_q\to f)|^2+
1118: |A(\bar B^0_q\to \bar f)|^2},
1119: \end{equation}
1120: we see that this quantity measures the direct CP violation in the decay
1121: $B_q\to f$, which originates from the interference between different
1122: weak amplitudes (see (\ref{direct-CPV})). On the other hand, the interesting
1123: new aspect of (\ref{time-dep-CP}) is given by
1124: ${\cal A}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize mix}}}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize
1125: CP}}}(B_q\to f)$, which is generated through the interference between
1126: $B_q^0$--$\bar B_q^0$ mixing and decay processes, thereby describing
1127: ``mixing-induced'' CP violation. Finally, the width difference $\Delta\Gamma_q$,
1128: which is expected to be sizeable in the $B_s$-meson system, provides another
1129: observable:
1130: \begin{equation}\label{ADGam}
1131: {\cal A}_{\rm \Delta\Gamma}(B_q\to f)\equiv
1132: \frac{2\,\mbox{Re}\,\xi^{(q)}_f}{1+\bigl|\xi^{(q)}_f\bigr|^2}.
1133: \end{equation}
1134: Because of the relation
1135: \begin{equation}\label{Obs-rel}
1136: \Bigl[{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_q\to f)\Bigr]^2+
1137: \Bigl[{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_q\to f)\Bigr]^2+
1138: \Bigl[{\cal A}_{\Delta\Gamma}(B_q\to f)\Bigr]^2=1,
1139: \end{equation}
1140: it is, however, not independent from ${\cal A}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize
1141: dir}}}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B_q\to f)$ and
1142: ${\cal A}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize mix}}}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B_q\to f)$.
1143:
1144: In order to calculate $\xi_f^{(q)}$, we use the general expressions in
1145: (\ref{par-ampl}) and (\ref{par-ampl-CP}), where
1146: $e^{-i\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(f)}=\pm1$ because of (\ref{CP-eigen}), and
1147: $\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B)=\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B_q)$. If we insert
1148: these amplitude parametrizations into (\ref{xi-def}) and take (\ref{theta-def}) into
1149: account, we observe that the phase-convention-dependent
1150: quantity $\phi_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}(B_q)$ cancels, and finally
1151: arrive at
1152: \begin{equation}\label{xi-re}
1153: \xi_f^{(q)}=\mp\, e^{-i\phi_q}\left[
1154: \frac{e^{+i\varphi_1}|A_1|e^{i\delta_1}+
1155: e^{+i\varphi_2}|A_2|e^{i\delta_2}}{
1156: e^{-i\varphi_1}|A_1|e^{i\delta_1}+
1157: e^{-i\varphi_2}|A_2|e^{i\delta_2}}\right],
1158: \end{equation}
1159: where
1160: \begin{equation}\label{phiq-def}
1161: \phi_q\equiv 2\,\mbox{arg} (V_{tq}^\ast V_{tb})=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
1162: +2\beta&\mbox{($q=d$)}\\
1163: -2\delta\gamma&\mbox{($q=s$)}\end{array}\right.
1164: \end{equation}
1165: is associated with the CP-violating weak $B_q^0$--$\bar B_q^0$ mixing
1166: phase arising in the SM; $\beta$ and $\delta\gamma$ refer to the corresponding
1167: angles in the unitarity triangles shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:UT}.
1168:
1169: In analogy to (\ref{direct-CPV}), the caclulation
1170: of $\xi_f^{(q)}$ is -- in general -- also affected by large hadronic uncertainties.
1171: However, if one CKM amplitude plays the dominant r\^ole in the $B_q\to f$
1172: transition, we obtain
1173: \begin{equation}\label{xi-si}
1174: \xi_f^{(q)}=\mp\, e^{-i\phi_q}\left[
1175: \frac{e^{+i\phi_f/2}|M_f|e^{i\delta_f}}{e^{-i\phi_f/2}|M_f|e^{i\delta_f}}
1176: \right]=\mp\, e^{-i(\phi_q-\phi_f)},
1177: \end{equation}
1178: and observe that the hadronic matrix element $|M_f|e^{i\delta_f}$
1179: cancels in this expression. Since the requirements for
1180: direct CP violation discussed above are no longer satisfied, direct CP violation
1181: vanishes in this important special case, i.e.\
1182: ${\cal A}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize dir}}}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}
1183: (B_q\to f)=0$. On the other hand, this is {\it not} the case for the mixing-induced
1184: CP asymmetry. In particular,
1185: \begin{equation}\label{Amix-simple}
1186: {\cal A}^{\rm mix}_{\rm CP}(B_q\to f)=\pm\sin\phi
1187: \end{equation}
1188: is now governed by the CP-violating weak phase difference
1189: $\phi\equiv\phi_q-\phi_f$ and is not affected by hadronic
1190: uncertainties. The corresponding time-dependent CP asymmetry
1191: takes then the simple form
1192: \begin{equation}\label{Amix-t-simple}
1193: \left.\frac{\Gamma(B^0_q(t)\to f)-
1194: \Gamma(\bar B^0_q(t)\to \bar f)}{\Gamma(B^0_q(t)\to f)+
1195: \Gamma(\bar B^0_q(t)\to \bar f)}\right|_{\Delta\Gamma_q=0}
1196: =\pm\sin\phi\,\sin(\Delta M_q t),
1197: \end{equation}
1198: and allows an elegant determination of $\sin\phi$.
1199:
1200:
1201: \begin{figure}
1202: \centering
1203: \includegraphics[width=10.0truecm]{flavour-map-bw.ps}
1204: \caption{A brief roadmap of $B$-decay strategies for the exploration of
1205: CP violation.}
1206: \label{fig:flavour-map}
1207: \end{figure}
1208:
1209:
1210: %
1211: %
1212: %
1213: \subsection{How Could New Physics Enter?}\label{sec:NP}
1214: %
1215: %
1216: %
1217: Using the concept of the low-energy effective Hamiltonians introduced
1218: in Subsection~\ref{ssec:non-lept}, we may address this important question
1219: in a systematic manner \cite{buras-NP}:
1220: \begin{itemize}
1221: \item[(i)] NP may modify the ``strength" of the SM operators through new
1222: short-distance functions which depend on the NP parameters, such as the masses
1223: of charginos, squarks, charged Higgs particles and $\tan\bar\beta\equiv v_2/v_1$
1224: in the ``minimal supersymmetric SM'' (MSSM). The NP particles may enter in
1225: box and penguin topologies, and are ``integrated out'' as the $W$ boson and
1226: top quark in the SM. Consequently, the initial conditions for the
1227: renormalization-group evolution take the following form:
1228: \begin{equation}\label{WC-NP}
1229: C_k \to C_k^{\rm SM} + C_k^{\rm NP}.
1230: \end{equation}
1231: It should be emphasized that the NP pieces $C_k^{\rm NP}$ may also involve
1232: new CP-violating phases which are {\it not} related to the CKM matrix.
1233: \item[(ii)] NP may enhance the operator basis:
1234: \begin{equation}
1235: \{Q_k\} \to \{Q_k^{\rm SM}, Q_l^{\rm NP}\},
1236: \end{equation}
1237: so that operators which are not present (or strongly suppressed) in the
1238: SM may actually play an important r\^ole. In this case, we encounter,
1239: in general, also new sources for flavour and CP violation.
1240: \end{itemize}
1241: The $B$-meson system offers a variety of processes and strategies for the
1242: exploration of CP violation \cite{CKM-book,RF-Phys-Rep}, as we have illustrated in
1243: Fig.~\ref{fig:flavour-map} through a collection of prominent examples.
1244: We see that there are processes with a very {\it different} dynamics that
1245: are -- in the SM -- sensitive to the {\it same} angles of the UT.
1246: Moreover, rare $B$- and $K$-meson decays \cite{rare},
1247: which originate from loop effects in the SM, provide complementary insights
1248: into flavour physics and interesting correlations with the CP-B sector; key
1249: examples are $B\to X_s\gamma$ and the exclusive modes
1250: $B\to K^\ast \gamma$, $B\to\rho\gamma$, as well as $B_{s,d}\to \mu^+\mu^-$
1251: and $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$, $K_{\rm L}\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$.
1252:
1253: In the presence of NP contributions, the subtle interplay between the different
1254: processes could well be disturbed. There are two popular avenues for NP to
1255: enter the roadmap of quark-flavour physics:
1256: \begin{itemize}
1257: \item[(i)]{\it $B^0_q$--$\bar B^0_q$ mixing:} NP could enter through the exchange
1258: of new particles in the box diagrams, or through new contributions at the
1259: tree level, thereby leading to
1260: \begin{equation}\label{Dm-Phi-NP}
1261: \Delta M_q=\Delta M_q^{\rm SM}+\Delta M_q^{\rm NP}, \quad
1262: \phi_q=\phi_q^{\rm SM}+\phi_q^{\rm NP}.
1263: \end{equation}
1264: Whereas $\Delta M_q^{\rm NP}$ would affect the determination of the UT
1265: side $R_t$, $\phi_q^{\rm NP}$ would manifest itself through mixing-induced
1266: CP asymmetries. Using dimensional arguments borrowed from effective field
1267: theory \cite{FM-BpsiK,FIM}, it can be shown that
1268: $\Delta M_q^{\rm NP}/\Delta M_q^{\rm SM}\sim1$ and
1269: $\phi_q^{\rm NP}/\phi_q^{\rm SM}\sim1$ could -- in principle -- be possible
1270: for a NP scale $\Lambda_{\rm NP}$ in the TeV regime; such a pattern may
1271: also arise in specific NP scenarios. Thanks to the $B$-factory data, dramatic
1272: NP effects of this kind are already ruled out in the $B_d$-meson system,
1273: although the new world average for $(\sin 2\beta)_{\psi K_{\rm S}}$
1274: could be interpreted in terms of $\phi_q^{\rm NP}\sim-8^\circ$.
1275: On the other hand, the $B_s$ sector is still essentially unexplored, thereby
1276: leaving a lot of hope for the LHC.
1277: \item[(ii)]{\it Decay amplitudes:} NP has typically a small effect if SM tree processes
1278: play the dominant r\^ole. However, NP could well have a significant impact on
1279: the FCNC sector: new particles may enter in penguin or box diagrams, or new
1280: FCNC contributions may even be generated at the tree level. In fact, sizeable
1281: contributions arise generically in field-theoretical estimates with
1282: $\Lambda_{\rm NP}\sim\mbox{TeV}$ \cite{FM-BphiK}, as well as in specific
1283: NP models. Interestingly, there are hints in the $B$-factory data that this may
1284: actually be the case.
1285: \end{itemize}
1286: Concerning model-dependent NP analyses, in particular SUSY
1287: scenarios have received a lot of attention; for a selection of recent studies, see
1288: Refs.~\cite{GOSST}--\cite{GHK}. Examples of other fashionable NP scenarios
1289: are left--right-symmetric models \cite{LR-sym}, scenarios with extra dimensions
1290: \cite{extra-dim}, models with an extra $Z'$ \cite{Z-prime}, ``little Higgs''
1291: scenarios \cite{little-higgs}, and models with a fourth generation \cite{hou-4}.
1292:
1293: The simplest extension of the SM is given by models with ``minimal flavour violation'' (MFV). Following the characterization given in Ref.~\cite{MFV-1},
1294: the flavour-changing processes are here still governed by the CKM matrix -- in
1295: particular there are no new sources for CP violation -- and the only relevant
1296: operators are those present in the SM (for an alternative definition, see
1297: Ref.~\cite{MFV-2}). Specific examples are the Two-Higgs Doublet Model II,
1298: the MSSM without new sources of flavour violation and $\tan\bar\beta$ not
1299: too large, models with one extra universal dimension and the simplest
1300: little Higgs models. Due to their simplicity, the extensions of the SM with
1301: MFV show several correlations between various observables,
1302: thereby allowing for powerful tests of this scenario \cite{buras-MFV}. A
1303: systematic discussion of models with ``next-to-minimal flavour violation" was
1304: recently given in Ref.~\cite{NMFV}.
1305:
1306: There are other fascinating probes for the search of NP. Important examples are
1307: the $D$-meson system \cite{petrov}, electric dipole moments \cite{PR}, or
1308: flavour-violating charged lepton decays \cite{CEPRT}. Since a discussion of
1309: these topics is beyond the scope of this review, the interested reader should consult
1310: the corresponding references. Let us next have a closer look at prominent $B$
1311: decays, with a particular emphasis of the impact of NP.
1312:
1313:
1314: \begin{figure}[t]
1315: \centerline{
1316: \includegraphics[width=5.7truecm]{B0dtoK0Jpsi-tree.ps}
1317: \hspace*{0.5truecm}
1318: \includegraphics[width=5.7truecm]{B0dtoK0Jpsi-pen.ps}
1319: }
1320: \vspace*{-0.3truecm}
1321: \caption{Feynman diagrams contributing to $B^0_d\to J/\psi K^0$
1322: decays.}\label{fig:BpsiK-diag}
1323: \end{figure}
1324:
1325:
1326:
1327: %
1328: %
1329: %
1330: \boldmath
1331: \section{Status of Important $B$-Factory Benchmark Modes}\label{sec:bench}
1332: \unboldmath
1333: %
1334: %
1335: %
1336: \subsection{$B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$}\label{ssec:BpsiK}
1337: %
1338: %
1339: %
1340: This decay has a CP-odd final state, and originates from
1341: $\bar b\to\bar c c \bar s$ quark-level transitions. Consequently, as we
1342: discussed in the context of the classification in Subsection~\ref{ssec:non-lept},
1343: it receives contributions both from tree and from penguin topologies,
1344: as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:BpsiK-diag}. In the SM, the decay
1345: amplitude can hence be written as follows \cite{RF-BdsPsiK}:
1346: \begin{equation}\label{Bd-ampl1}
1347: A(B_d^0\to J/\psi K_{\rm S})=\lambda_c^{(s)}\left(A_{\rm T}^{c'}+
1348: A_{\rm P}^{c'}\right)+\lambda_u^{(s)}A_{\rm P}^{u'}
1349: +\lambda_t^{(s)}A_{\rm P}^{t'}.
1350: \end{equation}
1351: Here the
1352: \begin{equation}\label{lamqs-def}
1353: \lambda_q^{(s)}\equiv V_{qs}V_{qb}^\ast
1354: \end{equation}
1355: are CKM factors, $A_{\rm T}^{c'}$ is the CP-conserving strong tree amplitude,
1356: while the $A_{\rm P}^{q'}$ describe the penguin topologies with internal
1357: $q$ quarks ($q\in\{u,c,t\})$, including QCD and EW penguins;
1358: the primes remind us that we are dealing with a $\bar b\to\bar s$
1359: transition. If we eliminate now $\lambda_t^{(s)}$ through (\ref{UT-rel})
1360: and apply the Wolfenstein parametrization, we obtain
1361: \begin{equation}\label{BdpsiK-ampl2}
1362: A(B_d^0\to J/\psi K_{\rm S})\propto\left[1+\lambda^2 a e^{i\theta}
1363: e^{i\gamma}\right],
1364: \end{equation}
1365: where
1366: \begin{equation}
1367: a e^{i\vartheta}\equiv\left(\frac{R_b}{1-\lambda^2}\right)
1368: \left[\frac{A_{\rm P}^{u'}-A_{\rm P}^{t'}}{A_{\rm T}^{c'}+
1369: A_{\rm P}^{c'}-A_{\rm P}^{t'}}\right]
1370: \end{equation}
1371: is a hadronic parameter. Using now the formalism of
1372: Subsection~\ref{ssec:CP-strat} yields
1373: \begin{equation}\label{xi-BdpsiKS}
1374: \xi_{\psi K_{\rm S}}^{(d)}=+e^{-i\phi_d}\left[\frac{1+
1375: \lambda^2a e^{i\vartheta}e^{-i\gamma}}{1+\lambda^2a e^{i\vartheta}
1376: e^{+i\gamma}}\right].
1377: \end{equation}
1378: Unfortunately, $a e^{i\vartheta}$, which is a measure for the ratio of the
1379: $B_d^0\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ penguin to tree contributions,
1380: can only be estimated with large hadronic uncertainties. However, since
1381: this parameter enters (\ref{xi-BdpsiKS}) in a doubly Cabibbo-suppressed way, its
1382: impact on the CP-violating observables is practically negligible. We can put
1383: this important statement on a more quantitative basis by making the plausible
1384: assumption that $a={\cal O}(\bar\lambda)={\cal O}(0.2)={\cal O}(\lambda)$,
1385: where $\bar\lambda$ is a ``generic'' expansion parameter:
1386: \begin{eqnarray}
1387: {\cal A}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize dir}}}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize
1388: CP}}}(B_d\to J/\psi K_{\mbox{{\scriptsize S}}})&=&0+
1389: {\cal O}(\overline{\lambda}^3)\label{Adir-BdpsiKS}\\
1390: {\cal A}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize mix}}}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize
1391: CP}}}(B_d\to J/\psi K_{\mbox{{\scriptsize S}}})&=&-\sin\phi_d +
1392: {\cal O}(\overline{\lambda}^3) \, \stackrel{\rm SM}{=} \, -\sin2\beta+
1393: {\cal O}(\overline{\lambda}^3).\label{Amix-BdpsiKS}
1394: \end{eqnarray}
1395: Consequently, (\ref{Amix-BdpsiKS}) allows an essentially {\it clean}
1396: determination of $\sin2\beta$ \cite{bisa}.
1397:
1398: Since the CKM fits performed within the SM pointed to a large value of
1399: $\sin2\beta$, $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ offered the exciting perspective
1400: of exhibiting {\it large} mixing-induced CP violation. In 2001, the measurement of
1401: ${\cal A}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize mix}}}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize CP}}}
1402: (B_d\to J/\psi K_{\mbox{{\scriptsize S}}})$
1403: allowed indeed the first observation of CP violation {\it outside} the
1404: $K$-meson system \cite{CP-B-obs}.
1405: The most recent data are still not showing any signal for {\it direct} CP violation
1406: in $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ within the current uncertainties, as is expected from
1407: (\ref{Adir-BdpsiKS}). The current world average reads as follows \cite{HFAG}:
1408: \begin{equation}
1409: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S})=0.026\pm0.041.
1410: \end{equation}
1411: As far as (\ref{Amix-BdpsiKS}) is concerned, we have
1412: \begin{equation}\label{s2b-psiK-exp}
1413: \hspace*{-2.0truecm}(\sin2\beta)_{\psi K_{\rm S}}\equiv
1414: -{\cal A}^{\mbox{{\scriptsize mix}}}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize
1415: CP}}}(B_d\to J/\psi K_{\mbox{{\scriptsize S}}})
1416: =\left\{
1417: \begin{array}{ll}
1418: 0.722\pm0.040\pm0.023 & \mbox{(BaBar \cite{s2b-babar})}\\
1419: 0.652\pm0.039\pm0.020 & \mbox{(Belle \cite{s2b-belle}),}
1420: \end{array}
1421: \right.
1422: \end{equation}
1423: which gives the following world average \cite{HFAG}:
1424: \begin{equation}\label{s2b-average}
1425: (\sin 2\beta)_{\psi K_{\rm S}}=0.687\pm0.032.
1426: \end{equation}
1427: Within the SM, the theoretical uncertainties are generically expected to be
1428: below the 0.01 level; significantly smaller effects are found in \cite{BMR},
1429: whereas a fit performed in \cite{CPS} yields a theoretical penguin uncertainty
1430: comparable to the present experimental systematic error. A possibility
1431: to control these uncertainties is provided by the $B^0_s\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$
1432: channel \cite{RF-BdsPsiK}, which can be explored at the LHC \cite{LHC-Book}.
1433:
1434: In \cite{FM-BpsiK}, a set of observables was introduced, which allows us to search
1435: systematically for NP contributions to the $B\to J/\psi K $ decay amplitudes. It
1436: uses also the charged $B^\pm\to J/\psi K^\pm$ decay, and is given as follows:
1437: \begin{equation}\label{BpsiK}
1438: {\cal B}_{\psi K}\equiv \frac{1-{\cal A}_{\psi K}}{1+{\cal A}_{\psi K}},
1439: \end{equation}
1440: with
1441: \begin{equation}\label{ApsiK-def}
1442: {\cal A}_{\psi K}\equiv\left[\frac{\mbox{BR}(B^+\to J/\psi K^+)+
1443: \mbox{BR}(B^-\to J/\psi K^-)}{\mbox{BR}(B^0_d\to J/\psi K^0)+
1444: \mbox{BR}(\bar B^0_d\to J/\psi\bar K^0)}
1445: \right]\left[\frac{\tau_{B^0_d}}{\tau_{B^+}}\right],
1446: \end{equation}
1447: and
1448: \begin{equation}\label{DpmPsiK}
1449: {\cal D}^\pm_{\psi K}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left[
1450: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S})\pm
1451: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B^\pm\to J/\psi K^\pm)\right].
1452: \end{equation}
1453: As is discussed in detail in \cite{RF-Phys-Rep,FM-BpsiK},
1454: the observables ${\cal B}_{\psi K}$
1455: and ${\cal D}^-_{\psi K}$ are sensitive to NP in the $I=1$ isospin sector,
1456: whereas a non-vanishing value of ${\cal D}^+_{\psi K}$ would signal NP in the
1457: $I=0$ isospin sector. Moreover, the NP contributions with $I=1$ are expected
1458: to be dynamically suppressed with respect to the $I=0$ case because of their
1459: flavour structure. Using the most recent $B$-factory results, we obtain
1460: \begin{equation}\label{B-Dpm-PsiK-res}
1461: \hspace*{-0.7truecm} {\cal B}_{\psi K} =-0.035\pm0.037,\quad
1462: {\cal D}^-_{\psi K}=0.010\pm0.023, \quad
1463: {\cal D}^+_{\psi K}=0.017\pm0.023.
1464: \end{equation}
1465: Consequently, NP effects of ${\cal O}(10\%)$ in the $I=1$ sector of the
1466: $B\to J/\psi K$ decay amplitudes are already disfavoured by the
1467: data for ${\cal B}_{\psi K}$ and ${\cal D}^-_{\psi K}$. However, since a
1468: non-vanishing value of ${\cal D}^+_{\psi K}$ requires also a large CP-conserving
1469: strong phase, this observable still leaves room for sizeable NP
1470: contributions to the $I=0$ sector.
1471:
1472: Thanks to the new Belle result listed in (\ref{s2b-psiK-exp}), the average for
1473: $(\sin2\beta)_{\psi K_{\rm S}}$ went down by about $1 \sigma$, which
1474: is a somewhat surprising development of this summer. Consequently,
1475: the comparison of (\ref{s2b-average}) with the CKM fits in the
1476: $\bar\rho$--$\bar\eta$ plane does no longer look ``perfect", as we saw
1477: in Fig.~\ref{fig:UTfits}. In particular, if we use the value of the UT fits for
1478: $\sin2\beta$ that follow from the experimental information for the UT sides
1479: and $\varepsilon_K$, $(\sin 2\beta)_{\rm UT}=0.791\pm0.034$ \cite{UTfit},
1480: we obtain
1481: \begin{equation}\label{S-psi-K}
1482: {\cal S}_{\psi K}\equiv (\sin 2\beta)_{\psi K_{\rm S}}-(\sin 2\beta)_{\rm UT}=
1483: -0.104\pm0.047.
1484: \end{equation}
1485: The are two limiting cases of this possible discrepancy with the KM mechanism
1486: of CP violation: NP contributions to the $B\to J/\psi K$ decay amplitudes, or
1487: NP effects entering through $B^0_d$--$\bar B^0_d$ mixing. Let us first illustrate
1488: the former case. Since the NP effects in the $I=1$ sector are expected to be
1489: dynamically suppressed, we consider only NP in the $I=0$ isospin sector,
1490: which implies ${\cal B}_{\psi K} ={\cal D}^-_{\psi K}=0$, in accordance with
1491: (\ref{B-Dpm-PsiK-res}). To simplify the discussion, we assume that there is
1492: effectively only a single NP contribution of this kind, so that we may write
1493: \begin{equation}\label{ApsiK-NP}
1494: A(B^0_d\to J/\psi K^0)=A_0\left[1+v_0e^{i(\Delta_0+\phi_0)}\right]=A(B^+\to J/\psi K^+).
1495: \end{equation}
1496: Here $v_0$ and the CP-conserving strong phase $\Delta_0$ are hadronic parameters,
1497: whereas $\phi_0$ denotes a CP-violating phase originating beyond the SM.
1498: An interesting specific scenario falling into this category arises if the NP effects
1499: enter through EW penguins. This kind of NP has recently received a lot of attention
1500: in the context of the $B\to\pi K$ puzzle, which we shall discuss in
1501: Section~\ref{sec:BpiK-puzzle}. Also within the SM, where $\phi_0$ vanishes,
1502: EW penguins have a sizeable impact on the $B\to J/\psi K$ system \cite{RF-EWP-rev}.
1503: Using factorization, the following estimate can be obtained \cite{BFRS}:
1504: \begin{equation}\label{v-SM}
1505: \left. v_0e^{i\Delta_0}\right|_{\rm fact}^{\rm SM}\approx -0.03.
1506: \end{equation}
1507: In Figs.~\ref{fig:Plot-BpsiK} (a) and (b), we show the situation in the
1508: ${\cal S}_{\psi K}$--${\cal D}^+_{\psi K}$ plane for $\phi_0=-90^\circ$
1509: and $\phi_0=+90^\circ$, respectively. The contours correspond to
1510: different values of $v_0$, and are obtained by varying $\Delta_0$ between
1511: $0^\circ$ and $360^\circ$; the experimental data are represented by the diamonds
1512: with the error bars. Since factorization gives $\Delta_0=180^\circ$, as can be
1513: seen in (\ref{v-SM}), the case of $\phi_0=-90^\circ$ is disfavoured. On the
1514: other hand, in the case of $\phi_0=+90^\circ$, the experimental region can straightforwardly be reached for $\Delta_0$ not differing too much from the
1515: factorization result, although an enhancement of $v_0$ by a factor of
1516: ${\cal O}(3)$ with respect to the SM estimate in (\ref{v-SM}), which suffers from
1517: large uncertainties, would simultaneously be required in order to reach the central
1518: experimental value. Consequently, NP contributions to the EW penguin sector
1519: could, in principle, be at the origin of the possible discrepancy indicated by
1520: (\ref{S-psi-K}). This scenario should be carefully monitored as the data improve.
1521:
1522:
1523: \begin{figure}[t]
1524: \centerline{
1525: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1526: {\small(a)} & {\small(b)} \\
1527: \includegraphics[width=7.3truecm]{BpsiK-90m.ps} &
1528: \includegraphics[width=7.3truecm]{BpsiK-90p.ps}
1529: \end{tabular}}
1530: \vspace*{-0.4truecm}
1531: \caption{The situation in the ${\cal S}_{\psi K}$--${\cal D}^+_{\psi K}$ plane for
1532: NP contributions to the $B\to J/\psi K$ decay amplitudes in the $I=0$ isospin
1533: sector for NP phases $\phi_0=-90^\circ$ (a) and $\phi_0=+90^\circ$ (b). The
1534: diamonds with the error bars represent the averages of the current data, whereas
1535: the numbers correspond to the values of $\Delta_0$ and $v_0$.}\label{fig:Plot-BpsiK}
1536: \end{figure}
1537:
1538:
1539: Another explanation of (\ref{S-psi-K}) is provided by CP-violating NP contributions to
1540: $B^0_d$--$\bar B^0_d$ mixing, which affect the corresponding mixing phase as follows:
1541: \begin{equation}\label{ref-phid}
1542: \phi_d=\phi_d^{\rm SM}+\phi_d^{\rm NP}=2\beta+\phi_d^{\rm NP}.
1543: \end{equation}
1544: If we assume that the NP contributions to the $B\to J/\psi K$ decay amplitudes
1545: are negligible, the world average in (\ref{s2b-average}) implies
1546: \begin{equation}\label{phid-exp}
1547: \phi_d=(43.4\pm2.5)^\circ \quad\lor\quad (136.6\pm2.5)^\circ.
1548: \end{equation}
1549: Here the latter solution would be in dramatic conflict with the CKM fits, and
1550: would require a large NP contribution to $B^0_d$--$\bar B^0_d$
1551: mixing \cite{FIM,FlMa}. Both solutions can be distinguished through the
1552: measurement of the sign of $\cos\phi_d$, where a positive value would
1553: select the SM-like branch. Using an angular analysis of the decay products of
1554: $B_d\to J/\psi[\to\ell^+\ell^-] K^\ast[\to\pi^0K_{\rm S}]$ processes,
1555: the BaBar collaboration finds \cite{babar-c2b}
1556: \begin{equation}
1557: \cos\phi_d =2.72^{+0.50}_{-0.79} \pm 0.27,
1558: \end{equation}
1559: thereby favouring the solution around $\phi_d=43^\circ$. Interestingly, this
1560: picture emerges also from the first data for CP-violating effects in
1561: $B_d\to D^{(*)\pm}\pi^\mp$ modes \cite{RF-gam-ca}, and an analysis of
1562: the $B\to\pi\pi,\pi K$ system \cite{BFRS}, although in an indirect manner.
1563: Recently, a new method has been proposed, which makes use of
1564: the interference pattern in $D\to K_{\rm S}\pi^+\pi^-$ decays emerging
1565: from $B_d\to D\pi^0$ and similar decays \cite{bo-ge}. The results of
1566: this method are also consistent with the SM, so that a negative value
1567: of $\cos\phi_d$ is now ruled out with greater than 95\% confidence
1568: \cite{gershon}.
1569: Since the value of $(\sin2\beta)_{\rm UT}$ given before (\ref{S-psi-K}) corresponds
1570: to $\beta=(26.1\pm1.6)^\circ$, (\ref{ref-phid}) yields
1571: $\phi_d^{\rm NP}=-(8.9\pm4.1)^\circ$. Consequently, the $B$-factory data do not
1572: leave too much space for CP-violating NP contributions to $B^0_d$--$\bar B^0_d$
1573: mixing. On the other hand, such effects are still unexplored in
1574: $B^0_s$--$\bar B^0_s$ mixing, where they can nicely be probed through
1575: $B^0_s\to J/\psi \phi$ decays, which are very accessible at the LHC. For
1576: NP models that are interesting in this context, see
1577: Refs.~\cite{JN,BKK,Z-prime}.
1578:
1579: The possibility of having a non-zero value of (\ref{S-psi-K}) could of course just
1580: be due to a statistical fluctuation. However, should it be confirmed,
1581: it could be due to CP-violating NP contributions to the $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$
1582: decay amplitude or to $B^0_d$--$\bar B^0_d$ mixing, as we just saw.
1583: A tool to distinguish between these avenues is provided by decays
1584: of the kind $B_d\to D\pi^0, D\rho^0, ...$, which are pure ``tree" decays, i.e.\
1585: they do {\it not} receive any penguin contributions. If the neutral $D$ mesons
1586: are observed through their decays into CP eigenstates $D_\pm$, these decays
1587: allow extremely clean determinations of the ``true" value of $\sin2\beta$
1588: \cite{RF-BdDpi0}, as we shall discuss in more detail in Subsection~\ref{ssec:BsDsK}.
1589: In view of (\ref{S-psi-K}), this would be very interesting, so that detailed
1590: feasibility studies for the exploration of the $B_d\to D\pi^0, D\rho^0, ...$\ modes
1591: at a super-$B$ factory are strongly encouraged.
1592:
1593:
1594: \begin{figure}[t]
1595: \centerline{
1596: \includegraphics[width=5.5truecm]{B0dtophiK0.ps}
1597: }
1598: \vspace*{-0.3truecm}
1599: \caption{Feynman diagrams contributing to $B^0_d\to \phi K^0$
1600: decays.}\label{fig:BphiK-diag}
1601: \end{figure}
1602:
1603:
1604: \begin{figure}
1605: \centerline{
1606: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1607: {\small(a)} & {\small(b)} \\
1608: \includegraphics[width=7.3truecm]{BaBar-evol.ps} &
1609: \includegraphics[width=7.3truecm]{Belle-evol.ps}
1610: \end{tabular}
1611: }
1612: \vspace*{-0.4truecm}
1613: \caption{The time evolution of the BaBar (a) and Belle (b) data for
1614: the CP violation in $B_d\to \phi K_{\rm S}$. The diamonds represent the
1615: SM relations (\ref{BphiK-rel1})--(\ref{Bd-phiKS-SM-rel}) with
1616: (\ref{s2b-average}).}\label{fig:BphiK-data}
1617: \end{figure}
1618:
1619:
1620: %
1621: %
1622: %
1623: \subsection{$B^0_d\to \phi K_{\rm S}$}\label{ssec:BphiK}
1624: %
1625: %
1626: %
1627: Another important probe for the testing of the KM mechanism is
1628: offered by $B_d^0\to \phi K_{\rm S}$, which is a
1629: decay into a CP-odd final state. As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:BphiK-diag},
1630: it originates from $\bar b\to \bar s s \bar s$ transitions and is, therefore, a
1631: pure penguin mode. This decay is described by the low-energy effective
1632: Hamiltonian in (\ref{e4}) with $r=s$, where the current--current operators
1633: may only contribute through penguin-like contractions, which describe the
1634: penguin topologies with internal up- and charm-quark exchanges. The dominant
1635: r\^ole is played by the QCD penguin operators \cite{BphiK-old}. However,
1636: thanks to the large top-quark mass, EW penguins have a sizeable impact as
1637: well \cite{RF-EWP,DH-PhiK}. In the SM, we may write
1638: \begin{equation}\label{B0phiK0-ampl}
1639: A(B_d^0\to \phi K_{\rm S})=\lambda_u^{(s)}\tilde A_{\rm P}^{u'}
1640: +\lambda_c^{(s)}\tilde A_{\rm P}^{c'}+\lambda_t^{(s)}\tilde A_{\rm P}^{t'},
1641: \end{equation}
1642: where we have applied the same notation as in Subsection~\ref{ssec:BpsiK}.
1643: Eliminating the CKM factor $\lambda_t^{(s)}$ with the help of
1644: (\ref{UT-rel}) yields
1645: \begin{equation}
1646: A(B_d^0\to \phi K_{\rm S})\propto
1647: \left[1+\lambda^2 b e^{i\Theta}e^{i\gamma}\right],
1648: \end{equation}
1649: where
1650: \begin{equation}
1651: b e^{i\Theta}\equiv\left(\frac{R_b}{1-\lambda^2}\right)\left[
1652: \frac{\tilde A_{\rm P}^{u'}-\tilde A_{\rm P}^{t'}}{\tilde A_{\rm P}^{c'}-
1653: \tilde A_{\rm P}^{t'}}\right].
1654: \end{equation}
1655: Consequently, we obtain
1656: \begin{equation}\label{xi-phiKS}
1657: \xi_{\phi K_{\rm S}}^{(d)}=+e^{-i\phi_d}
1658: \left[\frac{1+\lambda^2b e^{i\Theta}e^{-i\gamma}}{1+
1659: \lambda^2b e^{i\Theta}e^{+i\gamma}}\right].
1660: \end{equation}
1661: The theoretical estimates of $b e^{i\Theta}$
1662: suffer from large hadronic uncertainties. However, since this parameter enters
1663: (\ref{xi-phiKS}) in a doubly Cabibbo-suppressed way, we obtain the
1664: following expressions \cite{RF-EWP-rev}:
1665: \begin{eqnarray}
1666: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to \phi K_{\rm S})&=&0+
1667: {\cal O}(\lambda^2)\label{BphiK-rel1}\\
1668: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to \phi K_{\rm S})&=&-\sin\phi_d
1669: +{\cal O}(\lambda^2),\label{BphiK-rel2}
1670: \end{eqnarray}
1671: where we made the plausible assumption that $b={\cal O}(1)$. On the other
1672: hand, the mixing-induced CP asymmetry of
1673: $B_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ measures also $-\sin\phi_d$, as we saw in
1674: (\ref{Amix-BdpsiKS}). We arrive therefore at the following
1675: relation \cite{RF-EWP-rev,growo}:
1676: \begin{equation}\label{Bd-phiKS-SM-rel}
1677: -(\sin2\beta)_{\phi K_{\rm S}}\equiv
1678: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to \phi K_{\rm S})
1679: ={\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}) +
1680: {\cal O}(\lambda^2),
1681: \end{equation}
1682: which offers an interesting test of the SM. Since $B_d\to \phi K_{\rm S}$ is
1683: governed by penguin processes in the SM, this decay may well be affected by
1684: NP. In fact, if we assume that NP arises generically in the TeV regime, it can be
1685: shown through field-theoretical estimates that the NP contributions to
1686: $b\to s\bar s s$ transitions may well lead to sizeable violations of
1687: (\ref{BphiK-rel1}) and (\ref{Bd-phiKS-SM-rel}) \cite{RF-Phys-Rep,FM-BphiK}. Moreover,
1688: this is also the case for several specific NP scenarios; for examples, see
1689: Refs.~\cite{CFMS,Ko,GHK,Z-prime-BpiK}.
1690:
1691:
1692: \begin{figure}
1693: \centerline{
1694: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1695: {\small(a)} & {\small(b)} \\
1696: \includegraphics[width=7.3truecm]{BphiK-90m.ps} &
1697: \includegraphics[width=7.3truecm]{BphiK-90p.ps}
1698: \end{tabular}}
1699: \vspace*{-0.4truecm}
1700: \caption{The situation in the ${\cal S}_{\phi K}$--${\cal D}^+_{\phi K}$ plane for
1701: NP contributions to the $B\to \phi K$ decay amplitudes in the $I=0$ isospin
1702: sector for NP phases $\phi_0=-90^\circ$ (a) and $\phi_0=+90^\circ$ (b). The
1703: diamonds with the error bars represent the averages of the current data, whereas
1704: the numbers correspond to the values of $\tilde\Delta_0$ and
1705: $\tilde v_0$.}\label{fig:Plot-BphiK}
1706: \end{figure}
1707:
1708:
1709: In Fig.~\ref{fig:BphiK-data}, we show the time evolution of the $B$-factory data
1710: for the measurements of CP violation in $B_d\to\phi K_{\rm S}$, using the results
1711: reported at the LP~'03 \cite{LP03}, ICHEP~'04 \cite{ICHEP04} and LP~'05 \cite{LP05}
1712: conferences. Because of (\ref{Obs-rel}), the corresponding observables have
1713: to lie inside a circle with radius one around the origin, which is represented by the
1714: dashed lines. The result announced by the Belle collaboration in
1715: 2003 led to quite some excitement in the community. Meanwhile, the Babar
1716: \cite{BaBar-Bphi-K} and Belle \cite{Belle-Bphi-K} results are in good agreement
1717: with each other, yielding the following averages \cite{HFAG}:
1718: \begin{equation}\label{BphiK-av}
1719: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to \phi K_{\rm S})=-0.09\pm0.14, \quad
1720: (\sin2\beta)_{\phi K_{\rm S}}=0.47\pm0.19.
1721: \end{equation}
1722: If we take (\ref{s2b-average}) into account, we obtain the following result for
1723: the counterpart of (\ref{S-psi-K}):
1724: \begin{equation}\label{S-phi-K}
1725: {\cal S}_{\phi K}\equiv (\sin 2\beta)_{\phi K_{\rm S}}- (\sin 2\beta)_{\psi K_{\rm S}}
1726: =-0.22\pm0.19.
1727: \end{equation}
1728: This number still appears to be somewhat on the lower side, thereby indicating potential
1729: NP contributions to $b\to s \bar s s$ processes.
1730:
1731: Further insights into the origin and the isospin structure of NP contributions
1732: can be obtained through a combined analysis of the neutral and charged
1733: $B\to \phi K$ modes with the help of observables
1734: ${\cal B}_{\phi K}$ and ${\cal D}^\pm_{\phi K}$ \cite{FM-BphiK}, which are
1735: defined in analogy to (\ref{BpsiK}) and (\ref{DpmPsiK}), respectively. The
1736: current experimental results read as follows:
1737: \begin{equation}\label{B-Dpm-PhiK-res}
1738: \hspace*{-0.7truecm} {\cal B}_{\phi K} =0.00\pm0.08,\quad
1739: {\cal D}^-_{\phi K}=-0.03\pm0.07, \quad
1740: {\cal D}^+_{\phi K}=-0.06\pm0.07.
1741: \end{equation}
1742: As in the $B\to J/\psi K$ case, ${\cal B}_{\phi K}$ and ${\cal D}^-_{\phi K}$ probe
1743: NP effects in the $I=1$ sector, which are expected to be dynamically suppressed,
1744: whereas ${\cal D}^+_{\phi K}$ is sensitive to NP in the $I=0$ sector. The latter
1745: kind of NP could also manifest itself as a non-vanishing value of (\ref{S-phi-K}).
1746:
1747: In order to illustrate these effects, let us consider again the case where NP enters
1748: only in the $I=0$ isospin sector. An important example is given by EW penguins,
1749: which have a significant impact on $B\to\phi K$ decays \cite{RF-EWP}. In analogy
1750: to the discussion in Subsection~\ref{ssec:BpsiK}, we may then write
1751: \begin{equation}\label{AphiK-NP}
1752: A(B^0_d\to \phi K^0)=\tilde A_0\left[1+\tilde v_0e^{i(\tilde \Delta_0+\phi_0)}\right]=
1753: A(B^+ \to \phi K^+),
1754: \end{equation}
1755: which implies ${\cal B}_{\phi K} ={\cal D}^-_{\phi K}=0$, in accordance with
1756: (\ref{B-Dpm-PhiK-res}). The notation corresponds to the one of (\ref{ApsiK-NP}).
1757: Using the factorization approach to deal with the QCD and EW penguin contributions,
1758: we obtain the following estimate in the SM, where the CP-violating NP phase
1759: $\phi_0$ vanishes \cite{BFRS}:
1760: \begin{equation}\label{v-SM-phiK}
1761: \left.\tilde v_0e^{i\tilde \Delta_0}\right|_{\rm fact}^{\rm SM}\approx -0.2.
1762: \end{equation}
1763: In Figs.~\ref{fig:Plot-BphiK} (a) and (b), we show the situation in the
1764: ${\cal S}_{\phi K}$--${\cal D}^+_{\phi K}$ plane for NP phases $\phi_0=-90^\circ$
1765: and $\phi_0=+90^\circ$, respectively, and various values of $\tilde v_0$; each point
1766: of the contours is parametrized by $\tilde\Delta_0\in[0^\circ,360^\circ]$. We observe
1767: that the central values of the current experimental data, which are represented by the
1768: diamonds with the error bars, can straightforwardly be accommodated in this scenario
1769: in the case of $\phi_0=+90^\circ$ for strong phases satisfying $\cos\tilde\Delta_0<0$,
1770: as in factorization. Moreover, as can also be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:Plot-BphiK} (b),
1771: the EW penguin contributions would then have to be suppressed with respect
1772: to the SM estimate, which would be an interesting feature in view of the discussion of
1773: the $B\to \pi K$ puzzle and the rare decay constraints in Section~\ref{sec:BpiK-puzzle}.
1774:
1775: It will be interesting to follow the evolution of the $B$-factory data,
1776: and to monitor also similar modes, such as $B^0_d\to \pi^0 K_{\rm S}$
1777: \cite{PAPIII} and $B^0_d\to \eta'K_{\rm S}$ \cite{loso}. For a compilation of
1778: the corresponding experimental results, see Ref.~\cite{HFAG}; recent
1779: theoretical papers dealing with these channels can be found in
1780: Refs.~\cite{BFRS,GGR,beneke,BFRS-5}. We will return to the CP
1781: asymmetries of the $B^0_d\to \pi^0 K_{\rm S}$ channel in
1782: Section~\ref{sec:BpiK-puzzle}.
1783:
1784:
1785: \begin{figure}[t]
1786: \centerline{
1787: \includegraphics[width=4.5truecm]{B0dtopipi-tree.ps}
1788: \hspace*{0.5truecm}
1789: \includegraphics[width=5.2truecm]{B0dtopipi-pen.ps}
1790: }
1791: \vspace*{-0.3truecm}
1792: \caption{Feynman diagrams contributing to $B^0_d\to \pi^+\pi^-$
1793: decays.}\label{fig:Bpipi-diag}
1794: \end{figure}
1795:
1796:
1797: %
1798: %
1799: %
1800: \subsection{$B^0_d\to \pi^+\pi^-$}\label{ssec:Bpi+pi-}
1801: %
1802: %
1803: %
1804: This decay is a transition into a CP eigenstate with eigenvalue $+1$, and
1805: originates from $\bar b\to\bar u u \bar d$ processes, as can be seen in
1806: Fig.~\ref{fig:Bpipi-diag}. In analogy to (\ref{Bd-ampl1}) and (\ref{B0phiK0-ampl}),
1807: its decay amplitude can be written as follows \cite{RF-BsKK}:
1808: \begin{equation}
1809: A(B_d^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)=
1810: \lambda_u^{(d)}\left(A_{\rm T}^{u}+
1811: A_{\rm P}^{u}\right)+\lambda_c^{(d)}A_{\rm P}^{c}+
1812: \lambda_t^{(d)}A_{\rm P}^{t}.
1813: \end{equation}
1814: Using again (\ref{UT-rel}) to eliminate the CKM factor
1815: $\lambda_t^{(d)}=V_{td}V_{tb}^\ast$ and applying once more the
1816: Wolfenstein parametrization yields
1817: \begin{equation}\label{Bpipi-ampl}
1818: A(B_d^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)={\cal C}\left[e^{i\gamma}-de^{i\theta}\right],
1819: \end{equation}
1820: where the overall normalization ${\cal C}$ and
1821: \begin{equation}\label{D-DEF}
1822: d e^{i\theta}\equiv\frac{1}{R_b}
1823: \left[\frac{A_{\rm P}^{c}-A_{\rm P}^{t}}{A_{\rm T}^{u}+
1824: A_{\rm P}^{u}-A_{\rm P}^{t}}\right]
1825: \end{equation}
1826: are hadronic parameters.
1827: The formalism discussed in Subsection~\ref{ssec:CP-strat} then implies
1828: \begin{equation}\label{xi-Bdpipi}
1829: \xi_{\pi^+\pi^-}^{(d)}=-e^{-i\phi_d}\left[\frac{e^{-i\gamma}-
1830: d e^{i\theta}}{e^{+i\gamma}-d e^{i\theta}}\right].
1831: \end{equation}
1832: In contrast to the expressions (\ref{xi-BdpsiKS}) and (\ref{xi-phiKS})
1833: for the $B_d^0\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ and $B^0_d\to\phi K_{\rm S}$ counterparts,
1834: respectively, the hadronic parameter $d e^{i\theta}$, which suffers from large
1835: theoretical uncertainties, does {\it not} enter (\ref{xi-Bdpipi})
1836: in a doubly Cabibbo-suppressed way. This feature is at the basis of the
1837: famous ``penguin problem'' in $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$, which was addressed
1838: in many papers (see, for instance, \cite{GL}--\cite{GLSS}). If the penguin
1839: contributions to this channel were negligible, i.e.\ $d=0$, its CP asymmetries
1840: were simply given by
1841: \begin{eqnarray}
1842: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)&=&0 \\
1843: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)&=&\sin(\phi_d+2\gamma)
1844: \stackrel{\rm SM}{=}\sin(\underbrace{2\beta+2\gamma}_{2\pi-2\alpha})
1845: =-\sin 2\alpha.
1846: \end{eqnarray}
1847: Consequently, ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)$ would then
1848: allow us to determine $\alpha$. However, in the general case, we obtain
1849: expressions with the help of (\ref{CPV-OBS}) and (\ref{xi-Bdpipi}) of the form
1850: \begin{eqnarray}
1851: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to \pi^+\pi^-)&=&
1852: G_1(d,\theta;\gamma) \label{CP-Bpipi-dir-gen}\\
1853: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to \pi^+\pi^-)&=&
1854: G_2(d,\theta;\gamma,\phi_d);\label{CP-Bpipi-mix-gen}
1855: \end{eqnarray}
1856: for explicit formulae, see \cite{RF-BsKK}. We observe that actually the
1857: phases $\phi_d$ and $\gamma$ enter directly in the $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$
1858: observables, and not $\alpha$. Consequently, since $\phi_d$ can be fixed
1859: through the mixing-induced CP violation in the ``golden'' mode
1860: $B_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$, as we have seen in Subsection~\ref{ssec:BpsiK},
1861: we may use $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ to probe $\gamma$.
1862:
1863: The current measurements of the $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ CP asymmetries
1864: are given as follows:
1865: \begin{eqnarray}
1866: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)
1867: &=&\left\{
1868: \begin{array}{ll}
1869: -0.09\pm0.15\pm0.04 & \mbox{(BaBar \cite{BaBar-Bpipi-05})}\\
1870: -0.56\pm0.12\pm0.06 & \mbox{(Belle \cite{Belle-Bpipi-05})}
1871: \end{array}
1872: \right.\label{Adir-exp}\\
1873: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)
1874: &=&\left\{
1875: \begin{array}{ll}
1876: +0.30\pm0.17\pm0.03& \mbox{(BaBar \cite{BaBar-Bpipi-05})}\\
1877: +0.67\pm0.16\pm0.06 & \mbox{(Belle \cite{Belle-Bpipi-05}).}
1878: \end{array}
1879: \right.\label{Amix-exp}
1880: \end{eqnarray}
1881: The BaBar and Belle results are still not fully consistent with each other,
1882: although the experiments are now in better agreement. In \cite{HFAG},
1883: the following averages were obtained:
1884: \begin{eqnarray}
1885: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)&=&-0.37\pm0.10
1886: \label{Bpipi-CP-averages}\\
1887: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)&=&+0.50\pm0.12.
1888: \label{Bpipi-CP-averages2}
1889: \end{eqnarray}
1890: The central values of these averages are remarkably stable
1891: in time. Direct CP violation at this level would require large penguin
1892: contributions with large CP-conserving strong phases, thereby indicating
1893: large non-factorizable effects.
1894:
1895: This picture is in fact supported by the direct CP violation in $B^0_d\to\pi^-K^+$
1896: modes that could be established by the $B$ factories in
1897: the summer of 2004 \cite{CP-B-dir}. Here the BaBar and Belle results agree
1898: nicely with each other, yielding the following average \cite{HFAG}:
1899: \begin{equation}\label{AdirBdpimKp-exp}
1900: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to\pi^\mp K^\pm)=0.115\pm 0.018.
1901: \end{equation}
1902: The diagrams contributing to $B^0_d\to\pi^-K^+$ can straightforwardly be
1903: obtained from those in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bpipi-diag} by just replacing the anti-down quark
1904: emerging from the $W$ boson through an anti-strange quark. Consequently, the
1905: hadronic matrix elements entering $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B^0_d\to\pi^-K^+$ can be
1906: related to one another through the $SU(3)$ flavour symmetry of strong interactions
1907: and the additional assumption that the penguin annihilation and exchange topologies
1908: contributing to $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$, which have no counterpart in
1909: $B^0_d\to\pi^-K^+$ and involve the ``spectator" down quark in
1910: Fig.~\ref{fig:Bpipi-diag}, play actually a negligible r\^ole \cite{RF-Bpipi}. Following
1911: these lines, we obtain the following relation in the SM:
1912: \begin{equation}\label{H-rel}
1913: \hspace*{-1.7truecm}
1914: H_{\rm BR}\equiv\underbrace{\frac{1}{\epsilon}
1915: \left(\frac{f_K}{f_\pi}\right)^2\left[\frac{\mbox{BR}
1916: (B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)}{\mbox{BR}(B_d\to\pi^\mp K^\pm)}
1917: \right]}_{\mbox{$7.5\pm 0.7$}} =
1918: \underbrace{-\frac{1}{\epsilon}\left[\frac{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to\pi^\mp
1919: K^\pm)}{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)}
1920: \right]}_{\mbox{$6.7\pm 2.0$}} \equiv H_{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}},
1921: \end{equation}
1922: where
1923: \begin{equation}\label{eps-def}
1924: \epsilon\equiv\frac{\lambda^2}{1-\lambda^2}=0.053,
1925: \end{equation}
1926: and the ratio $f_K/f_\pi=160/131$ of the kaon and pion decay constants
1927: defined through
1928: \begin{equation}\label{decay-const-def}
1929: \langle 0|\bar s \gamma_\alpha\gamma_5 u|K^+(k)\rangle=
1930: i f_K k_\alpha, \quad
1931: \langle 0|\bar d \gamma_\alpha\gamma_5 u|\pi^+(k)\rangle=
1932: i f_\pi k_\alpha
1933: \end{equation}
1934: describes
1935: factorizable $SU(3)$-breaking corrections. As usual, the CP-averaged
1936: branching ratios are defined as
1937: \begin{equation}
1938: \mbox{BR}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left[\mbox{BR}(B\to f)+
1939: \mbox{BR}(\bar B\to \bar f)\right].
1940: \end{equation}
1941: In (\ref{H-rel}), we have also given the
1942: numerical values following from the data. Consequently, this relation
1943: is well satisfied within the experimental uncertainties, and does not
1944: show any anomalous behaviour. It supports therefore the SM description
1945: of the $B^0_d\to\pi^-K^+$, $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ decay amplitudes,
1946: and our working assumptions listed before (\ref{H-rel}).
1947:
1948: The quantities $H_{\rm BR}$ and $H_{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}}$ introduced
1949: in this relation can be written as follows:
1950: \begin{equation}\label{H-fct}
1951: H_{\rm BR} = G_3(d,\theta;\gamma) =
1952: H_{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}}.
1953: \end{equation}
1954: If we complement this expression with (\ref{CP-Bpipi-dir-gen}) and
1955: (\ref{CP-Bpipi-mix-gen}), and use (see (\ref{phid-exp}))
1956: \begin{equation}\label{phi-d-det}
1957: \phi_d=(43.4\pm2.5)^\circ,
1958: \end{equation}
1959: we have sufficient information to determine $\gamma$,
1960: as well as $(d,\theta)$ \cite{RF-BsKK,RF-Bpipi,FleischerMatias}. In using
1961: (\ref{phi-d-det}), we assume that the possible discrepancy with the SM
1962: described by (\ref{S-psi-K}) is only due to NP in $B^0_d$--$\bar B^0_d$ mixing
1963: and not to effects entering through the $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ decay amplitude.
1964: As was recently shown in Ref.~\cite{BFRS-5}, the results following from $H_{\rm BR}$
1965: and $H_{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}}$ give results that are in good agreement with
1966: one another. Since the avenue offered by $H_{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}}$
1967: is cleaner than the one provided by $H_{\rm BR}$, it is preferable to use the former
1968: quantity to determine $\gamma$, yielding the following result \cite{BFRS-5}:
1969: \begin{equation}\label{gamma-det}
1970: \gamma=(73.9^{+5.8}_{-6.5})^\circ.
1971: \end{equation}
1972: Here a second solution around $42^\circ$ was discarded, which can be exclueded
1973: through an analysis of the whole $B\to\pi\pi,\pi K$ system \cite{BFRS}. As was recently
1974: discussed \cite{BFRS-5} (see also Refs.~\cite{RF-Bpipi,FleischerMatias}), even large
1975: non-factorizable $SU(3)$-breaking corrections have a remarkably small impact
1976: on the numerical result in (\ref{gamma-det}). The value of $\gamma$ in
1977: (\ref{gamma-det}) is higher than the results following from the CKM fits
1978: \cite{CKMfitter,UTfit}. An even larger value in the ballpark of $80^\circ$ was
1979: recently extracted from the $B\to\pi\pi$ data with the help of SCET
1980: \cite{gam-SCET,SCET-Bdpi0K0}. Performing Dalitz analyses of the neutral
1981: $D$-meson decays in $B^\pm\to D^{(*)} K^\pm$ and $B^\pm\to D K^{*\pm}$
1982: transitions, the $B$ factories have obtained the following results for $\gamma$:
1983: \begin{equation}\label{gam}
1984: \gamma=\left\{
1985: \begin{array}{ll}
1986: (67\pm28\pm13\pm11)^\circ & \mbox{BaBar \cite{Babar-Dal}}\\
1987: (68^{+14}_{-15}\pm13\pm11)^\circ & \mbox{Belle \cite{Belle-Dal},}
1988: \end{array}
1989: \right.
1990: \end{equation}
1991: which agree with (\ref{gamma-det}), although the errors are too large to
1992: draw definite conclusions.
1993:
1994: The interesting feature of the value of $\gamma$ in (\ref{gamma-det}) is
1995: that it should not receive significant NP contributions. If we complement
1996: it with $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ extracted from semi-leptonic tree-level
1997: $B$ decays, which are also very robust with respect to NP effects, we may
1998: determine the ``true'' UT, i.e.\ the reference UT introduced in
1999: Refs.~\cite{GNW,refut}. Using, as in Ref.~\cite{BFRS-5}, the average value
2000: $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|= 0.102\pm 0.005$ (for a detailed discussion, see Ref.~\cite{UTfit})
2001: yields
2002: \begin{equation}\label{UT-true}
2003: \alpha_{\rm true}=(80.3^{+6.6}_{-5.9})^\circ, \quad
2004: \beta_{\rm true}=(25.8\pm1.3)^\circ,
2005: \end{equation}
2006: corresponding to $(\sin 2\beta)_{\rm true}=0.78\pm 0.03$, which is significantly
2007: larger than (\ref{s2b-average}). This difference can be attributed to a
2008: non-vanishing value of the NP phase $\phi_d^{\rm NP}$ in (\ref{Dm-Phi-NP}),
2009: where $\phi_d^{\rm SM}$ corresponds to $2\beta_{\rm true}$. This
2010: exercise yields $\phi^{\rm NP}_d=-(8.2\pm3.5)^\circ$ \cite{BFRS-5}, in
2011: excellent accordance with the discussion in Subsection~\ref{ssec:BpsiK}, and
2012: the recent study of Ref.~\cite{UTfit-NP}. Performing detailed analyses
2013: of $B^0_d\to\rho^+\rho^-$ decays, the $B$ factories have extracted the
2014: following ranges of $\alpha$:
2015: \begin{equation}\label{alph}
2016: \alpha=\left\{
2017: \begin{array}{ll}
2018: (100\pm13)^\circ & \mbox{BaBar \cite{Babar-alph}}\\
2019: (87\pm17)^\circ & \mbox{Belle \cite{Belle-alph},}
2020: \end{array}
2021: \right.
2022: \end{equation}
2023: which can be related to $\alpha_{\rm true}$ with the help of the simple
2024: relation
2025: \begin{equation}
2026: \alpha_{\rm true}=\alpha+ \phi_d^{\rm NP}/2.
2027: \end{equation}
2028: Comparing (\ref{UT-true}) and (\ref{alph}), we observe that the latter
2029: measurements seem also to prefer a {\it negative} value of $\phi^{\rm NP}_d$,
2030: in accordance with the discussion given above, although the current errors are
2031: of course not conclusive. Nevertheless, this pattern is interesting and should
2032: be monitored in the future as the quality of the data improves.
2033:
2034: The decay $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ plays also an important r\^ole in the next section,
2035: dealing with an analysis of the $B\to\pi K$ system.
2036:
2037:
2038:
2039: \begin{figure}
2040: \centerline{
2041: \begin{tabular}{lc}
2042: {\small(a)} & \\
2043: & \includegraphics[width=5.2truecm]{B0dtopimKp-EW-pen.ps}
2044: \hspace*{0.5truecm}
2045: \includegraphics[width=5.2truecm]{BptopipK0-EW-pen.ps} \\
2046: {\small(b)} & \\
2047: & \includegraphics[width=5.2truecm]{B0dtopi0K0-EW-pen.ps}
2048: \hspace*{0.5truecm}
2049: \includegraphics[width=5.2truecm]{Bptopi0KP-EW-pen.ps}
2050: \end{tabular}}
2051: \caption{Examples of the colour-suppressed (a) and colour-allowed (b)
2052: EW penguin contributions to the $B\to\pi K$ system.}\label{fig:BpiK-EWP}
2053: \end{figure}
2054:
2055:
2056:
2057: %
2058: %
2059: %
2060: \boldmath
2061: \section{The $B\to\pi K$ Puzzle and its Relation to Rare $B$ and
2062: $K$ Decays}\label{sec:BpiK-puzzle}
2063: \unboldmath
2064: %
2065: %
2066: %
2067: \subsection{Preliminaries}\label{ssec:BpiK-prel}
2068: %
2069: %
2070: %
2071: We made already first contact with a $B\to\pi K$ decay in
2072: Subsection~\ref{ssec:Bpi+pi-}, the $B^0_d\to\pi^-K^+$ channel. It receives
2073: contributions both from tree and from penguin topologies. Since this decay
2074: originates from a $\bar b\to\bar s$ transition, the tree amplitude is suppressed
2075: by a CKM factor $\lambda^2 R_b\sim 0.02$ with respect to the penguin
2076: amplitude. Consequently, $B^0_d\to\pi^-K^+$ is governed by QCD penguins;
2077: the tree topologies contribute only at the 20\% level to the decay amplitude.
2078: The feature of the dominance of QCD penguins applies to all $B\to\pi K$ modes,
2079: which can be classified with respect to their EW penguin contributions
2080: as follows (see Fig.~\ref{fig:BpiK-EWP}):
2081: \begin{itemize}
2082: \item[(a)] In the $B^0_d\to\pi^-K^+$ and $B^+\to\pi^+K^0$ decays, EW penguins
2083: contribute in colour-suppressed form and are hence expected to play a minor r\^ole.
2084: \item[(b)] In the $B^0_d\to\pi^0K^0$ and $B^+\to\pi^0K^+$ decays, EW penguins
2085: contribute in colour-allowed form and have therefore a significant impact on the decay
2086: amplitude, entering at the same order of magnitude as the tree contributions.
2087: \end{itemize}
2088: As we noted above, EW penguins offer an attractive avenue for NP to
2089: enter non-leptonic $B$ decays, which is also the case for the
2090: $B\to\pi K$ system \cite{FM-BpiK-NP,trojan}. Indeed, the decays of class (b)
2091: show a puzzling pattern, which may point towards such a NP scenario.
2092: This feature emerged already in 2000 \cite{BF00}, when the CLEO collaboration
2093: reported the observation of the $B^0_d\to\pi^0K^0$ channel with a surprisingly
2094: prominent rate \cite{CLEO00}, and is still present in the most recent BaBar and
2095: Belle data, thereby receiving a lot of attention in the literature (see, for instance,
2096: Refs.~\cite{Z-prime-BpiK} and \cite{BeNe}--\cite{WZ}).
2097:
2098: In the following discussion, we focus on the systematic
2099: strategy to explore the ``$B\to\pi K$ puzzle" developed in Ref.~\cite{BFRS};
2100: all numerical results refer to the most recent analysis presented in
2101: Ref.~\cite{BFRS-5}. The logical structure is very simple: the starting point is
2102: given by the values of $\phi_d$ and $\gamma$ in (\ref{phi-d-det})
2103: and (\ref{gamma-det}), respectively, and by the $B\to\pi\pi$ system,
2104: which allows us to extract a set of hadronic parameters from the data
2105: with the help of the isospin symmetry of strong interactions. Then we make, in
2106: analogy to the determination of $\gamma$ in Subsection~\ref{ssec:Bpi+pi-},
2107: the following working hypotheses:
2108: \begin{itemize}
2109: \item[(i)] $SU(3)$ flavour symmetry of strong interactions (but taking factorizable
2110: $SU(3)$-breaking corrections into account),
2111: \item[(ii)] neglect of penguin annihilation and exchange topologies,
2112: \end{itemize}
2113: which allow us to fix the hadronic $B\to\pi K$ parameters through their $B\to\pi\pi$
2114: counterparts. Interestingly, we may gain confidence in these assumptions through
2115: internal consistency checks (an example is relation (\ref{H-rel})), which work nicely
2116: within the experimental uncertainties. Having the hadronic $B\to\pi K$ parameters
2117: at hand, we can predict the $B\to \pi K$ observables in the SM. The comparison
2118: of the corresponding picture with the $B$-factory data will then guide us to NP
2119: in the EW penguin sector, involving in particular a large CP-violating NP phase. In the
2120: final step, we explore the interplay of this NP scenario with rare $K$ and $B$
2121: decays.
2122:
2123:
2124: %
2125: %
2126: %
2127: \subsection{Extracting Hadronic Parameters from the $B\to\pi\pi$
2128: System}\label{ssec:Bpipi-hadr}
2129: %
2130: %
2131: %
2132: In order to fully exploit the information that is provided by the whole $B\to\pi\pi$
2133: system, we use -- in addition to the two CP-violating $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$
2134: observables -- the following ratios of CP-averaged branching ratios:
2135: \begin{eqnarray}
2136: R_{+-}^{\pi\pi}&\equiv&2\left[\frac{\mbox{BR}(B^+\to\pi^+\pi^0)
2137: +\mbox{BR}(B^-\to\pi^-\pi^0)}{\mbox{BR}(B_d^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)
2138: +\mbox{BR}(\bar B_d^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)}\right]%\stackrel{{\rm exp}}{=}
2139: =2.04\pm0.28
2140: \label{Rpm-def}\\
2141: R_{00}^{\pi\pi}&\equiv&2\left[\frac{\mbox{BR}(B_d^0\to\pi^0\pi^0)+
2142: \mbox{BR}(\bar B_d^0\to\pi^0\pi^0)}{\mbox{BR}(B_d^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)+
2143: \mbox{BR}(\bar B_d^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)}\right]%\stackrel{{\rm exp}}{=}
2144: =0.58\pm0.13.
2145: \end{eqnarray}
2146: The pattern of the experimental numbers in these expressions came as quite
2147: a surprise, as the central values calculated in QCDF gave
2148: $R_{+-}^{\pi\pi}=1.24$ and $R_{00}^{\pi\pi}=0.07$ \cite{BeNe}. As discussed in
2149: detail in \cite{BFRS}, this ``$B\to\pi\pi$ puzzle" can straightforwardly be accommodated
2150: in the SM through large non-factorizable hadronic interference effects, i.e.\
2151: does not point towards NP. For recent SCET analyses,
2152: see Refs.~\cite{SCET-Bdpi0K0,BPRS,FeHu}.
2153:
2154: Using the isospin symmetry of strong interactions, we can write
2155: \begin{equation}\label{Rpipi-gen}
2156: R_{+-}^{\pi\pi}=F_1(d,\theta,x,\Delta;\gamma), \quad
2157: R_{00}^{\pi\pi}=F_2(d,\theta,x,\Delta;\gamma),
2158: \end{equation}
2159: where $xe^{i\Delta}$ is another hadronic parameter, which was introduced
2160: in \cite{BFRS}. Using now, in addition, the CP-violating observables in
2161: (\ref{CP-Bpipi-dir-gen}) and (\ref{CP-Bpipi-mix-gen}), we arrive at the following
2162: set of haronic parameters:
2163: \begin{equation}\label{Bpipi-par-det}
2164: d=0.52^{+0.09}_{-0.09}, \quad
2165: \theta=(146^{+7.0}_{-7.2})^\circ, \quad
2166: x=0.96^{+0.13}_{-0.14}, \quad
2167: \Delta=-(53^{+18}_{-26})^\circ.
2168: \end{equation}
2169: In the extraction of these quantites, also the EW penguin effects in the
2170: $B\to\pi\pi$ system are included \cite{BF98,GPY}, although these topologies have a
2171: tiny impact \cite{PAPIII}. Let us emphasize that the results for the hadronic
2172: parameters listed above, which are consistent with the picture emerging in the
2173: analyses of other authors (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{CGRS,ALP-Bpipi}),
2174: are essentially clean and serve as a testing ground for
2175: calculations within QCD-related approaches. For instance, in
2176: recent QCDF \cite{busa} and PQCD \cite{kesa} analyses, the
2177: following numbers were obtained:
2178: \begin{equation}
2179: \left.d\right|_{\rm QCDF}=0.29\pm0.09, \quad
2180: \left.\theta\right|_{\rm QCDF}=-\left(171.4\pm14.3\right)^\circ,
2181: \end{equation}
2182: \begin{equation}
2183: \left.d\right|_{\rm PQCD}=0.23^{+0.07}_{-0.05}, \quad
2184: +139^\circ < \left.\theta\right|_{\rm PQCD} < +148^\circ,
2185: \end{equation}
2186: which depart significantly from the pattern in (\ref{Bpipi-par-det}) that is implied
2187: by the data.
2188:
2189: Finally, we can predict the CP asymmetries of the decay $B_d\to\pi^0\pi^0$:
2190: \begin{equation}\label{ACP-Bdpi0pi0-pred}
2191: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to \pi^0\pi^0)=-0.30^{+0.48}_{-0.26}, \quad
2192: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to \pi^0\pi^0)=-0.87^{+0.29}_{-0.19}.
2193: \end{equation}
2194: The current experimental value for the direct CP
2195: asymmetry is given as follows \cite{HFAG}:
2196: \begin{equation}\label{ACP-Bdpi0pi0-exp}
2197: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to \pi^0\pi^0)=-0.28^{+0.40}_{-0.39}.
2198: \end{equation}
2199: Consequently, no stringent test of the corresponding prediction
2200: in (\ref{ACP-Bdpi0pi0-pred}) is provided at this stage, although the
2201: indicated agreement is encouraging.
2202:
2203:
2204:
2205:
2206: %
2207: %
2208: %
2209: \subsection{Analysis of the $B\to\pi K$ System}\label{ssec:BpiK}
2210: %
2211: %
2212: %
2213: Let us begin the analysis of the $B\to\pi K$ system by having a closer
2214: look at the modes of class (a) introduced above, $B_d\to\pi^\mp K^\pm$
2215: and $B^\pm\to\pi^\pm K$, which are only marginally affected by
2216: EW penguin contributions. We used the banching ratio and direct
2217: CP asymmetry of the former channel already in the $SU(3)$ relation (\ref{H-rel}),
2218: which is nicely satisfied by the current data, and in the extraction of
2219: $\gamma$ with the help of the CP-violating $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ observables,
2220: yielding the value in (\ref{gamma-det}). The $B_d\to\pi^\mp K^\pm$
2221: modes provide the CP-violating asymmetry
2222: \begin{equation}\label{ACP-BppipK0}
2223: \hspace*{-1.9truecm}{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B^\pm\to\pi^\pm K)\equiv
2224: \frac{\mbox{BR}(B^+\to\pi^+K^0)-
2225: \mbox{BR}(B^-\to\pi^-\bar K^0)}{\mbox{BR}(B^+\to\pi^+K^0)+
2226: \mbox{BR}(B^-\to\pi^-\bar K^0)} =%\,\stackrel{{\rm exp}}{=}\,
2227: 0.02 \pm 0.04,
2228: \end{equation}
2229: and enter in the following ratio \cite{FM}:
2230: \begin{equation}\label{R-def}
2231: \hspace*{-0.7truecm}R\equiv\left[\frac{\mbox{BR}(B_d^0\to\pi^- K^+)+
2232: \mbox{BR}(\bar B_d^0\to\pi^+ K^-)}{\mbox{BR}(B^+\to\pi^+ K^0)+
2233: \mbox{BR}(B^-\to\pi^- \bar K^0)}
2234: \right]\frac{\tau_{B^+}}{\tau_{B^0_d}} =%\,\stackrel{{\rm exp}}{=}\,
2235: 0.86\pm0.06;
2236: \end{equation}
2237: the numerical values refer again to the most recent compilation in \cite{HFAG}.
2238: The $B^+\to\pi^+ K^0$ channel involves another hadronic parameter,
2239: $\rho_{\rm c}e^{i\theta_{\rm c}}$, which cannot be determined through
2240: the $B\to\pi\pi$ data \cite{BF98,defan,neubert}:
2241: \begin{equation}\label{B+pi+K0}
2242: A(B^+\to\pi^+K^0)=-P'\left[1+\rho_{\rm c}e^{i\theta_{\rm c}}e^{i\gamma}
2243: \right];
2244: \end{equation}
2245: the overall normalization $P'$ cancels in (\ref{ACP-BppipK0}) and
2246: (\ref{R-def}). Usually, it is assumed that the parameter $\rho_{\rm c}e^{i\theta_{\rm c}}$
2247: can be neglected. In this case, the direct CP asymmetry in (\ref{ACP-BppipK0})
2248: vanishes, and $R$ can be calculated through the $B\to\pi\pi$ data with the help
2249: of the assumptions specified in Subsection~\ref{ssec:BpiK-prel}:
2250: \begin{equation}\label{R-pred-0}
2251: R|_{\rm SM}=0.963^{+0.019}_{-0.022}.
2252: \end{equation}
2253:
2254: This numerical result is $1.6 \sigma$ larger than the experimental value
2255: in (\ref{R-def}). As was discussed in detail in \cite{BFRS-up},
2256: the experimental range for the direct CP asymmetry in (\ref{ACP-BppipK0})
2257: and the first direct signals for the $B^\pm\to K^\pm K$ decays favour a
2258: value of $\theta_{\rm c}$ around $0^\circ$. This feature allows us to essentially
2259: resolve the small discrepancy concerning $R$ for values of $\rho_{\rm c}$ around
2260: 0.05. The remaining small numerical difference between the calculated value of
2261: $R$ and the experimental result, if confirmed by future data, could be due to
2262: (small) colour-suppressed EW penguins, which enter $R$ as well \cite{BFRS}.
2263: As was recently discussed in Ref.~\cite{BFRS-5}, even large non-factorizable
2264: $SU(3)$-breaking effects would have a small impact on the predicted value
2265: of $R$. In view of these results, it would not be a surprise to see an increase
2266: of the experimental value of $R$ in the future.
2267:
2268:
2269: \begin{figure}
2270: %\vspace*{0.3truecm}
2271: \begin{center}
2272: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{RnRc0511.eps}
2273: \end{center}
2274: \vspace*{-0.5truecm}
2275: \caption{The current situation in the $R_{\rm n}$--$R_{\rm c}$ plane: the shaded
2276: areas indicate the experimental and SM $1 \sigma$ ranges, while the lines show the
2277: theory predictions for the central values of the hadronic parameters
2278: and various values of $q$ with $\phi\in[0^\circ,360^\circ]$.}\label{fig:RnRc}
2279: \end{figure}
2280:
2281:
2282: Let us now turn to the $B^+\to\pi^0K^+$ and $B^0_d\to\pi^0K^0$ channels,
2283: which are the $B\to\pi K$ modes with significant contributions from EW
2284: penguin topologies. The key observables for the exploration of these modes
2285: are the following ratios of their CP-averaged branching ratios \cite{BF00,BF98}:
2286: \begin{equation}\label{Rc-def}
2287: R_{\rm c}\equiv2\left[\frac{\mbox{BR}(B^+\to\pi^0K^+)+
2288: \mbox{BR}(B^-\to\pi^0K^-)}{\mbox{BR}(B^+\to\pi^+ K^0)+
2289: \mbox{BR}(B^-\to\pi^- \bar K^0)}\right] =%\,\stackrel{{\rm exp}}{=}\,
2290: 1.01\pm0.09
2291: \end{equation}
2292: \begin{equation}\label{Rn-def}
2293: R_{\rm n}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left[
2294: \frac{\mbox{BR}(B_d^0\to\pi^- K^+)+
2295: \mbox{BR}(\bar B_d^0\to\pi^+ K^-)}{\mbox{BR}(B_d^0\to\pi^0K^0)+
2296: \mbox{BR}(\bar B_d^0\to\pi^0\bar K^0)}\right] =%\,\stackrel{{\rm exp}}{=}\,
2297: 0.83\pm0.08,
2298: \end{equation}
2299: where the overall normalization factors of the decay amplitudes cancel,
2300: as in (\ref{R-def}). In order to describe the EW penguin effects, both a parameter
2301: $q$, which measures the strength of the EW penguins with respect to
2302: tree-like topologies, and a CP-violating phase $\phi$ are introduced. In the SM, this
2303: phase vanishes, and $q$ can be calculated with the help of the $SU(3)$ flavour
2304: symmetry, yielding a value of $0.69 \times 0.086/|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|= 0.58$ \cite{NR}.
2305: Following the strategy described above yields the following SM predictions:
2306: \begin{equation}\label{RncSM}
2307: R_{\rm c}|_{\rm SM}=1.15 \pm 0.05, \quad R_{\rm n}|_{\rm SM}=1.12 \pm 0.05,
2308: \end{equation}
2309: where in particular the value of $R_{\rm n}$ does not agree with the experimental
2310: number, which is a manifestation of the $B\to\pi K$ puzzle. As was recently
2311: discussed in Ref.~\cite{BFRS-5}, the internal consistency checks of the
2312: working assumptions listed in Subsection~\ref{ssec:BpiK-prel} are
2313: currently satisfied at the level of $25\%$, and can be systematically improved
2314: through better data. A detailed study of the numerical predictions in
2315: (\ref{RncSM}) (and those given below) shows that their sensitivity on
2316: non-factorizable $SU(3)$-breaking effects of this order of magnitude is
2317: surprisingly small. Consequently, it is very exciting to speculate that NP
2318: effects in the EW penguin sector, which are described effectively through
2319: $(q,\phi)$, are at the origin of the $B\to\pi K$ puzzle.
2320: Following Ref.~\cite{BFRS}, we show the situation in the $R_{\rm n}$--$R_{\rm c}$
2321: plane in Fig.~\ref{fig:RnRc}, where -- for the convenience of the reader --
2322: also the experimental range and the SM predictions at the time of the
2323: original analysis of Ref.~\cite{BFRS} are indicated through the dashed rectangles.
2324: We observe that although
2325: the central values of $R_{\rm n}$ and $R_{\rm c}$ have slightly moved towards
2326: each other, the puzzle is as prominent as ever. The experimental
2327: region can now be reached without an enhancement of $q$, but
2328: a large CP-violating phase $\phi$ of the order of $-90^\circ$ is
2329: still required:
2330: \begin{equation}
2331: \label{q-phi}
2332: q=0.99\,^{+0.66}_{-0.70} ,\quad \phi=-(94\,^{+16}_{-17} )^\circ.
2333: \end{equation}
2334: Interestingly, $\phi$ of the order of $+90^\circ$ can now also bring us rather
2335: close to the experimental range of $R_{\rm n}$ and $R_{\rm c}$.
2336:
2337: An interesting probe of the NP phase $\phi$ is also provided
2338: by the CP violation in the decay $B^0_d\to\pi^0 K_{\rm S}$. Within the SM,
2339: the corresponding observables are expected to satisfy the following
2340: relations \cite{PAPIII}:
2341: \begin{equation}\label{Bdpi0K0-rel}
2342: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\!\to\!\pi^0 K_{\rm S})\approx 0, \quad
2343: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\!\to\!\pi^0 K_{\rm S})\approx
2344: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\!\to\!\psi K_{\rm S}).
2345: \end{equation}
2346: The most recent Belle \cite{Belle-Bphi-K} and BaBar \cite{BaBar-pi0KS}
2347: measurements of these quantities are in agreement with each other, and
2348: lead to the following averages \cite{HFAG}:
2349: \begin{eqnarray}
2350: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\!\to\!\pi^0 K_{\rm S})&=&-0.02\pm0.13\\
2351: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\!\to\!\pi^0 K_{\rm S})&=&-0.31\pm0.26
2352: \equiv -(\sin2\beta)_{\pi^0K_{\rm S}}.
2353: \end{eqnarray}
2354: Taking (\ref{s2b-average}) into account yields
2355: \begin{equation}\label{DS}
2356: \Delta S \equiv (\sin2\beta)_{\pi^0K_{\rm S}}-
2357: (\sin2\beta)_{\psi K_{\rm S}} =%\,\stackrel{\rm exp}{=}\,
2358: -0.38\pm 0.26,
2359: \end{equation}
2360: which may indicate a sizeable deviation of the
2361: experimentally measured value of $(\sin2\beta)_{\pi^0K_{\rm S}}$ from
2362: $(\sin2\beta)_{\psi K_{\rm S}}$, and is therefore one of the recent hot topics.
2363: Since the strategy developed in Ref.~\cite{BFRS} allows us also to predict the
2364: CP-violating observables of the $B^0_d\to\pi^0 K_{\rm S}$ channel both within the
2365: SM and within our scenario of NP, it allows us to address this issue, yielding
2366: \begin{equation}\label{pi0KS-SM}
2367: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\!\to\!\pi^0 K_{\rm S})|_{\rm SM}=0.06^{+0.09}_{-0.10},
2368: \qquad
2369: \Delta S\vert_{\rm SM}= 0.13\pm0.05,
2370: \end{equation}
2371: \begin{equation}\label{pi0KS-NP}
2372: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\!\to\!\pi^0 K_{\rm S})|_{\rm NP}=0.01\,^{+0.14}_{-0.18},
2373: \qquad \Delta S\vert_{\rm NP}=0.27\,^{+0.05}_{-0.09},
2374: \end{equation}
2375: where the NP results refer to the EW penguin parameters in (\ref{q-phi}). Consequently,
2376: $\Delta S$ is found to be {\it positive} in the SM. In the literature, values of
2377: $\Delta S\vert_{\rm SM}\sim0.04$--$0.08$ can be found, which were obtained
2378: -- in contrast to (\ref{pi0KS-SM}) -- with the help of dynamical approaches such as QCDF \cite{beneke} and SCET \cite{SCET-Bdpi0K0}. Moreover,
2379: bounds were derived with the help of the $SU(3)$ flavour symmetry
2380: \cite{SU3-bounds}. Looking at (\ref{pi0KS-NP}), we see that the modified
2381: parameters $(q,\phi)$ in (\ref{q-phi}) imply an enhancement of $\Delta S$ with
2382: respect to the SM case. Consequently, the best values of $(q,\phi)$ that are
2383: favoured by the measurements of $R_{\rm n,c}$ make the potential
2384: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\!\to\!\pi^0 K_{\rm S})$ discrepancy
2385: even larger than in the SM.
2386:
2387:
2388: \begin{figure}
2389: %\vspace*{0.3truecm}
2390: \begin{center}
2391: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{AmixAdir-pi0K+0511.eps}
2392: \end{center}
2393: \vspace*{-0.5truecm}
2394: \caption{The situation in the
2395: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to\pi^0K_{\rm S})$--${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}
2396: (B^\pm\to\pi^0K^\pm)$ plane: the shaded regions represent the experimental
2397: and SM $1 \sigma$ ranges, while the lines show the
2398: theory predictions for the central values of the hadronic parameters
2399: and various values of $q$ with
2400: $\phi\in[0^\circ,360^\circ]$.\label{fig:Adirpi0KS-Amixpi0K+}}
2401: \end{figure}
2402:
2403: There is one CP asymmetry of the $B\to\pi K$ system left,
2404: which is measured as
2405: \begin{equation}\label{AdirBppi0KP-exp}
2406: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B^\pm\to\pi^0K^\pm) =
2407: -0.04\pm 0.04.
2408: \end{equation}
2409: In the limit of vanishing colour-suppressed tree and EW penguin topologies,
2410: it is expected to be equal to the direct CP asymmetry of the $B_d\to\pi^\mp K^\pm$
2411: modes. Since the experimental value of the latter asymmetry in
2412: (\ref{AdirBdpimKp-exp}) does not agree with (\ref{AdirBppi0KP-exp}), the
2413: direct CP violation in $B^\pm\to\pi^0K^\pm$ has also received
2414: a lot of attention. The lifted colour suppression described by the large value of
2415: $x$ in (\ref{Bpipi-par-det}) could, in principle, be responsible for a non-vanishing
2416: difference between (\ref{AdirBdpimKp-exp}) and (\ref{AdirBppi0KP-exp}),
2417: \begin{equation}
2418: \Delta A \equiv {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B^\pm\to\pi^0K^\pm)
2419: -{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to\pi^\mp K^\pm)\,\stackrel{{\rm exp}}{=}
2420: -0.16\pm0.04. \label{DeltaA}
2421: \end{equation}
2422: However, applying once again the strategy described above yields
2423: \begin{equation}\label{AdirBppi0KP-SM}
2424: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B^\pm\to\pi^0K^\pm)|_{\rm SM}
2425: = 0.04\,^{+0.09}_{-0.07},
2426: \end{equation}
2427: so that the SM still prefers a positive value of this CP asymmetry;
2428: the NP scenario characterized by (\ref{q-phi}) corresponds to
2429: \begin{equation}\label{AdirBppi0KP-NP}
2430: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B^\pm\to\pi^0K^\pm)|_{\rm NP}
2431: = 0.09\,^{+0.20}_{-0.16}.
2432: \end{equation}
2433:
2434: In view of the large uncertainties, no stringent test is provided at this point.
2435: Nevertheless, it is tempting to play a bit with the CP asymmetries of the
2436: $B^\pm\to\pi^0K^\pm$ and $B_d\to\pi^0K_{\rm S}$ decays. In
2437: Fig.~\ref{fig:Adirpi0KS-Amixpi0K+}, we show the situation in the
2438: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to\pi^0K_{\rm S})$--${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}
2439: (B^\pm\to\pi^0K^\pm)$ plane for various values of $q$ with $\phi\in[0^\circ,360^\circ]$.
2440: We see that these observables seem to show a preference for positive values of
2441: $\phi$ around $+90^\circ$. As we noted above, in this case, we can also get
2442: rather close to the experimental region in the $R_{\rm n}$--$R_{\rm c}$ plane.
2443: It is now interesting to return to the discussion of the NP effects in the
2444: $B\to\phi K$ system given in Subsection~\ref{ssec:BphiK}. In our scenario of NP
2445: in the EW penguin sector, we have just to identify the CP-violating phase $\phi_0$
2446: in (\ref{AphiK-NP}) with the NP phase $\phi$ \cite{BFRS}. Unfortunately, we
2447: cannot determine the hadronic $B\to\phi K$ parameters $\tilde v_0$ and
2448: $\tilde\Delta_0$ through the $B\to\pi\pi$ data as in the case of the $B\to\pi K$
2449: system. However, if we take
2450: into account that $\tilde\Delta_0=180^\circ$ in factorization and look at
2451: Fig.~\ref{fig:Plot-BphiK}, we see again that the case of $\phi\sim+90^\circ$ would
2452: be favoured by the data for ${\cal S}_{\phi K}$. Alternatively, in the case of
2453: $\phi\sim-90^\circ$, $\tilde\Delta_0\sim 0^\circ$ would be required to
2454: accommodate a negative value of ${\cal S}_{\phi K}$, which appears unlikely. Interestingly, a similar comment applies to the $B\to J/\psi K$ observables
2455: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Plot-BpsiK}, although here a dramatic enhancement of the
2456: EW penguin parameter $v_0$ relative to the SM estimate would be simultaneously
2457: needed to reach the central experimental values, in contract to the reduction of
2458: $\tilde v_0$ in the $B\to\phi K$ case. In view of rare decay constraints, the behaviour
2459: of the $B\to \phi K$ parameter $\tilde v_0$ appears much more likely,
2460: thereby supporting the assumption after (\ref{phi-d-det}).
2461:
2462:
2463: %
2464: %
2465: %
2466: \subsection{The Interplay with Rare $K$ and $B$ Decays and
2467: Future Scenarios}\label{ssec:rareKB}
2468: %
2469: %
2470: %
2471: In order to explore the implications of the $B\to\pi K$ puzzle for rare
2472: $K$ and $B$ decays, we
2473: assume that the NP enters the EW penguin sector through
2474: $Z^0$ penguins with a new CP-violating phase. This scenario was already
2475: considered in the literature, where model-independent analyses and
2476: studies within SUSY can be found \cite{Z-pen-analyses,BuHi}.
2477: In the strategy discussed here, the short-distance function $C$ characterizing
2478: the $Z^0$ penguins is determined through the $B\to\pi K$ data \cite{BFRS-I}.
2479: Performing a renormalization-group analysis yields
2480: \begin{equation}\label{RG}
2481: C(\bar q)= 2.35~ \bar q e^{i\phi} -0.82 \quad\mbox{with}\quad
2482: \bar q= q \left[\frac{|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|}{0.086}\right].
2483: \end{equation}
2484: Evaluating then the relevant box-diagram contributions in the SM
2485: and using (\ref{RG}), the short-distance functions
2486: \begin{equation}\label{X-C-rel}
2487: X=2.35~ \bar q e^{i\phi} -0.09 \quad \mbox{and} \quad
2488: Y=2.35~ \bar q e^{i\phi} -0.64
2489: \end{equation}
2490: can also be calculated, which govern the rare $K$, $B$ decays with $\nu\bar\nu$
2491: and $\ell^+\ell^-$ in the final states, respectively. In the SM, we have
2492: $C=0.79$, $X=1.53$ and $Y=0.98$, with {\it vanishing} CP-violating phases.
2493: An analysis along these lines shows that the value of $(q,\phi)$ in (\ref{q-phi}),
2494: which is preferred by the $B\to\pi K$ observables $R_{\rm n,c}$, requires the
2495: following lower bounds for $X$ and $Y$ \cite{BFRS-5}:
2496: \begin{equation}\label{XY1}
2497: |X|_{\rm min}\approx
2498: |Y|_{\rm min}\approx 2.2,
2499: \end{equation}
2500: which appear to violate the $95\%$ probability upper bounds
2501: \begin{equation}\label{XY2}
2502: X\le 1.95, \quad Y\le 1.43
2503: \end{equation}
2504: that were recently obtained within the context of MFV \cite{Bobeth:2005ck}.
2505: Although we have to deal with CP-violating NP phases in our scenario,
2506: which goes therefore beyond the MFV framework, a closer look at
2507: $B\to X_s \ell^+\ell^-$ shows that the upper
2508: bound on $|Y|$ in (\ref{XY2}) is difficult to avoid if NP enters only through
2509: EW penguins and the operator basis is the same as in the SM. A possible
2510: solution to the clash between (\ref{XY1}) and (\ref{XY2}) would be given
2511: by more complicated NP scenarios \cite{BFRS-5}. However, unless a specific
2512: model is chosen, the predictive power is then significantly reduced. For the
2513: exploration of the NP effects in rare decays, we will therefore not follow
2514: this avenue.
2515:
2516:
2517: \begin{table}%[hbt]
2518: \vspace{0.4cm}
2519: \begin{center}
2520: %\vspace*{2mm}
2521: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
2522: \hline
2523: Quantity & SM & Scen A & Scen B & Scen C & Experiment
2524: \\ \hline
2525: $R_{\rm n}$ & 1.12 &$0.88$ & 1.03 & 1 & $0.83 \pm 0.08$ \\\hline
2526: $R_{\rm c}$ & 1.15 &$0.96$ & 1.13 & 1 & $1.01 \pm 0.09$ \\\hline
2527: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B^\pm\!\to\!\pi^0 K^\pm) $ &
2528: 0.04 & $0.07$ \rule{0em}{1.05em}& 0.06 & 0.02 & $-0.04 \pm 0.04$ \\ \hline
2529: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\!\to\!\pi^0 K_{\rm S})$ &
2530: 0.06 & $0.04$ \rule{0em}{1.05em}& 0.03 & 0.09 & $-0.02 \pm 0.13$ \\ \hline
2531: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\!\to\!\pi^0 K_{\rm S})$ &
2532: $-0.82$ & $-0.89$\rule{0em}{1.05em}& $-0.91$ & $-0.70$ & $-0.31 \pm 0.26$ \\ \hline
2533: $\Delta S$ & 0.13& 0.21& 0.22& 0.01& $-0.38\pm0.26$ \\ \hline
2534: $\Delta A$ & $-0.07$& $-0.04$& $-0.05$& $-0.09$& $-0.16\pm0.04$ \\ \hline
2535: \end{tabular}
2536: \caption{\label{Scentab1} The $B\to\pi K$ observables for the
2537: three scenarios introduced in the text. }
2538: \end{center}
2539: \end{table}
2540:
2541:
2542: \begin{table}%[hbt]
2543: \begin{center}
2544: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
2545: \hline
2546: Decay & \quad SM \quad & Scen A & Scen B & Scen C &
2547: \parbox{2.3cm}{\rule{0em}{1em}Exp. bound \\(90\% {\rm C.L.})}
2548: %&&&&& (\mbox{90\% {\rm C.L.}})
2549: \\ \hline
2550: $\mbox{BR}(K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar\nu)/10^{-11}$ &
2551: $ 9.3$ & $2.7 $ & $8.3 $ & $8.4 $ & $(14.7^{+13.0}_{-8.9}) $\rule{0em}{1.05em} \\ \hline
2552: $\mbox{BR}(K_{\rm L} \to \pi^0 \nu \bar \nu)/10^{-11}$ &
2553: $ 4.4$ & $ 11.6$ & $27.9$ & $7.2$ & $ < 2.9 \times10^{4} $ \\ \hline
2554: $\mbox{BR}(K_{\rm L} \to \pi^0 e^+ e^-)/10^{-11}$ &
2555: $ 3.6$ & $4.6$ & $7.1$ & $4.9 $& $<28$ \\ \hline
2556: $\mbox{BR}(B \to X_s \nu \bar\nu)/10^{-5}$ &
2557: $3.6$ & $ 2.8 $& $4.8$ & $3.3 $ & $<64$ \\ \hline
2558: $\mbox{BR}(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)/10^{-9}$ &
2559: $3.9$ & $9.2$ & $ 9.1$ & $7.0 $& $<1.5\times 10^{2}$ \rule{0em}{1.05em}\\ \hline
2560: $\mbox{BR}(K_{\rm L} \to \mu^+ \mu^-)_{\rm SD}/10^{-9}$ &
2561: $ 0.9$ & $0.9$ & $0.001$ & $0.6 $& $<2.5$ \\
2562: \hline
2563: \end{tabular}
2564: \caption{\label{Scentab2} Rare decay branching ratios for the three scenarios
2565: introduced in the text. We will have a closer look at the $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$
2566: channel in Subsection~\ref{ssec:Bmumu}.}
2567: \end{center}
2568: \end{table}
2569:
2570:
2571: Using an only slightly more generous bound on $|Y|$ by imposing
2572: $\left|Y \right| \leq 1.5$ and taking only those values of (\ref{q-phi})
2573: that satisfy the constraint $\left|Y \right|=1.5$ yields
2574: \begin{equation}
2575: \label{q-phi-RD}
2576: q= 0.48 \pm 0.07 ,\quad \phi=-(93 \pm 17 )^\circ,
2577: \end{equation}
2578: corresponding to a modest {\it suppression} of $q$ relative to its
2579: updated SM value of $0.58$. It is interesting to investigate the impact
2580: of various modifications of $(q,\phi)$, which allow us to satisfy the bounds
2581: in (\ref{XY2}), for the $B\to\pi K$ observables and rare decays. To this
2582: end, three scenarios for the possible future evolution of the measurements
2583: of $R_{\rm n}$ and $R_{\rm c}$ were introduced in \cite{BFRS-5}:
2584: \begin{itemize}
2585: \item {\it Scenario A:} $q=0.48$, $\phi = -93^{\circ}$, which is in accordance with
2586: the currrent rare decay bounds and the $B \to \pi K$ data (see (\ref{q-phi-RD})).
2587: \item {\it Scenario B:} $q=0.66$, $\phi=-50^{\circ}$, which yields an increase
2588: of $R_{\rm n}$ to 1.03, and some interesting effects in rare decays. This could,
2589: for example, happen if radiative corrections to the $B_d^0\to\pi^- K^+$ branching
2590: ratio enhance $R_{\rm n}$ \cite{Baracchini:2005wp}, though this alone would
2591: probably account for only about $5\%$.
2592: \item {\it Scenario C:} here it is assumed that $R_{\rm n}=R_{\rm c}=1$, which
2593: corresponds to $q=0.54$ and $\phi=61^{\circ}$. The {\it positive} sign of
2594: $\phi$ distinguishes this scenario strongly from the others.
2595: \end{itemize}
2596: The patterns of the observables of the $B\to\pi K$ and rare decays corresponding
2597: to these scenarios are collected in Tables \ref{Scentab1} and \ref{Scentab2},
2598: respectively. We observe that the $K \to \pi \nu \bar \nu$ modes, which are
2599: theoretically very clean (for a recent review, see Ref.~\cite{BSU}), offer a particularly
2600: interesting probe for the different scenarios. Concerning the observables of the
2601: $B \to \pi K$ system, ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\!\to\!\pi^0 K_{\rm S})$
2602: is very interesting: this CP asymmetry is found to be very large in Scenarios A and B,
2603: where the NP phase $\phi$ is negative. On the other hand, the positive sign of
2604: $\phi$ in Scenario C brings ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\!\to\!\pi^0 K_{\rm S})$
2605: closer to the data, in agreement with the features discussed in
2606: Subsection~\ref{ssec:BpiK}. A similar comment applies to the
2607: direct CP asymmetry of $B^\pm\to\pi^0K^\pm$.
2608:
2609: In view of the large uncertainties, unfortunately no definite conclusions on the
2610: presence of NP can be drawn at this stage. However, the possible anomalies
2611: in the $B\to\pi K$ system complemented with the one in $B\to\phi K$ may actually
2612: indicate the effects of a modified EW penguin sector with a large CP-violating
2613: NP phase. As we just saw, rare $K$ and $B$ decays have an impressive power
2614: to reveal such a kind of NP. Let us finally stress that the analysis of the $B\to\pi\pi$
2615: modes, which signals large non-factorizable effects, and the determination of the
2616: UT angle $\gamma$ described above are not affected by such NP effects. It will
2617: be interesting to monitor the evolution of the corresponding data with the help
2618: of the strategy discussed above.
2619:
2620:
2621:
2622: %
2623: %
2624: %
2625: \boldmath
2626: \section{A New Territory: $b\to d$ Penguins}\label{sec:bd-pengs}
2627: \unboldmath
2628: %
2629: %
2630: %
2631: \subsection{Preliminaries}
2632: %
2633: %
2634: %
2635: Another hot topic which emerged recently is the exploration of
2636: $b\to d$ penguin processes. The non-leptonic decays belonging
2637: to this category, which are mediated by $b\to d \bar s s$ quark transitions
2638: (see the classification in Subsection~\ref{ssec:non-lept}), are now coming
2639: within experimental reach at the $B$ factories. A similar comment applies
2640: to the radiative decays originating from $b\to d\gamma$ processes, whereas
2641: $b\to d\ell^+\ell^-$ modes are still far from being accessible. The $B$ factories
2642: are therefore just entering a new territory, which is still essentially unexplored.
2643: Let us now have a closer look at the corresponding processes.
2644:
2645: %
2646: %
2647: %
2648: \subsection{A Prominent Example: $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$}
2649: %
2650: %
2651: %
2652: The Feynman diagrams contributing to this decay can straightforwardly
2653: be obtained from those for $B^0_d\to\phi K^0$ shown in
2654: Fig.~\ref{fig:BphiK-diag} by replacing the anti-strange quark emerging from the
2655: $W$ boson through an anti-down quark. The $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$
2656: decay is described by the low-energy effective Hamiltonian in (\ref{e4}) with $r=d$,
2657: where the current--current operators may only contribute through penguin-like
2658: contractions, corresponding to the penguin topologies with internal up- and
2659: charm-quark exchanges. The dominant r\^ole is played by QCD penguins;
2660: since EW penguins contribute only in colour-suppressed form, they have a minor
2661: impact on $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$, in contrast to the case of $B^0_d\to\phi K^0$,
2662: where they may also contribute in colour-allowed form.
2663:
2664: If apply the notation
2665: introduced in Section~\ref{sec:bench}, make again use of the
2666: unitarity of the CKM matrix and apply the Wolfenstein parametrization,
2667: we may write the $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$ amplitude as follows:
2668: \begin{equation}\label{ampl-BdKK-lamt}
2669: A(B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0)=\lambda^3A(\tilde A_{\rm P}^t-\tilde A_{\rm P}^c)
2670: \left[1-\rho_{K\!K} e^{i\theta_{K\!K}}e^{i\gamma}\right],
2671: \end{equation}
2672: where
2673: \begin{equation}\label{rho-KK-def}
2674: \rho_{K\!K} e^{i\theta_{K\!K}}\equiv R_b
2675: \left[\frac{\tilde A_{\rm P}^t-\tilde A_{\rm P}^u}{\tilde A_{\rm P}^t-\tilde A_{\rm P}^c}\right].
2676: \end{equation}
2677: This expression allows us to calculate the CP-violating asymmetries with
2678: the help of the formulae given in Subsection~\ref{ssec:CP-strat},
2679: taking the following form:
2680: \begin{eqnarray}
2681: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to K^0\bar K^0)&=&
2682: D_1(\rho_{K\!K},\theta_{K\!K};\gamma) \label{CP-BKK-dir-gen}\\
2683: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to K^0\bar K^0)&=&
2684: D_2(\rho_{K\!K},\theta_{K\!K};\gamma,\phi_d).\label{CP-BKK-mix-gen}
2685: \end{eqnarray}
2686:
2687: Let us assume, for a moment, that the penguin contributions are dominated
2688: by top-quark exchanges. In this case, (\ref{rho-KK-def}) simplifies as
2689: \begin{equation}
2690: \rho_{K\!K} e^{i\theta_{K\!K}} \to R_b.
2691: \end{equation}
2692: Since the CP-conserving strong phase $\theta_{K\!K}$ vanishes in this limit,
2693: the direct CP violation in $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$ vanishes, too. Moreover,
2694: if we take into account that $\phi_d=2\beta$ in the SM and use trigonometrical
2695: relations which can be derived for the UT, we find that also the mixing-induced
2696: CP asymmetry would be zero. These features suggest an interesting test
2697: of the $b\to d$ flavour sector of the SM (see, for instance, \cite{quinn}).
2698: However, contributions from penguins with internal up- and charm-quark
2699: exchanges are expected to yield sizeable CP asymmetries in
2700: $B_d^0\to K^0\bar K^0$ even within the SM, so that the interpretation of these
2701: effects is much more complicated \cite{RF-BdKK}; these contributions
2702: contain also possible long-distance rescattering effects \cite{BFM},
2703: which are often referred to as ``GIM" and ``charming" penguins and received
2704: recently a lot of attention \cite{charming}.
2705:
2706:
2707: \begin{figure}
2708: \vspace*{0.3truecm}
2709: \begin{center}
2710: \includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{AdirAmixB.eps}
2711: \end{center}
2712: \vspace*{-0.6truecm}
2713: \caption{Illustration of the surface in the
2714: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}$--${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}$--$\langle B \rangle$
2715: observable space characterizing the $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$ decay in the SM.
2716: The intersecting lines on the surface correspond to constant
2717: values of $\rho_{K\!K}$ and $\theta_{K\!K}$; the numbers on the fringe indicate
2718: the value of $\theta_{K\!K}$, while the fringe itself is defined by
2719: $\rho_{K\!K}=1$.}\label{fig:SM-surface}
2720: \end{figure}
2721:
2722:
2723: Despite this problem, interesting insights can be obtained through the
2724: $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$ observables \cite{FR1}.
2725: By the time the CP-violating asymmetries in (\ref{CP-BKK-dir-gen}) and
2726: (\ref{CP-BKK-mix-gen}) can be measured, also the angle $\gamma$ of
2727: the UT will be reliably known, in addition to the $B^0_d$--$\bar B^0_d$
2728: mixing phase $\phi_d$. The experimental values of the CP asymmetries
2729: can then be converted into $\rho_{K\!K}$ and $\theta_{K\!K}$, in analogy
2730: to the $B\to\pi\pi$ discussion in Subsection~\ref{ssec:Bpipi-hadr}. Although
2731: these quantities are interesting to obtain insights into the $B\to\pi K$
2732: parameter $\rho_{\rm c}e^{i\theta_{\rm c}}$ (see (\ref{B+pi+K0}))
2733: through $SU(3)$ arguments, and can be compared with theoretical predictions,
2734: for instance, those of QCDF, PQCD or SCET, they do not
2735: provide -- by themselves -- a test of the SM description of the
2736: FCNC processes mediating the decay $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$. However, so far,
2737: we have not yet used the information offered by the CP-averaged branching
2738: ratio of this channel. It takes the following form:
2739: \begin{equation}\label{BR-BKK-expr}
2740: \mbox{BR}(B_d\to K^0\bar K^0)=\frac{\tau_{B_d}}{16\pi M_{B_d}}
2741: \times \Phi_{KK} \times
2742: |\lambda^3 A \, \tilde A_{\rm P}^{tc}|^2 \langle B \rangle,
2743: \end{equation}
2744: where $\Phi_{KK}$ denotes a two-body phase-space factor,
2745: $\tilde A_{\rm P}^{tc}\equiv \tilde A_{\rm P}^t-\tilde A_{\rm P}^c$, and
2746: \begin{equation}\label{B-DEF}
2747: \langle B \rangle\equiv 1-2\rho_{K\!K}\cos\theta_{K\!K}
2748: \cos\gamma+\rho_{K\!K}^2.
2749: \end{equation}
2750: If we now use $\phi_d$ and the SM value of $\gamma$, we may characterize
2751: the decay $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$ -- within the SM -- through a surface in
2752: the observable space of ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}$,
2753: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}$ and $\langle B \rangle$. In
2754: Fig.~\ref{fig:SM-surface}, we show this surface, where each point
2755: corresponds to a given value of $\rho_{K\!K}$ and $\theta_{K\!K}$. It should
2756: be emphasized that this surface is {\it theoretically clean} since it
2757: relies only on the general SM parametrization of $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$.
2758: Consequently, should future measurements give a value in observable space
2759: that should {\it not} lie on the SM surface, we would have immediate evidence
2760: for NP contributions to $\bar b\to \bar d s \bar s$ processes.
2761:
2762: Looking at Fig.~\ref{fig:SM-surface}, we see that $\langle B \rangle$ takes
2763: an absolute minimum. Indeed, if we keep $\rho_{K\!K}$ and $\theta_{K\!K}$
2764: as free parameters in (\ref{B-DEF}), we find
2765: \begin{equation}\label{B-bound}
2766: \langle B \rangle\geq \sin^2\gamma,
2767: \end{equation}
2768: which yields a strong lower bound because of the favourably large value of
2769: $\gamma$. Whereas the direct and mixing-induced CP asymmetries can
2770: be extracted from a time-dependent rate asymmetry (see (\ref{time-dep-CP})),
2771: the determination of $\langle B \rangle$ requires further information to
2772: fix the overall normalization factor involving the penguin amplitude
2773: $\tilde A_{\rm P}^{tc}$. The strategy developed in Ref.~\cite{BFRS} offers the
2774: following two avenues, using data for
2775: \begin{itemize}
2776: \item[i)] $B\to\pi\pi$ decays, i.e.\ $b\to d$ transitions, implying the following
2777: lower bound:
2778: \begin{equation}\label{BdKK-bound1}
2779: \mbox{BR}(B_d\to K^0\bar K^0)_{\rm min}=
2780: \Xi^K_\pi\times\left(1.39\,^{+1.54}_{-0.95}\right) \times 10^{-6},
2781: \end{equation}
2782: \item[ii)] $B\to\pi K$ decays, i.e.\ $b\to s$ transitions, which are complemented
2783: by the $B\to\pi\pi$ system to determine a small correction, implying the following
2784: lower bound:
2785: \begin{equation}\label{BdKK-bound2}
2786: \mbox{BR}(B_d\to K^0\bar K^0)_{\rm min}=
2787: \Xi^K_\pi\times\left(1.36\,^{+0.18}_{-0.21}\right) \times 10^{-6}.
2788: \end{equation}
2789: \end{itemize}
2790: Here factorizable $SU(3)$-breaking corrections are included,
2791: as is made explicit through
2792: \begin{equation}\label{Xi-K-pi}
2793: \Xi^K_\pi=\left[\frac{f_0^K}{0.331}\frac{0.258}{f_0^\pi}\right]^2,
2794: \end{equation}
2795: where the numerical values for the $B\to K,\pi$ form factors $f_0^{K,\pi}$
2796: refer to a recent light-cone sum-rule analysis \cite{Ball}. At the time of the
2797: derivation of these bounds, the $B$ factories reported an experimental {\it upper}
2798: bound of $\mbox{BR}(B_d\to K^0\bar K^0)<1.5\times 10^{-6}$ (90\% C.L.). Consequently, the theoretical {\it lower} bounds given above suggested that
2799: the observation of this channel should just be ahead of us. Subsequently, the
2800: first signals were indeed announced, in accordance with (\ref{BdKK-bound1}) and
2801: (\ref{BdKK-bound2}):
2802: \begin{equation}\label{BdK0K0-data}
2803: \hspace*{-0.5truecm}
2804: \mbox{BR}(B_d\to K^0\bar K^0)=\left\{
2805: \begin{array}{ll}
2806: (1.19^{+0.40}_{-0.35}\pm0.13) \times 10^{-6} & \mbox{(BaBar
2807: \cite{BaBar-BKK}),}\\
2808: (0.8\pm0.3\pm0.1) \times 10^{-6} & \mbox{(Belle \cite{Belle-BKK}).}
2809: \end{array}\right.
2810: \end{equation}
2811: The SM description of $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$ has thus successfully passed its
2812: first test. However, the experimental errors are still very large, and the next crucial
2813: step -- a measurement of the CP asymmetries -- is still missing. Using QCDF,
2814: an analysis of NP effects in this channel was recently performed in the minimal
2815: supersymmetric standard model \cite{giri-moh}. For further aspects of
2816: $B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$, the reader is referred to Ref.~\cite{FR1}.
2817:
2818: %
2819: %
2820: %
2821: \subsection{Radiative $b\to d$ Penguin Decays: $\bar B\to\rho\gamma$}
2822: %
2823: %
2824: %
2825: Another important tool to explore $b\to d$ penguins is
2826: provided by $\bar B\to\rho\gamma$ modes. In the SM, these decays
2827: are described by a Hamiltonian with the following
2828: structure \cite{B-LH98}:
2829: \begin{equation}\label{Ham-bdgam}
2830: {\cal H}_{\rm eff}^{b\to d\gamma}=\frac{G_{\rm F}}{\sqrt{2}}
2831: \sum_{j=u,c} \! V_{jd}^\ast V_{jb}\left[\sum_{k=1}^{2}C_k Q_k^{jd}\!+\!
2832: \sum_{k=3}^{8}C_k Q_k^{d}\right].
2833: \end{equation}
2834: Here the $Q_{1,2}^{jd}$ denote the current--current operators, whereas the
2835: $Q_{3\ldots 6}^{d}$ are the QCD penguin operators, which govern the
2836: decay $\bar B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$ together with the
2837: penguin-like contractions of $Q_{1,2}^{cd}$ and $Q_{1,2}^{ud}$. In contrast
2838: to these four-quark operators,
2839: \begin{equation}
2840: Q_{7,8}^{d}=\frac{1}{8\pi^2}m_b\bar d_i \sigma^{\mu\nu}(1+\gamma_5)
2841: \left\{e b_i F_{\mu\nu} ,\, g_{\rm s}T^a_{ij}b_j G^a_{\mu\nu} \right\}
2842: \end{equation}
2843: are electro- and chromomagnetic penguin operators.
2844: The most important contributions to $\bar B\to\rho\gamma$
2845: originate from $Q_{1,2}^{jd}$ and $Q_{7,8}^{d}$,
2846: whereas the QCD penguin operators play only a minor r\^ole, in contrast
2847: to $\bar B^0_d\to K^0\bar K^0$. If we use again the
2848: unitarity of the CKM matrix and apply the Wolfenstein parametrization,
2849: we may write
2850: \begin{equation}\label{Ampl-Brhogam}
2851: A(\bar B \to \rho\gamma)=c_\rho \lambda^3 A {\cal P}_{tc}^{\rho\gamma}
2852: \left[1-\rho_{\rho\gamma}e^{i\theta_{\rho\gamma}}e^{-i\gamma}\right],
2853: \end{equation}
2854: where $c_\rho=1/\sqrt{2}$ and 1 for $\rho=\rho^0$ and $\rho^\pm$,
2855: respectively, ${\cal P}_{tc}^{\rho\gamma}\equiv
2856: {\cal P}_t^{\rho\gamma}-{\cal P}_c^{\rho\gamma}$, and
2857: \begin{equation}
2858: \rho_{\rho\gamma}e^{i\theta_{\rho\gamma}}\equiv R_b\left[
2859: \frac{{\cal P}_t^{\rho\gamma}-
2860: {\cal P}_u^{\rho\gamma}}{{\cal P}_t^{\rho\gamma}-
2861: {\cal P}_c^{\rho\gamma}}\right].
2862: \end{equation}
2863: Here we follow our previous notation, i.e.\ the ${\cal P}_j^{\rho\gamma}$
2864: are strong amplitudes with the following interpretation:
2865: ${\cal P}_u^{\rho\gamma}$ and ${\cal P}_c^{\rho\gamma}$ refer to the matrix
2866: elements of $\sum_{k=1}^{2}C_k Q_k^{ud}$ and $\sum_{k=1}^{2}C_k Q_k^{cd}$,
2867: respectively, whereas ${\cal P}_t^{\rho\gamma}$ corresponds to
2868: $-\sum_{k=3}^{8}C_k Q_k^{d}$. Consequently, ${\cal P}_u^{\rho\gamma}$
2869: and ${\cal P}_c^{\rho\gamma}$ describe the penguin topologies with
2870: internal up- and charm-quark exchanges, respectively, whereas
2871: ${\cal P}_t^{\rho\gamma}$ corresponds to the penguins with the top
2872: quark running in the loop. Let us note that
2873: (\ref{Ampl-Brhogam}) refers to a given photon helicity. However,
2874: the $b$ quarks couple predominantly to left-handed photons in
2875: the SM, so that the right-handed amplitude is usually neglected \cite{GP};
2876: we shall return to this point below. Comparing (\ref{Ampl-Brhogam}) with
2877: (\ref{ampl-BdKK-lamt}), we observe that the structure of both amplitudes is
2878: the same. In analogy to $\rho_{K\!K} e^{i\theta_{K\!K}}$,
2879: $\rho_{\rho\gamma}e^{i\theta_{\rho\gamma}}$ may also be affected by
2880: long-distance effects, which represent a key uncertainty of
2881: $\bar B\to\rho\gamma$ decays \cite{LHC-Book,GP}.
2882:
2883: If we replace all down quarks in (\ref{Ham-bdgam}) by strange quarks, we obtain the
2884: Hamiltonian for $b\to s\gamma$ processes, which are already well established
2885: experimentally \cite{HFAG}:
2886: \begin{eqnarray}
2887: \mbox{BR}(B^\pm\to K^{\ast\pm}\gamma)&=&(40.3\pm2.6)\times
2888: 10^{-6}\label{BR-charged}\\
2889: \mbox{BR}(B_d^0\to K^{\ast0}\gamma)&=&(40.1\pm2.0)\times
2890: 10^{-6}.\label{BR-neutral}
2891: \end{eqnarray}
2892: In analogy to (\ref{Ampl-Brhogam}), we may write
2893: \begin{equation}\label{Ampl-BKastgam}
2894: A(\bar B \!\to\! K^\ast \!\gamma)\!=-\!
2895: \frac{\lambda^3 \! A {\cal P}_{tc}^{K^\ast\!\gamma}}{\sqrt{\epsilon}} \!
2896: \left[1\!+\!\epsilon\rho_{K\!^\ast\!\gamma}e^{i\theta_{K\!^\ast\!\gamma}}
2897: e^{-i\!\gamma}\right]\!,
2898: \end{equation}
2899: where $\epsilon$ was introduced in (\ref{eps-def}). Thanks to the smallness
2900: of $\epsilon$, the parameter
2901: $\rho_{K\!^\ast\gamma}e^{i\theta_{K\!^\ast\gamma}}$
2902: plays an essentially negligible r\^ole for the $\bar B \to K^\ast \gamma$
2903: transitions.
2904:
2905: Let us have a look at the charged decays $B^\pm \to \rho^{\pm} \gamma$
2906: and $B^\pm \to K^{\ast\pm} \gamma$ first. If we consider their
2907: CP-averaged branching ratios, we obtain
2908: \begin{equation}\label{rare-ratio}
2909: \frac{\mbox{BR}(B^\pm \to \rho^{\pm}
2910: \gamma)}{\mbox{BR}(B^\pm \to K^{\ast\pm} \gamma)}=\epsilon
2911: \left[\frac{\Phi_{\rho\gamma}}{\Phi_{K\!^\ast\gamma}}\right]
2912: \left|\frac{{\cal P}_{tc}^{\rho\gamma}}{{\cal P}_{tc}^{K\!^\ast\gamma}}
2913: \right|^2 H^{\rho\gamma}_{K\!^\ast\gamma},
2914: \end{equation}
2915: where $\Phi_{\rho\gamma}$ and $\Phi_{K\!^\ast\gamma}$ denote phase-space
2916: factors, and
2917: \begin{equation}
2918: H^{\rho\gamma}_{K\!^\ast\gamma}\equiv
2919: \frac{1-2\rho_{\rho\gamma}\cos\theta_{\rho\gamma}\cos\gamma+
2920: \rho_{\rho\gamma}^2}{1+2\epsilon\rho_{K\!^\ast\gamma}
2921: \cos\theta_{K\!^\ast\gamma}
2922: \cos\gamma+\epsilon^2\rho_{K\!^\ast\gamma}^2}.
2923: \end{equation}
2924: Since $B^\pm \to \rho^{\pm} \gamma$ and $B^\pm \to K^{\ast\pm} \gamma$
2925: are related through the interchange of all down and strange quarks,
2926: the $U$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions allows us to relate
2927: the corresponding hadronic amplitudes to each other; the $U$-spin
2928: symmetry is an $SU(2)$ subgroup of the full $SU(3)_{\rm F}$ flavour-symmetry
2929: group, which relates down and strange quarks in the same manner as the
2930: conventional strong isospin symmetry relates down and up quarks. Following
2931: these lines, we obtain
2932: \begin{equation}\label{U-spin1}
2933: |{\cal P}_{tc}^{\rho\gamma}|=|{\cal P}_{tc}^{K\!^\ast\gamma}|
2934: \end{equation}
2935: \begin{equation}\label{U-spin2}
2936: \rho_{\rho\gamma}e^{i\theta_{\rho\gamma}}=
2937: \rho_{K\!^\ast\gamma}e^{i\theta_{K\!^\ast\gamma}}\equiv
2938: \rho e^{i\theta}.
2939: \end{equation}
2940: Although we may determine the ratio of the penguin amplitudes
2941: $|{\cal P}_{tc}|$ in (\ref{rare-ratio}) with the help of (\ref{U-spin1}) -- up to
2942: $SU(3)$-breaking effects to be discussed below -- we are still left
2943: with the dependence on $\rho$ and $\theta$. However, keeping $\rho$
2944: and $\theta$ as free parameters, it can be shown that
2945: $H^{\rho\gamma}_{K\!^\ast\gamma}$ satisfies the following relation \cite{FR2}:
2946: \begin{equation}\label{H-bound}
2947: H^{\rho\gamma}_{K\!^\ast\gamma}\geq \left[1-2\epsilon
2948: \cos^2\gamma+{\cal O}(\epsilon^2)\right]\sin^2\gamma,
2949: \end{equation}
2950: where the term linear in $\epsilon$ gives a shift of about $1.9\%$.
2951:
2952: Concerning possible $SU(3)$-breaking effects to (\ref{U-spin2}), they
2953: may only enter this tiny correction and are negligible for our analysis.
2954: On the other hand, the $SU(3)$-breaking corrections to (\ref{U-spin1})
2955: have a sizeable impact. Following \cite{ALP-rare,BoBu}, we write
2956: \begin{equation}\label{SU3-break-rare}
2957: \left[\frac{\Phi_{\rho\gamma}}{\Phi_{K\!^\ast\gamma}}\right]
2958: \left|\frac{{\cal P}_{tc}^{\rho\gamma}}{{\cal P}_{tc}^{K\!^\ast\gamma}}
2959: \right|^2=\left[\frac{M_B^2-M_\rho^2}{M_B^2-M_{K^\ast}^2}\right]^3
2960: \zeta^2,
2961: \end{equation}
2962: where $\zeta=F_\rho/F_{K^\ast}$ is the $SU(3)$-breaking ratio of the
2963: $B^\pm\to\rho^\pm\gamma$ and $B^\pm\to K^{\ast\pm}\gamma$ form factors; a
2964: light-cone sum-rule analysis gives $\zeta^{-1}=1.31\pm0.13$ \cite{Ball-Braun}.
2965: Consequently, (\ref{H-bound}) and (\ref{SU3-break-rare}) allow us to convert
2966: the measured $B^\pm\to K^{\ast\pm}\gamma$ branching ratio (\ref{BR-charged})
2967: into a {\it lower} SM bound for
2968: $\mbox{BR}(B^\pm\to\rho^\pm\gamma)$ with the help of (\ref{rare-ratio}) \cite{FR2}:
2969: \begin{equation}\label{Brhogam-char}
2970: \mbox{BR}(B^\pm\to \rho^\pm\gamma)_{\rm min}=\left(1.02\,^{+0.27}_{-0.23}
2971: \right)\times10^{-6}.
2972: \end{equation}
2973:
2974: A similar kind of reasoning holds also for the $U$-spin
2975: pairs $B^\pm\to K^\pm K, \pi^\pm K$ and $B^\pm\to K^\pm K^\ast, \pi^\pm K^\ast$,
2976: where the following lower bounds can be derived \cite{FR2}:
2977: \begin{eqnarray}
2978: \mbox{BR}(B^\pm\!\to\! K^\pm K)_{\rm min} \!\!&=&\!\! \Xi^K_\pi\!\times\!
2979: \left(1.69\,^{+0.21}_{-0.24}\right)\!\times\! 10^{-6}\label{BKK-char}\\
2980: \mbox{BR}(B^\pm\!\to\! K^\pm K^\ast)_{\rm min} \!\!&=&\!\! \Xi^K_\pi\!\times\!
2981: \left(0.68\,^{+0.11}_{-0.13}
2982: \right)\!\times \! 10^{-6},\label{BpiKast}
2983: \end{eqnarray}
2984: with $\Xi^K_\pi$ given in (\ref{Xi-K-pi}). Thanks to the most recent
2985: $B$-factory data, we have now also evidence for $B^\pm\to K^\pm K$
2986: decays:
2987: \begin{equation}
2988: \mbox{BR}(B^\pm\!\to\! K^\pm K)=
2989: \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2990: (1.5\pm0.5\pm0.1)\times 10^{-6} & \mbox{(BaBar \cite{BaBar-BKK})}\\
2991: (1.0\pm0.4\pm0.1)\times 10^{-6} & \mbox{(Belle \cite{Belle-BKK}),}
2992: \end{array} \right.
2993: \end{equation}
2994: whereas the upper limit of $5.3\times 10^{-6}$ for $B^\pm\to K^\pm K^\ast$
2995: still leaves a lot of space. Obviously, we may also consider the
2996: $B^\pm\to K^{\ast\pm} K, \rho^\pm K$ system \cite{FR2}. However,
2997: since currently only the upper bound
2998: $\mbox{BR}(B^\pm\to \rho^\pm K)<48\times 10^{-6}$ is available,
2999: we cannot yet give a number for the lower bound on
3000: $\mbox{BR}(B^\pm\to K^{\ast\pm} K)$. Experimental analyses of
3001: these modes are strongly encouraged.
3002:
3003: Let us now turn to $\bar B^0_d\to\rho^0\gamma$, which receives
3004: contributions from exchange and penguin annihilation topologies that are
3005: not present in
3006: $\bar B^0_d\to \bar K^{\ast0}\gamma$; in the case of $B^\pm\to\rho^\pm\gamma$
3007: and $B^\pm\to K^{\ast\pm}\gamma$, which are related by the $U$-spin symmetry,
3008: there is a one-to-one correspondence of topologies. Making the
3009: plausible assumption that the topologies involving the spectator quarks play
3010: a minor r\^ole, and taking the factor of $c_{\rho^0}=1/\sqrt{2}$ in
3011: (\ref{Ampl-Brhogam}) into account, the counterpart of (\ref{Brhogam-char})
3012: is given by
3013: \begin{equation}\label{Brhogam-neut}
3014: \mbox{BR}(B_d\to \rho^0\gamma)_{\rm min}=\left(0.51\,^{+0.13}_{-0.11}
3015: \right)\times10^{-6}.
3016: \end{equation}
3017:
3018: At the time of the derivation of the {\it lower} bounds for the
3019: $B\to\rho\gamma$ branching ratios given above, the following experimental {\it upper}
3020: bounds ($90\%$ C.L.) were available:
3021: \begin{equation}\label{Brho-gam-char-EXP}
3022: \mbox{BR}(B^\pm\to \rho^\pm\gamma)<\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
3023: 1.8\times 10^{-6} & \mbox{(BaBar \cite{Babar-Brhogamma-bound})}\\
3024: 2.2\times 10^{-6} & \mbox{(Belle \cite{Belle-Brhogamma-bound})}\\
3025: \end{array} \right.
3026: \end{equation}
3027: \begin{equation}\label{Brho-gam-neut-EXP}
3028: \mbox{BR}(B_d\to \rho^0\gamma)<\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
3029: 0.4\times 10^{-6} & \mbox{(BaBar \cite{Babar-Brhogamma-bound})}\\
3030: 0.8\times 10^{-6} & \mbox{(Belle \cite{Belle-Brhogamma-bound}).}
3031: \end{array} \right.
3032: \end{equation}
3033: Consequently, it was expected that the $\bar B\to\rho\gamma$ modes should
3034: soon be discovered at the $B$ factories \cite{FR2}. Indeed, the Belle
3035: collaboration reported recently the first observation of $b\to d\gamma$ processes
3036: \cite{Belle-bdgam-obs}:
3037: \begin{eqnarray}
3038: \mbox{BR}(B^\pm\to \rho^\pm\gamma)&=&\left(0.55^{+0.43+0.12}_{-0.37-0.11}\right)
3039: \times 10^{-6}
3040: \label{Belle-Brhogam-p}\\
3041: \mbox{BR}(B_d\to \rho^0\gamma)&=&\left(1.17^{+0.35+0.09}_{-0.31-0.08}\right)
3042: \times 10^{-6}
3043: \label{Belle-Brhogam-n}\\
3044: \mbox{BR}(B\to(\rho,\omega)\gamma)&=&
3045: \left(1.34^{+0.34+0.14}_{-0.31-0.10}\right)\times 10^{-6},
3046: \end{eqnarray}
3047: which was one of the hot topics of the 2005 summer conferences \cite{Belle-press}.
3048: These measurements still suffer from large uncertainties, and the pattern of the
3049: central values of (\ref{Belle-Brhogam-p}) and (\ref{Belle-Brhogam-n}) would be in
3050: conflict with the expectation following from the isospin symmetry. It will be interesting
3051: to follow the evolution of the data. The next important conceptual step would be the measurement of the corresponding CP-violating observables, though this is still
3052: in the distant future.
3053:
3054: An alternative avenue to confront the data for the $B\to \rho\gamma$
3055: branching ratios with the SM is provided by converting them into information
3056: on the side $R_t$ of the UT. To this end, the authors of Refs.~\cite{ALP-rare,BoBu}
3057: use also (\ref{SU3-break-rare}), and calculate the CP-conserving (complex)
3058: parameter $\delta a$ entering
3059: $\rho_{\rho\gamma}e^{i\theta_{\rho\gamma}}=R_b\left[1+\delta a\right]$
3060: in the QCDF approach. The corresponding result, which favours a small impact
3061: of $\delta a$, takes leading and next-to-leading order QCD corrections into
3062: account and holds to leading order in the heavy-quark limit \cite{BoBu}.
3063: In view of the remarks about possible long-distance effects made above and the
3064: $B$-factory data for the $B\to\pi\pi$ system, which indicate large corrections
3065: to the QCDF picture for non-leptonic $B$ decays into two light pseudoscalar
3066: mesons (see Subsection~\ref{ssec:Bpipi-hadr}), it is, however, not obvious that
3067: the impact of $\delta a$ is actually small. The advantage of the bound
3068: following from (\ref{H-bound}) is that it is -- by construction -- {\it not} affected
3069: by $\rho_{\rho\gamma}e^{i\theta_{\rho\gamma}}$ at all.
3070:
3071:
3072:
3073: %
3074: %
3075: %
3076: \subsection{General Lower Bounds for $b\to d$ Penguin Processes}
3077: %
3078: %
3079: %
3080: Interestingly, the bounds discussed above are actually
3081: realizations of a general, model-independent bound that can be derived
3082: in the SM for $b\to d$ penguin processes \cite{FR2}. If we consider such
3083: a decay, $\bar B \to \bar f_d$, we may -- in analogy to (\ref{ampl-BdKK-lamt})
3084: and (\ref{Ampl-Brhogam}) -- write
3085: \begin{equation}
3086: A(\bar B \to \bar f_d)= A^{(0)}_d
3087: \left[1-\rho_de^{i\theta_d}e^{-i\gamma}\right],
3088: \end{equation}
3089: so that the CP-averaged amplitude square is given as follows:
3090: \begin{equation}
3091: \langle|A(B \to f_d)|^2\rangle=|A^{(0)}_d|^2
3092: \left[1-2\rho_d\cos\theta_d\cos\gamma+\rho_d^2\right].
3093: \end{equation}
3094: In general, $\rho_d$ and $\theta_d$ depend on the point in phase space
3095: considered. Consequently, the expression
3096: \begin{equation}
3097: \mbox{BR}(B \to f_d)=\tau_B\left[\sum_{\rm Pol}
3098: \int \!\! d \, {\rm PS} \, \langle|A(B \to f_d)|^2\rangle \right]
3099: \end{equation}
3100: for the CP-averaged branching ratio, where the sum runs over possible
3101: polarization configurations of $f_d$, does {\it not} factorize into
3102: $|A^{(0)}_d|^2$ and $[1-2\rho_d\cos\theta_d\cos\gamma+\rho_d^2]$ as
3103: in the case of the two-body decays considered above. However, if we
3104: keep $\rho_d$ and $\theta_d$ as free, ``unknown'' parameters at any
3105: given point in phase space, we obtain
3106: \begin{equation}
3107: \langle|A(B \to f_d)|^2\rangle\geq|A^{(0)}_d|^2 \sin^2\gamma,
3108: \end{equation}
3109: which implies
3110: \begin{equation}
3111: \mbox{BR}(B \to f_d)\geq\tau_B\left[\sum_{\rm Pol}
3112: \int \!\! d \, {\rm PS} \, |A^{(0)}_d|^2 \right]\sin^2\gamma.
3113: \end{equation}
3114:
3115: In order to deal with the term in square brackets, we use a $b\to s$
3116: penguin decay $\bar B \to \bar f_s$, which is the counterpart of $\bar B \to \bar f_d$
3117: in that the corresponding CP-conserving strong amplitudes can be related
3118: to one another through the $SU(3)$ flavour symmetry. In analogy to
3119: (\ref{Ampl-BKastgam}), we may then write
3120: \begin{equation}
3121: A(\bar B \to \bar f_s)= - \frac{A^{(0)}_s}{\sqrt{\epsilon}}
3122: \left[1+\epsilon\rho_s e^{i\theta_s}e^{-i\gamma}\right].
3123: \end{equation}
3124: If we neglect the term proportional to $\epsilon$ in the square bracket,
3125: we arrive at
3126: \begin{equation}\label{general-bound}
3127: \frac{\mbox{BR}(B \to f_d)}{\mbox{BR}(B \to f_s)}
3128: \geq \epsilon \left[\frac{\sum_{\rm Pol}\int \! d \, {\rm PS} \,
3129: |A^{(0)}_d|^2 }{\sum_{\rm Pol}\int \! d \, {\rm PS} \, |A^{(0)}_s|^2 }
3130: \right]\sin^2\gamma.
3131: \end{equation}
3132: Apart from the tiny $\epsilon$ correction, which gave a shift of about
3133: $1.9\%$ in (\ref{H-bound}), (\ref{general-bound}) is valid
3134: exactly in the SM. If we now apply the $SU(3)$ flavour symmetry, we obtain
3135: \begin{equation}\label{SU3-limit}
3136: \frac{\sum_{\rm Pol}\int \! d \, {\rm PS} \,
3137: |A^{(0)}_d|^2 }{\sum_{\rm Pol}\int \! d \, {\rm PS} \, |A^{(0)}_s|^2 }
3138: \stackrel{SU(3)_{\rm F}}{\longrightarrow} 1.
3139: \end{equation}
3140: Since $\sin^2\gamma$ is favourably large in the SM and the decay
3141: $\bar B \to \bar f_s$ will be measured before its $b\to d$
3142: counterpart -- simply because of the CKM enhancement --
3143: (\ref{general-bound}) provides strong lower bounds for
3144: $\mbox{BR}(B \to f_d)$.
3145:
3146: It is instructive to return briefly to $B\to\rho\gamma$. If we look at
3147: (\ref{general-bound}), we observe immediately that the assumption that
3148: these modes are governed by a single photon helicity is no longer
3149: required. Consequently, (\ref{Brhogam-char}) and (\ref{Brhogam-neut})
3150: are actually very robust with respect to this issue, which may only affect
3151: the $SU(3)$-breaking corrections to a small extend. This feature is interesting
3152: in view of the recent discussion in \cite{GGLP}, where the photon polarization
3153: in $B\to \rho\gamma$ and $B\to K^\ast \gamma$ decays was critically analyzed.
3154:
3155: We can now also derive a bound for the
3156: $B^\pm\to K^{\ast\pm}K^{\ast}, \rho^\pm K^\ast$ system, where
3157: we have to sum in (\ref{general-bound}) over three polarization configurations
3158: of the vector mesons. The analysis of the $SU(3)$-breaking corrections is
3159: more involved than in the case of the decays considered above, and the
3160: emerging lower bound of
3161: $\mbox{BR}(B^\pm\to K^{\ast\pm} K^\ast)_{\rm min}\sim0.6\times 10^{-6}$
3162: is still very far from the experimental upper bound of $71\times 10^{-6}$.
3163: Interestingly, the theoretical lower bound would be reduced by $\sim 0.6$ in
3164: the strict $SU(3)$ limit, i.e.\ would be more conservative \cite{FR2}. A similar
3165: comment applies to (\ref{BdKK-bound1}), (\ref{BdKK-bound2}) and
3166: (\ref{BKK-char}), (\ref{BpiKast}). On the other hand, the
3167: $B\to\rho\gamma$ bounds in (\ref{Brhogam-char}) and
3168: (\ref{Brhogam-neut}) would be enhanced by $\sim 1.7$ in this case.
3169: However, here the theoretical situation is more favourable since we
3170: have not to rely on the factorization hypothesis to deal with the
3171: $SU(3)$-breaking effects as in the case of the non-leptonic decays.
3172:
3173: Let us finally come to another application of (\ref{general-bound}), which
3174: is offered by decays of the kind $\bar B\to \pi \ell^+\ell^-$ and
3175: $\bar B\to \rho \ell^+\ell^-$. It is
3176: well known that the $\rho_d$ terms complicate the interpretation of
3177: the corresponding data considerably \cite{LHC-Book}; the bound offers
3178: SM tests that are not affected by these contributions. The
3179: structure of the $b\to d \ell^+\ell^-$ Hamiltonian is similar to
3180: (\ref{Ham-bdgam}), but involves the additional operators
3181: \begin{equation}
3182: Q_{9,10}=\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}(\bar\ell\ell)_{\rm V\!,\,A}
3183: (\bar d_i b_i)_{\rm V-A}.
3184: \end{equation}
3185: The $b \to s \ell^+\ell^-$ modes $\bar B\to K \ell^+\ell^-$
3186: and $\bar B\to K^\ast \ell^+\ell^-$ were already observed at the $B$
3187: factories, with branching ratios at the $0.6\times 10^{-6}$ and
3188: $1.4\times 10^{-6}$ levels \cite{HFAG}, respectively, and received considerable
3189: theoretical attention (see, e.g., \cite{BKll}). For the application
3190: of (\ref{general-bound}), the charged decay combinations
3191: $B^\pm\to \pi^\pm \ell^+\ell^-, K^\pm \ell^+\ell^-$ and
3192: $B^\pm\to \rho^\pm \ell^+\ell^-, K^{\ast\pm} \ell^+\ell^-$ are suited
3193: best since the corresponding decay pairs are related to each other
3194: through the $U$-spin symmetry \cite{HM}. The numbers given above
3195: suggest
3196: \begin{equation}\label{Bpi-ellell-bounds}
3197: \mbox{BR}(B^\pm\to \pi^\pm \ell^+\ell^-), \quad
3198: \mbox{BR}(B^\pm\to \rho^\pm \ell^+\ell^-)
3199: \mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}
3200: 10^{-8},
3201: \end{equation}
3202: thereby leaving the exploration of these $b\to d$ penguin decays for the more
3203: distant future. Detailed studies of the associated $SU(3)$-breaking corrections
3204: are engouraged. By the time the $B^\pm\to \pi^\pm \ell^+\ell^-$,
3205: $\rho^\pm \ell^+\ell^-$ modes will come within experimental reach, we will
3206: hopefully have a good picture of these effects.
3207:
3208: It will be interesting to confront all of these bounds with experimental data.
3209: In the case of the non-leptonic $B_d\to K^0\bar K^0$, $B^\pm\to K^\pm K$ modes
3210: and their radiative $B\to\rho \gamma$ counterparts, they have already provided a
3211: first successful test of the SM description of the corresponding FCNC processes,
3212: although the uncertainties are still very large in view of the fact that
3213: we are just at the beginning
3214: of the experimental exploration of these channels. A couple of other non-leptonic
3215: decays of this kind may just be around the corner. It would be exciting if some
3216: bounds were significantly violated through destructive interference between
3217: SM and NP contributions. Since the different decay classes are governed by
3218: different operators, we could actually encounter surprises!
3219:
3220:
3221:
3222:
3223:
3224: %
3225: %
3226: %
3227: \boldmath
3228: \section{A Key Target of $B$-Decay Studies in the LHC Era:
3229: $B_s$ Mesons}\label{sec:LHC}
3230: \unboldmath
3231: %
3232: %
3233: %
3234: \subsection{Preliminaries}\label{ssec:Bs-prelim}
3235: %
3236: %
3237: %
3238: First insights into the $B_s$ system could already be obtained through the
3239: LEP experiments (CERN) and SLD (SLAC) \cite{LEPBOSC}.
3240: Since the currently operating $e^+e^-$ $B$ factories run at the $\Upsilon(4S)$
3241: resonance, which decays only into $B_{u,d}$ but not into $B_s$ mesons,
3242: the $B_s$ system cannot be explored by the BaBar and Belle experiments. On the
3243: other hand, plenty of $B_s$ mesons will be produced at hadron colliders.
3244: After important steps at the Tevatron, the physics potential of the $B_s$-meson
3245: system can then be fully exploited at the LHC, in particular by the LHCb
3246: experiment \cite{LHC-Book,schneider}.
3247:
3248: In the SM, the $B^0_s$--$\bar B^0_s$ oscillations are expected to be much faster
3249: than their $B_d$-meson counterparts, and could so far not be observed.
3250: Using the data of the LEP experiments, SLD and the Tevatron, only
3251: lower bounds on $\Delta M_s$ could be obtained. The most recent world
3252: average reads as follows \cite{oldeman}:
3253: \begin{equation}\label{DMs-bound}
3254: \Delta M_s > 16.6 \, \mbox{ps}^{-1} \, \mbox{(90\% C.L.)}.
3255: \end{equation}
3256: The mass difference $\Delta M_s$ plays an important r\^ole in the CKM fits
3257: discussed in Subsection~\ref{ssec:UT}. Let us now have a closer look at this
3258: topic. Following the discussion given in Section~\ref{sec:B}, the mass
3259: difference of the $B_q$ mass eigenstates satisfies the following relation in the SM:
3260: \begin{equation}\label{DMq-simple}
3261: \Delta M_q\propto M_{B_q}\hat B_{B_q}f_{B_q}^2 |V_{tq}^\ast V_{tb}|^2,
3262: \end{equation}
3263: where $M_{B_q}\equiv [M_{\rm H}^{(q)}+M_{\rm L}^{(q)}]/2$, and the
3264: factor of $\hat B_{B_q}f_{B_q}^2$ involving a ``bag'' parameter and the
3265: $B_q$ decay constant defined in analogy to (\ref{decay-const-def})
3266: arises from the parametrization of the
3267: hadronic matrix element of the $(\bar b q)_{\rm V-A}(\bar bq)_{\rm V-A}$
3268: operator of the low-energy effective Hamiltonian describing $B^0_q$--$\bar B^0_q$
3269: mixing. Looking at (\ref{DMq-simple}), we see that knowledge of these
3270: non-perturbative hadronic parameters, which typically comes from
3271: lattice \cite{CKM-book,lattice} or QCD sum-rule calculations \cite{SR-calc}, allows us
3272: to determine $|V_{td}|$, which can then be converted into the UT side
3273: $R_t$ with the help of (\ref{Rb-Rt-def}), as $|V_{cb}|= A \lambda^2$ can
3274: be determined through semi-leptonic $B$ decays \cite{CKM-book}.
3275: On the other hand, the
3276: Wolfenstein expansion allows us also to derive the relation
3277: \begin{equation}\label{Rt-simple-rel}
3278: R_t\equiv\frac{1}{\lambda}\left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{cb}}\right|=
3279: \frac{1}{\lambda}\left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|
3280: \left[1+{\cal O}(\lambda^2)\right].
3281: \end{equation}
3282: Consequently, we may -- up to corrections entering at the $\lambda^2$
3283: level -- determine $R_t$ through
3284: \begin{equation}\label{RT2-DM}
3285: \hspace*{-0.8truecm}\frac{\Delta M_d}{\Delta M_s}=
3286: \left[\frac{M_{B_d}}{M_{B_s}}\right]
3287: \left[\frac{\hat B_{B_d}}{\hat B_{B_s}}\right]
3288: \left[\frac{f_{B_d}}{f_{B_s}}\right]^2
3289: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|^2
3290: \, \Rightarrow \,
3291: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|=\xi \sqrt{\left[\frac{M_{B_s}}{M_{B_d}}\right]
3292: \left[\frac{\Delta M_d}{\Delta M_s}\right]},
3293: \end{equation}
3294: where
3295: \begin{equation}\label{xi-SU3}
3296: \xi\equiv\frac{\sqrt{\hat B_s}f_{B_s}}{\sqrt{\hat B_d}f_{B_d}}
3297: \end{equation}
3298: equals 1 in the strict $SU(3)$ limit. The evaluation of the $SU(3)$-breaking
3299: corrections entering $\xi$ is an
3300: important aspect of lattice QCD; recent studies give \cite{lattice}
3301: \begin{equation}\label{xi-lat}
3302: \xi=1.23\pm0.06.
3303: \end{equation}
3304: In comparison with the determination of $R_t$ through the absolute value of
3305: $\Delta M_d$, the advantage of (\ref{RT2-DM}) is that the hadronic parameters
3306: enter only through $SU(3)$-breaking corrections. Moreover, the CKM factor
3307: $A$, the short-distance QCD corrections, and the Inami--Lim function $S_0(x_t)$
3308: cancel in this expression. Thanks to the latter feature, the determination
3309: of $R_t$ with the help of (\ref{RT2-DM}) is not only valid in the SM, but also in
3310: the NP scenarios with MFV, in contrast to the extraction using only the information
3311: about $\Delta M_d$ \cite{buras-MFV}. As can be
3312: see in Fig.~\ref{fig:UTfits}, the main implication of the experimental lower
3313: bound for $\Delta M_s$ is $\gamma
3314: \mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}
3315: 90^\circ$.
3316:
3317: In Subsection~\ref{ssec:Bmix} we saw that the width difference $\Delta\Gamma_d$
3318: is negligibly small, whereas its $B_s$ counterpart is expected to be sizeable. As was
3319: recently reviewed in Ref.~\cite{lenz}, the current theoretical status of these
3320: quantities is given as follows:
3321: \begin{equation}\label{DGam-numbers}
3322: \frac{|\Delta\Gamma_d|}{\Gamma_d}=(3\pm1.2)\times 10^{-3}, \quad
3323: \frac{|\Delta\Gamma_s|}{\Gamma_s}=0.12\pm0.05.
3324: \end{equation}
3325: The width difference $\Delta\Gamma_s$ may provide interesting studies of CP
3326: violation through ``untagged'' $B_s$ rates \cite{dun}--\cite{DFN}, which are defined as
3327: \begin{equation}
3328: \langle\Gamma(B_s(t)\to f)\rangle
3329: \equiv\Gamma(B^0_s(t)\to f)+\Gamma(\bar B^0_s(t)\to f),
3330: \end{equation}
3331: and are characterized by the feature that we do not distinguish between
3332: initially, i.e.\ at time $t=0$, present $B^0_s$ or $\bar B^0_s$ mesons.
3333: If we consider a final state $f$ to which both a $B^0_s$ and a $\bar B^0_s$
3334: may decay, and use the expressions in (\ref{rates}), we find
3335: \begin{equation}\label{untagged-rate}
3336: \hspace*{-0.7truecm}\langle\Gamma(B_s(t)\to f)\rangle
3337: \propto \left[\cosh(\Delta\Gamma_st/2)-{\cal A}_{\Delta\Gamma}(B_s\to f)
3338: \sinh(\Delta\Gamma_st/2)\right]e^{-\Gamma_s t},
3339: \end{equation}
3340: where ${\cal A}_{\Delta\Gamma}(B_s\to f)\propto \mbox{Re}\,\xi_f^{(s)}$ was
3341: introduced in (\ref{ADGam}). We observe that the rapidly oscillating
3342: $\Delta M_st$ terms cancel, and that we may obtain information about the
3343: phase structure of the observable $\xi_f^{(s)}$, thereby providing valuable
3344: insights into CP violation. Following these lines, for instance, the
3345: untagged observables offered by the angular distribution of the
3346: $B_s\to K^{*+}K^{*-}, K^{*0}\bar K^{*0}$ decay products allow
3347: a determination of $\gamma$, provided $\Delta\Gamma_s$ is
3348: actually sizeable \cite{FD-CP}. Although $B$-decay experiments at hadron
3349: colliders should be able to resolve the $B^0_s$--$\bar B^0_s$ oscillations,
3350: untagged $B_s$-decay rates are interesting in terms of efficiency,
3351: acceptance and purity. Recently, the first results for $\Delta\Gamma_s$
3352: were reported from the Tevatron, using the $B^0_s\to J/\psi\phi$ channel \cite{DDF}:
3353: \begin{equation}
3354: \frac{|\Delta\Gamma_s|}{\Gamma_s}=\left\{
3355: \begin{array}{ll}
3356: 0.65^{+0.25}_{-0.33}\pm0.01 & \mbox{(CDF \cite{CDF-DG})}\\
3357: 0.24^{+0.28+0.03}_{-0.38-0.04} & \mbox{(D0 \cite{D0-DG})}.
3358: \end{array}
3359: \right.
3360: \end{equation}
3361: It will be interesting to follow the evolution of the data for this quantity.
3362:
3363: Finally, let us emphasize that the $B^0_s$--$\bar B^0_s$ mixing phase
3364: takes a tiny value in the SM, $\phi_s=-2\delta\gamma=-2\lambda^2\eta\sim
3365: -2^\circ$, whereas a large value of $\phi_d\sim 43^\circ$ was measured.
3366: This feature has interesting implications for the pattern of the CP-violating
3367: effects in certain $B_s$ decays, including the ``golden" channel
3368: $B^0_s\to J/\psi \phi$.
3369:
3370:
3371: %
3372: %
3373: %
3374: \subsection{$B^0_s\to J/\psi \phi$}\label{ssec:BsPsiPhi}
3375: %
3376: %
3377: %
3378: As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:BpsiK-diag}, the decay $B^0_s\to J/\psi \phi$
3379: is simply related to $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ through a
3380: replacement of the down spectator quark by a strange quark. Consequently,
3381: the structure of the $B^0_s\to J/\psi\phi$ decay amplitude is
3382: completely analogous to that of (\ref{BdpsiK-ampl2}). On the other hand, the
3383: final state of $B^0_s\to J/\psi\phi$ consists of two vector mesons, and is hence
3384: an admixture of different CP eigenstates, which can, however, be disentangled
3385: through an angular analysis of the $B^0_s\to J/\psi [\to\ell^+\ell^-]\phi[\to K^+K^-]$
3386: decay products \cite{DDF,DDLR}. The corresponding angular distribution
3387: exhibits tiny direct CP violation, and allows the extraction of
3388: \begin{equation}\label{sinphis}
3389: \sin\phi_s+{\cal O}(\overline{\lambda}^3)=\sin\phi_s+{\cal O}(10^{-3})
3390: \end{equation}
3391: through mixing-induced CP violation.
3392: Since we have $\phi_s={\cal O}(10^{-2})$ in the SM, the
3393: determination of this phase from (\ref{sinphis}) is affected by
3394: hadronic uncertainties of ${\cal O}(10\%)$, which may become an issue
3395: for the LHC era. These uncertainties can be controlled with
3396: the help of flavour-symmetry arguments through the
3397: $B^0_d\to J/\psi \rho^0$ decay \cite{RF-ang}.
3398:
3399: Thanks to its nice experimental signature, $B^0_s\to J/\psi\phi$ is very accessible
3400: at hadron colliders, and can be fully exploited at the LHC.
3401: Needless to note, the big hope is that large CP violation
3402: will be found in this channel. Since the CP-violating effects in
3403: $B^0_s\to J/\psi\phi$ are tiny in the SM, such an observation
3404: would give us an unambiguous
3405: signal for NP \cite{DFN,NiSi,Branco}. As the situation for NP entering
3406: through the decay amplitude is similar to $B\to J/\psi K$, we would get
3407: evidence for CP-violating NP contributions to $B^0_s$--$\bar B^0_s$ mixing,
3408: and could extract the corresponding sizeable value of $\phi_s$ \cite{DFN}.
3409: Such a scenario may generically arise in the presence of NP with
3410: $\Lambda_{\rm NP}\sim\mbox{TeV}$ \cite{RF-Phys-Rep}, as well as
3411: in specific models; for examples, see Refs.~\cite{JN,BKK,Z-prime}.
3412:
3413:
3414: \begin{figure}[t]
3415: \centerline{
3416: \includegraphics[width=5.6truecm]{B0qtoubarqDq-1.ps}
3417: \hspace*{0.5truecm}
3418: \includegraphics[width=5.8truecm]{B0qbartoDquqbar-1.ps}
3419: }
3420: \vspace*{-0.3truecm}
3421: \caption{Feynman diagrams contributing to $B^0_q\to D_q\bar u_q$
3422: and $\bar B^0_q\to D_q \bar u_q$
3423: decays.}\label{fig:BqDquq}
3424: \end{figure}
3425:
3426:
3427:
3428: %
3429: %
3430: %
3431: \subsection{$B_s\to D_s^\pm K^\mp$ and $B_d\to D^\pm \pi^\mp$}\label{ssec:BsDsK}
3432: %
3433: %
3434: %
3435: The decays $B_s\to D_s^\pm K^\mp$ \cite{BsDsK} and $B_d\to D^\pm \pi^\mp$
3436: \cite{BdDpi} can be
3437: treated on the same theoretical basis, and provide new strategies to determine
3438: $\gamma$ \cite{RF-gam-ca}. Following this paper, we write these modes, which
3439: are pure ``tree" decays according to the classification of
3440: Subsection~\ref{ssec:non-lept}, generically as $B_q\to D_q \bar u_q$.
3441: As can be seen from the Feynman diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:BqDquq}, their
3442: characteristic feature is that both a $B^0_q$ and a $\bar B^0_q$ meson may decay
3443: into the same final state $D_q \bar u_q$. Consequently, as illustrated in
3444: Fig.~\ref{fig:BqDquq-int}, interference effects between $B^0_q$--$\bar B^0_q$
3445: mixing and decay processes arise, which allow us to probe the weak phase
3446: $\phi_q+\gamma$ through measurements of the corresponding time-dependent
3447: decay rates.
3448:
3449: In the case of $q=s$, i.e.\ $D_s\in\{D_s^+, D_s^{\ast+}, ...\}$ and
3450: $u_s\in\{K^+, K^{\ast+}, ...\}$, these interference effects are governed
3451: by a hadronic parameter $X_s e^{i\delta_s}\propto R_b\approx0.4$, where
3452: $R_b\propto |V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ is the usual UT side, and hence are large.
3453: On the other hand, for $q=d$, i.e.\ $D_d\in\{D^+, D^{\ast+}, ...\}$
3454: and $u_d\in\{\pi^+, \rho^+, ...\}$, the interference effects are described
3455: by $X_d e^{i\delta_d}\propto -\lambda^2R_b\approx-0.02$, and hence are tiny.
3456: In the following, we shall only consider $B_q\to D_q \overline{u}_q$ modes,
3457: where at least one of the $D_q$, $\bar u_q$ states is a pseudoscalar
3458: meson; otherwise a complicated angular analysis has to be performed.
3459:
3460:
3461: \begin{figure}
3462: \centerline{
3463: \includegraphics[width=3.2truecm]{B0qbar-B0q-Dquqbar-int-1.ps} }
3464: \vspace*{-0.3truecm}
3465: \caption{Interference effects between $B^0_q\to D_q\bar u_q$
3466: and $\bar B^0_q\to D_q\bar u_q$
3467: decays.}\label{fig:BqDquq-int}
3468: \end{figure}
3469:
3470:
3471: The time-dependent rate asymmetries of these decays take the same form
3472: as (\ref{time-dep-CP}). It is well known that they allow a {\it theoretically
3473: clean} determination of $\phi_q+\gamma$, where the ``conventional''
3474: approach works as follows \cite{BsDsK,BdDpi}:
3475: if we measure the observables
3476: $C(B_q\to D_q\bar u_q)\equiv C_q$
3477: and $C(B_q\to \bar D_q u_q)\equiv \overline{C}_q$ provided by the
3478: $\cos(\Delta M_qt)$ pieces, we may determine the following quantities:
3479: \begin{equation}\label{Cpm-def}
3480: \hspace*{-0.9truecm}
3481: \langle C_q\rangle_+\equiv
3482: \frac{1}{2}\left[\overline{C}_q+ C_q\right]=0, \quad
3483: \langle C_q\rangle_-\equiv
3484: \frac{1}{2}\left[\overline{C}_q-C_q\right]=\frac{1-X_q^2}{1+X_q^2},
3485: \end{equation}
3486: where $\langle C_q\rangle_-$ allows us to extract $X_q$. However, to this
3487: end we have to resolve terms entering at the $X_q^2$ level. In the case
3488: of $q=s$, we have $X_s={\cal O}(R_b)$, implying $X_s^2={\cal O}(0.16)$, so
3489: that this should actually be possible, though challenging. On the other hand,
3490: $X_d={\cal O}(-\lambda^2R_b)$ is doubly Cabibbo-suppressed. Although it
3491: should be possible to resolve terms of ${\cal O}(X_d)$, this will be
3492: impossible for the vanishingly small $X_d^2={\cal O}(0.0004)$
3493: terms, so that other approaches to fix $X_d$ are required
3494: \cite{BdDpi}. For the extraction of $\phi_q+\gamma$, the
3495: mixing-induced observables $S(B_q\to D_q\bar u_q)\equiv S_q$ and
3496: $S(B_q\to \bar D_q u_q)\equiv \overline{S}_q$ associated with the
3497: $\sin(\Delta M_qt)$ terms of the time-dependent rate asymmetry must be
3498: measured. In analogy to (\ref{Cpm-def}), it is convenient to
3499: introduce observable combinations $\langle S_q\rangle_\pm$. Assuming
3500: that $X_q$ is known, we may consider the quantities
3501: \begin{eqnarray}
3502: s_+&\equiv& (-1)^L
3503: \left[\frac{1+X_q^2}{2 X_q}\right]\langle S_q\rangle_+
3504: =+\cos\delta_q\sin(\phi_q+\gamma)\\
3505: s_-&\equiv&(-1)^L
3506: \left[\frac{1+X_q^2}{2X_q}\right]\langle S_q\rangle_-
3507: =-\sin\delta_q\cos(\phi_q+\gamma),
3508: \end{eqnarray}
3509: which yield
3510: \begin{equation}\label{conv-extr}
3511: \sin^2(\phi_q+\gamma)=\frac{1}{2}\left[(1+s_+^2-s_-^2) \pm
3512: \sqrt{(1+s_+^2-s_-^2)^2-4s_+^2}\right],
3513: \end{equation}
3514: implying an eightfold solution for $\phi_q+\gamma$. If we fix the sign of
3515: $\cos\delta_q$ through factorization, still a fourfold discrete ambiguity is left,
3516: which is limiting the power for the search of NP significantly.
3517: Note that this assumption allows us also
3518: to fix the sign of $\sin(\phi_q+\gamma)$ through $\langle S_q\rangle_+$.
3519: To this end, the factor $(-1)^L$, where $L$ is the $D_q\bar u_q$
3520: angular momentum, has to be properly taken into account.
3521: This is a crucial issue for the extraction of
3522: the sign of $\sin(\phi_d+\gamma)$ from $B_d\to D^{\ast\pm}\pi^\mp$ decays.
3523:
3524: Let us now discuss new strategies to explore CP violation through
3525: $B_q\to D_q \bar u_q$ modes, following Ref.~\cite{RF-gam-ca}.
3526: If $\Delta\Gamma_s$ is sizeable, the ``untagged''
3527: rates introduced in (\ref{untagged-rate}) allow us to measure
3528: ${\cal A}_{\rm \Delta\Gamma}(B_s\to D_s\bar u_s)
3529: \equiv {\cal A}_{\rm \Delta\Gamma_s}$ and
3530: ${\cal A}_{\rm \Delta\Gamma}(B_s\to \bar D_s u_s)\equiv
3531: \overline{{\cal A}}_{\rm \Delta\Gamma_s}$. Introducing, in analogy
3532: to (\ref{Cpm-def}), observable combinations
3533: $\langle{\cal A}_{\rm \Delta\Gamma_s}\rangle_\pm$, we may derive the relations
3534: \begin{equation}\label{untagged-extr}
3535: \tan(\phi_s+\gamma)=
3536: -\left[\frac{\langle S_s\rangle_+}{\langle{\cal A}_{\rm \Delta\Gamma_s}
3537: \rangle_+}\right]
3538: =+\left[\frac{\langle{\cal A}_{\rm \Delta\Gamma_s}
3539: \rangle_-}{\langle S_s\rangle_-}\right],
3540: \end{equation}
3541: which allow an {\it unambiguous} extraction of $\phi_s+\gamma$ if we fix
3542: the sign of $\cos\delta_q$ through factorization.
3543: Another important advantage
3544: of (\ref{untagged-extr}) is that we do {\it not} have to rely on
3545: ${\cal O}(X_s^2)$ terms, as $\langle S_s\rangle_\pm$ and
3546: $\langle {\cal A}_{\rm \Delta\Gamma_s}\rangle_\pm$ are proportional to $X_s$.
3547: On the other hand, a sizeable value of $\Delta\Gamma_s$ is of course
3548: needed.
3549:
3550: If we keep the hadronic quantities $X_q$ and $\delta_q$
3551: as ``unknown'', free parameters in the expressions for the
3552: $\langle S_q\rangle_\pm$, we may obtain bounds on $\phi_q+\gamma$ from
3553: \begin{equation}
3554: |\sin(\phi_q+\gamma)|\geq|\langle S_q\rangle_+|, \quad
3555: |\cos(\phi_q+\gamma)|\geq|\langle S_q\rangle_-|.
3556: \end{equation}
3557: If $X_q$ is known, stronger constraints are implied by
3558: \begin{equation}\label{bounds}
3559: |\sin(\phi_q+\gamma)|\geq|s_+|, \quad
3560: |\cos(\phi_q+\gamma)|\geq|s_-|.
3561: \end{equation}
3562: Once $s_+$ and $s_-$ are known, we may of course determine
3563: $\phi_q+\gamma$ through the ``conventional'' approach, using
3564: (\ref{conv-extr}). However, the bounds following from
3565: (\ref{bounds}) provide essentially the same information
3566: and are much simpler to
3567: implement. Moreover, as discussed in detail in Ref.~\cite{RF-gam-ca}
3568: for several examples within the SM, the bounds following from the $B_s$ and
3569: $B_d$ modes may be highly complementary, thereby providing particularly
3570: narrow, theoretically clean ranges for $\gamma$.
3571:
3572: Let us now further exploit the complementarity between the
3573: $B_s^0\to D_s^{(\ast)+}K^-$ and $B_d^0\to D^{(\ast)+}\pi^-$ processes.
3574: Looking at the corresponding decay topologies, we see that
3575: these channels are related to each other through an interchange of
3576: all down and strange quarks. Consequently, applying again the $U$-spin
3577: symmetry implies $a_s=a_d$ and $\delta_s=\delta_d$, where $a_s\equiv X_s/R_b$
3578: and $a_d\equiv -X_d/(\lambda^2 R_b)$ are the ratios of the hadronic matrix elements
3579: entering $X_s$ and $X_d$, respectively. There are various possibilities
3580: to implement these relations \cite{RF-gam-ca}. A particularly simple
3581: picture arises if we assume that $a_s=a_d$ {\it and} $\delta_s=\delta_d$,
3582: which yields
3583: \begin{equation}
3584: \tan\gamma=-\left[\frac{\sin\phi_d-S
3585: \sin\phi_s}{\cos\phi_d-S\cos\phi_s}
3586: \right]\stackrel{\phi_s=0^\circ}{=}
3587: -\left[\frac{\sin\phi_d}{\cos\phi_d-S}\right].
3588: \end{equation}
3589: Here we have introduced
3590: \begin{equation}
3591: S\equiv-R\left[\frac{\langle S_d\rangle_+}{\langle S_s\rangle_+}\right]
3592: \end{equation}
3593: with
3594: \begin{equation}
3595: R\equiv\left(\frac{1-\lambda^2}{\lambda^2}\right)
3596: \left[\frac{1}{1+X_s^2}\right],
3597: \end{equation}
3598: where $R$ can be fixed with the help of untagged $B_s$ rates through
3599: \begin{equation}
3600: R=\left(\frac{f_K}{f_\pi}\right)^2 \left[
3601: \frac{\Gamma(\bar B^0_s \to D_s^{(\ast)+}\pi^-)+
3602: \Gamma(B^0_s\to D_s^{(\ast)-}\pi^+)}{\langle\Gamma(B_s\to D_s^{(\ast)+}K^-)
3603: \rangle+\langle\Gamma(B_s\to D_s^{(\ast)-}K^+)\rangle}\right].
3604: \end{equation}
3605: Alternatively, we can {\it only} assume that $\delta_s=\delta_d$ {\it or}
3606: that $a_s=a_d$ \cite{RF-gam-ca}. An important feature of this strategy
3607: is that it allow us to extract an {\it unambiguous} value of $\gamma$,
3608: which is crucial for the search of NP; first studies for LHCb are very promising
3609: in this respect \cite{wilkinson-CKM}.
3610: Another advantage with respect to the ``conventional'' approach is that
3611: $X_q^2$ terms have not to be resolved experimentally. In
3612: particular, $X_d$ does {\it not} have to be fixed, and $X_s$ may only enter
3613: through a $1+X_s^2$ correction, which can straightforwardly be determined
3614: through untagged $B_s$ rate measurements. In the most refined implementation
3615: of this strategy, the measurement of $X_d/X_s$ would only be interesting for
3616: the inclusion of $U$-spin-breaking corrections in $a_d/a_s$. Moreover, we may
3617: obtain interesting insights into hadron dynamics and $U$-spin breaking.
3618:
3619: The colour-suppressed counterparts
3620: of the $B_q\to D_q \bar u_q$ modes are also interesting
3621: for the exploration of CP violation.
3622: In the case of the $B_d\to D K_{\rm S(L)}$, $B_s\to D \eta^{(')}, D \phi$, ...\
3623: modes, the interference effects between $B^0_q$--$\bar B^0_q$ mixing
3624: and decay processes are governed by $x_{f_s}e^{i\delta_{f_s}}\propto R_b$.
3625: If we consider the CP eigenstates $D_\pm$ of the neutral $D$-meson system,
3626: we obtain additional interference effects at the amplitude level, which involve
3627: $\gamma$, and may introduce the following ``untagged'' rate asymmetry
3628: \cite{RF-BdDpi0}:
3629: \begin{equation}
3630: \Gamma_{+-}^{f_s}\equiv
3631: \frac{\langle\Gamma(B_q\to D_+ f_s)\rangle-\langle
3632: \Gamma(B_q\to D_- f_s)\rangle}{\langle\Gamma(B_q\to D_+ f_s)\rangle
3633: +\langle\Gamma(B_q\to D_- f_s)\rangle},
3634: \end{equation}
3635: which allows us to constrain $\gamma$ through the relation
3636: \begin{equation}
3637: |\cos\gamma|\geq |\Gamma_{+-}^{f_s}|.
3638: \end{equation}
3639: Moreover, if we complement
3640: $\Gamma_{+-}^{f_s}$ with
3641: \begin{equation}
3642: \langle S_{f_s}\rangle_\pm\equiv \frac{1}{2}\left[S_+^{f_s}\pm S_-^{f_s}\right],
3643: \end{equation}
3644: where $S_\pm^{f_s}\equiv {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_q\to D_\pm f_s)$,
3645: we may derive the following simple but {\it exact} relation:
3646: \begin{equation}
3647: \tan\gamma\cos\phi_q=
3648: \left[\frac{\eta_{f_s} \langle S_{f_s}
3649: \rangle_+}{\Gamma_{+-}^{f_s}}\right]+\left[\eta_{f_s}\langle S_{f_s}\rangle_--
3650: \sin\phi_q\right],
3651: \end{equation}
3652: with $\eta_{f_s}\equiv(-1)^L\eta_{\rm CP}^{f_s}$. This expression allows
3653: a conceptually simple, theoretically clean and essentially unambiguous
3654: determination of $\gamma$ \cite{RF-BdDpi0}. Since the interference effects are
3655: governed by the tiny parameter $x_{f_d}e^{i\delta_{f_d}}\propto -\lambda^2R_b$
3656: in the case of $B_s\to D_\pm K_{\rm S(L)}$,
3657: $B_d\to D_\pm \pi^0, D_\pm \rho^0, ...$, these modes are not as interesting
3658: for the extraction of $\gamma$. However, they provide the relation
3659: \begin{equation}
3660: \eta_{f_d}\langle S_{f_d}\rangle_-=\sin\phi_q + {\cal O}(x_{f_d}^2)
3661: =\sin\phi_q + {\cal O}(4\times 10^{-4}),
3662: \end{equation}
3663: allowing very interesting determinations of $\phi_q$ with theoretical
3664: accuracies one order of magnitude higher than those of
3665: the conventional $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ and $B^0_s\to J/\psi \phi$
3666: approaches~\cite{RF-BdDpi0}. As we pointed out in Subsection~\ref{ssec:BpsiK},
3667: these measurements would be very interesting in view of the new world
3668: average of $(\sin2\beta)_{\psi K_{\rm S}}$.
3669:
3670:
3671: %
3672: %
3673: %
3674: \subsection{$B^0_s\to K^+K^-$ and $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$}
3675: %
3676: %
3677: %
3678: The decay $B^0_s\to K^+K^-$ is a $\bar b \to \bar s$ transition, and
3679: involves tree and penguin amplitudes, as the $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ mode
3680: \cite{RF-BsKK}. However, because of the different CKM structure, the latter
3681: topologies play actually the dominant r\^ole in the $B^0_s\to K^+K^-$ channel.
3682: In analogy to (\ref{Bpipi-ampl}), we may write
3683: \begin{equation}\label{BsKK-ampl}
3684: A(B_s^0\to K^+K^-)=\sqrt{\epsilon} \,\, {\cal C}'
3685: \left[e^{i\gamma}+\frac{1}{\epsilon}\,d'e^{i\theta'}\right],
3686: \end{equation}
3687: where $\epsilon$ was introduced in (\ref{eps-def}), and
3688: the CP-conserving hadronic parameters ${\cal C}'$ and $d'e^{i\theta'}$
3689: correspond to ${\cal C}$ and $de^{i\theta}$, respectively. The corresponding
3690: observables take then the following generic form:
3691: \begin{eqnarray}
3692: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_s\to K^+K^-)&=&
3693: G_1'(d',\theta';\gamma) \label{CP-BsKK-dir-gen}\\
3694: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_s\to K^+K^-)&=&
3695: G_2'(d',\theta';\gamma,\phi_s),\label{CP-BsKK-mix-gen}
3696: \end{eqnarray}
3697: in analogy to the expressions for the CP-violating $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$
3698: asymmetries in (\ref{CP-Bpipi-dir-gen}) and (\ref{CP-Bpipi-mix-gen}).
3699: Since $\phi_d=(43.4\pm 2.5)^\circ$ is already known (see
3700: Subsection~\ref{ssec:BpsiK}) and $\phi_s$ is negligibly small
3701: in the SM -- or can be determined through $B^0_s\to J/\psi \phi$ should CP-violating
3702: NP contributions to $B^0_s$--$\bar B^0_s$ mixing make it sizeable --
3703: we may convert the measured values of
3704: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to \pi^+\pi^-)$,
3705: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to \pi^+\pi^-)$ and
3706: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_s\to K^+K^-)$,
3707: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_s\to K^+K^-)$ into {\it theoretically clean}
3708: contours in the $\gamma$--$d$ and $\gamma$--$d'$ planes, respectively.
3709: In Fig.~\ref{fig:Bs-Bd-contours}, we show these contours for an example,
3710: which corresponds to the central values of (\ref{Bpipi-CP-averages}) and
3711: (\ref{Bpipi-CP-averages2}) with the hadronic parameters $(d,\theta)$
3712: in (\ref{Bpipi-par-det}).
3713:
3714: As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bpipi-diag}, the decay
3715: $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ is actually related to $B^0_s\to K^+K^-$ through the interchange
3716: of {\it all} down and strange quarks. Consequently, each decay topology contributing
3717: to $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ has a counterpart in $B^0_s\to K^+K^-$, and
3718: the corresponding hadronic parameters can be related to each other
3719: with the help of the $U$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions,
3720: implying the following relations \cite{RF-BsKK}:
3721: \begin{equation}\label{U-spin-rel}
3722: d'=d, \quad \theta'=\theta.
3723: \end{equation}
3724: Applying the former, we may extract $\gamma$ and $d$ through the
3725: intersections of the theoretically clean $\gamma$--$d$ and $\gamma$--$d'$
3726: contours. As discussed in Ref.~\cite{RF-BsKK}, it is also possible to resolve
3727: straightforwardly the
3728: twofold ambiguity for $(\gamma,d)$ arising in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bs-Bd-contours},
3729: thereby leaving us with the ``true" solution of $\gamma=74^\circ$ in
3730: this example. Moreover, we may determine $\theta$ and $\theta'$, which
3731: allow an interesting internal consistency check of the second $U$-spin relation
3732: in (\ref{U-spin-rel}). An alternative avenue is provided if we eliminate $d$ and
3733: $d'$ through the CP-violating $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B_s\to K^+K^-$
3734: observables, respectively, and extract then these parameters and $\gamma$
3735: through the $U$-spin relation $\theta'=\theta$.
3736:
3737:
3738: \begin{figure}
3739: \centering
3740: \includegraphics[width=9.4truecm]{Bs-Bd-contours.ps}
3741: \vspace*{-0.6truecm}
3742: \caption{The contours in the $\gamma$--$d^{(')}$ plane for an example with
3743: $d=d'=0.52$, $\theta=\theta'=146^\circ$, $\phi_d=43.4^\circ$, $\phi_s=-2^\circ$,
3744: $\gamma=74^\circ$, which corresponds to the CP asymmetries
3745: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)=-0.37$ and
3746: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)=+0.50$
3747: (see Subsections~\ref{ssec:Bpi+pi-} and \ref{ssec:Bpipi-hadr}), as well as
3748: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_s\to K^+K^-)=+0.12$ and
3749: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_s\to K^+K^-)=-0.19$.}\label{fig:Bs-Bd-contours}
3750: \end{figure}
3751:
3752:
3753: This strategy is very promising from an experimental point of view
3754: for LHCb, where an accuracy for $\gamma$ of a few degrees
3755: can be achieved \cite{LHC-Book,schneider,LHCb-analyses}. As far as
3756: possible $U$-spin-breaking
3757: corrections to $d'=d$ are concerned, they enter the determination of $\gamma$
3758: through a relative shift of the $\gamma$--$d$ and $\gamma$--$d'$ contours;
3759: their impact on the extracted value of $\gamma$ therefore depends on the form
3760: of these curves, which is fixed through the measured observables. In the examples discussed in Refs.~\cite{RF-Phys-Rep,RF-BsKK}, as well as in the one shown in
3761: Fig.~\ref{fig:Bs-Bd-contours}, the extracted value of $\gamma$ would be very
3762: stable under such effects. Let us also note that the $U$-spin
3763: relations in (\ref{U-spin-rel}) are particularly robust since they involve only
3764: ratios of hadronic amplitudes, where all $SU(3)$-breaking decay constants
3765: and form factors cancel in factorization and also chirally enhanced terms
3766: would not lead to $U$-spin-breaking corrections \cite{RF-BsKK}.
3767: On the other hand, the ratio $|{\cal C}'/{\cal C}|$, which equals 1 in the strict
3768: $U$-spin limit and enters the $U$-spin relation
3769: \begin{equation}
3770: \frac{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}
3771: (B_s\to K^+K^-)}{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)}=
3772: -\left|\frac{{\cal C}'}{{\cal C}}\right|^2
3773: \left[\frac{\mbox{BR}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)}{\mbox{BR}(B_s\to K^+K^-)}\right]
3774: \frac{\tau_{B_s}}{\tau_{B_d}},
3775: \end{equation}
3776: is affected by $U$-spin-breaking effects within factorization. An
3777: estimate of the corresponding form factors was recently performed
3778: in Ref.~\cite{KMM} with the help of QCD sum rules, which is an important
3779: ingredient for a SM prediction of the CP-averaged $B_s\to K^+K^-$ branching
3780: ratio \cite{BFRS,BFRS-up}, yielding a value in accordance with the first results
3781: reported by the CDF collaboration \cite{CDF-BsKK}. For other recent analyses
3782: of the $B_s\to K^+K^-$ decay, see Refs.~\cite{safir,BLMV}
3783:
3784: In addition to the $B_s\to K^+K^-$, $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and
3785: $B_s\to D_s^\pm K^\mp$, $B_d\to D^\pm \pi^\mp$ strategies discussed
3786: above, also other $U$-spin methods for the extraction of $\gamma$ were
3787: proposed, using
3788: $B_{s(d)}\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ or $B_{d(s)}\to D_{d(s)}^+D_{d(s)}^-$
3789: \cite{RF-BdsPsiK}, $B_{d(s)}\to K^{0(*)}\bar K^{0(*)}$ \cite{RF-Phys-Rep,RF-ang},
3790: $B_{(s)}\to \pi K$ \cite{GR-BspiK}, or $B_{s(d)}\to J/\psi \eta$
3791: modes \cite{skands}. In a very recent paper \cite{SoSu}, also two-body decays
3792: of charged $B$ mesons were considered.
3793:
3794:
3795:
3796: \begin{figure}[t]
3797: \centerline{
3798: \includegraphics[width=4.6truecm]{Bqmumu-pen.ps}
3799: \hspace*{0.5truecm}
3800: \includegraphics[width=4.3truecm]{Bqmumu-box.ps}
3801: }
3802: \caption{Feynman diagrams contributing to
3803: $B^0_q\to \mu^+\mu^-$ ($q\in\{s,d\}$).}\label{fig:Bqmumu}
3804: \end{figure}
3805:
3806:
3807:
3808:
3809: %
3810: %
3811: %
3812: \subsection{$B^0_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$ and $B^0_d\to\mu^+\mu^-$}\label{ssec:Bmumu}
3813: %
3814: %
3815: %
3816: Let us finally have a closer look at the rare decay $B^0_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$,
3817: which we encountered already briefly in Subsection~\ref{ssec:rareKB}.
3818: As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bqmumu}, this decay and its $B_d$-meson
3819: counterpart $B^0_d\to\mu^+\mu^-$ originate from $Z^0$-penguin and
3820: box diagrams in the SM. The corresponding low-energy effective Hamiltonian
3821: is given as follows \cite{B-LH98}:
3822: \begin{equation}\label{Heff-Bmumu}
3823: {\cal H}_{\rm eff}=-\frac{G_{\rm F}}{\sqrt{2}}\left[
3824: \frac{\alpha}{2\pi\sin^2\Theta_{\rm W}}\right]
3825: V_{tb}^\ast V_{tq} \eta_Y Y_0(x_t)(\bar b q)_{\rm V-A}(\bar\mu\mu)_{\rm V-A}
3826: \,+\, {\rm h.c.},
3827: \end{equation}
3828: where $\alpha$ denotes the QED coupling and $\Theta_{\rm W}$ is the
3829: Weinberg angle. The short-distance physics is described by
3830: $Y(x_t)\equiv\eta_Y Y_0(x_t)$, where $\eta_Y=1.012$ is a perturbative
3831: QCD correction \cite{BB-Bmumu}--\cite{MiU}, and the Inami--Lim function
3832: $Y_0(x_t)$ describes the top-quark mass dependence. We observe that
3833: only the matrix element $\langle 0| (\bar b q)_{\rm V-A}|B^0_q\rangle$
3834: is required. Since here the vector-current piece vanishes, as
3835: the $B^0_q$ is a pseudoscalar meson, this matrix element is simply
3836: given by the decay constant $f_{B_q}$, which is defined in analogy
3837: to (\ref{decay-const-def}). Consequently, we arrive at a very favourable
3838: situation with respect to the hadronic matrix elements. Since, moreover,
3839: NLO QCD corrections were calculated, and long-distance contributions are
3840: expected to play a negligible r\^ole \cite{BB-Bmumu}, the $B^0_q\to\mu^+\mu^-$
3841: modes belong to the cleanest rare $B$ decays. The SM branching ratios
3842: can then be written in the following compact form \cite{Brev01}:
3843: \begin{eqnarray}
3844: \lefteqn{\mbox{BR}( B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-) = 4.1 \times 10^{-9}}\nonumber\\
3845: &&\qquad\qquad\times \left[\frac{f_{B_s}}{0.24 \, \mbox{GeV}} \right]^2 \left[
3846: \frac{|V_{ts}|}{0.040} \right]^2 \left[
3847: \frac{\tau_{B_s}}{1.5 \, \mbox{ps}} \right] \left[ \frac{m_t}{167
3848: \, \mbox{GeV} } \right]^{3.12}\label{BR-Bsmumu}\\
3849: \lefteqn{\mbox{BR}(B_d \to \mu^+ \mu^-) = 1.1 \times 10^{-10}}\nonumber\\
3850: &&\qquad\qquad\times\left[ \frac{f_{B_d}}{0.20 \, \mbox{GeV}} \right]^2 \left[
3851: \frac{|V_{td}|}{0.008} \right]^2
3852: \left[ \frac{\tau_{B_d}}{1.5 \, \mbox{ps}} \right] \left[
3853: \frac{m_t}{167 \, \mbox{GeV} } \right]^{3.12}.\label{BR-Bdmumu}
3854: \end{eqnarray}
3855: The most recent upper bounds (90\% C.L.) from CDF read as follows
3856: \cite{CDF-Bmumu}:
3857: \begin{equation}\label{Bmumu-exp-CDF}
3858: \mbox{BR}(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)<1.5\times10^{-7}, \quad
3859: \mbox{BR}(B_d\to\mu^+\mu^-)<3.9 \times10^{-8},
3860: \end{equation}
3861: while the D0 collaboration finds the following (95\% C.L.) upper limit \cite{D0-Bmumu}:
3862: \begin{equation}\label{Bmumu-exp-D0}
3863: \mbox{BR}(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)<3.7\times10^{-7}.
3864: \end{equation}
3865:
3866:
3867: Using again relation (\ref{Rt-simple-rel}), we find that the measurement of the
3868: ratio
3869: \begin{equation}\label{RT1-rare}
3870: \frac{\mbox{BR}(B_d\to\mu^+\mu^-)}{\mbox{BR}(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)}=
3871: \left[\frac{\tau_{B_d}}{\tau_{B_s}}\right]
3872: \left[\frac{M_{B_d}}{M_{B_s}}\right]
3873: \left[\frac{f_{B_d}}{f_{B_s}}\right]^2
3874: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|^2
3875: \end{equation}
3876: would allow an extraction of the UT side $R_t$. Since the short-distance
3877: function $Y$ cancels, this determination does not only work in the SM,
3878: but also in the NP scenarios with MFV \cite{buras-MFV}. This
3879: strategy is complementary to that offered by (\ref{RT2-DM}), using
3880: $\Delta M_d/\Delta M_s$. If we look at
3881: (\ref{RT2-DM}) and (\ref{RT1-rare}), we see that these expressions
3882: imply another relation \cite{Buras-rel}:
3883: \begin{equation}\label{Bmumu-DM-rel}
3884: \frac{\mbox{BR}(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)}{\mbox{BR}(B_d\to\mu^+\mu^-)}=
3885: \left[\frac{\tau_{B_s}}{\tau_{B_d}}\right]
3886: \left[\frac{\hat B_{B_d}}{\hat B_{B_s}}\right]
3887: \left[\frac{\Delta M_s}{\Delta M_d}\right],
3888: \end{equation}
3889: which holds again in the context of MFV models, including the SM.
3890: Here the advantage is that the dependence on $(f_{B_d}/f_{B_s})^2$ cancels.
3891: Moreover, we may also use the (future) experimental data for
3892: $\Delta M_{(s)d}$ to reduce the hadronic uncertainties
3893: of the SM predictions of the $B_q\to\mu^+\mu^-$ branching ratios \cite{Buras-rel}:
3894: \begin{eqnarray}
3895: \mbox{BR}(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-) &=& (3.42 \pm 0.53)\times
3896: \left[\frac{\Delta M_s}{18.0\, {\rm ps}^{-1}}\right]\times 10^{-9}\\
3897: \mbox{BR}(B_d\to \mu^+ \mu^-) &=& (1.00 \pm 0.14)\times 10^{-10}.
3898: \end{eqnarray}
3899:
3900: The current experimental upper bounds in (\ref{Bmumu-exp-CDF})
3901: and (\ref{Bmumu-exp-D0}) are still about two
3902: orders of magnitude away from these numbers.
3903: Consequently, should the $B_q \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ decays
3904: be governed by their SM contributions, we could only
3905: hope to observe them at the LHC \cite{LHC-Book}.
3906: On the other hand, since the $B_q \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ transitions originate from
3907: FCNC processes, they are sensitive probes of NP. In particular,
3908: the branching ratios may be dramatically enhanced in specific NP (SUSY)
3909: scenarios, as was recently reviewed in Ref.~\cite{buras-NP}. Should this
3910: actually be the case, these decays may already be seen at run II of the
3911: Tevatron, and the $e^+e^-$ $B$ factories could observe $B_d\to \mu^+ \mu^-$.
3912: Let us finally emphasize that the experimental bounds on
3913: $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$ can also be converted into bounds on NP parameters
3914: in specific scenarios. In the context of the constrained minimal
3915: supersymmetric extension
3916: of the SM (CMSSM) with universal scalar masses, such constraints were
3917: recently critically discussed by the authors of Ref.~\cite{EOS}.
3918:
3919:
3920: %
3921: %
3922: %
3923: \section{Conclusions and Outlook}\label{sec:concl}
3924: %
3925: %
3926: %
3927: CP violation is now well established in the $B$-meson system, thereby
3928: complementing the neutral $K$-meson system, where this phenomenon
3929: was discovered more than 40 years ago. The data of the $e^+e^-$ $B$ factories
3930: have provided valuable insights into the physics of strong and weak interactions. Concerning the former aspect, which is sometimes only considered as a
3931: by-product, the data give us important evidence for large non-factorizable
3932: effects in non-leptonic $B$-decays, so that the challenge for a reliable theoretical
3933: description within dynamical QCD approaches remains, despite interesting
3934: recent progress. As far as the latter aspect is concerned, the description of
3935: CP violation through the KM mechanism has successfully passed its first
3936: experimental tests, in particular through the comparison between the
3937: measurement of $\sin 2\beta$ with the help of $B^0_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ and
3938: the CKM fits. However, the most recent average for $(\sin2\beta)_{\psi K_{\rm S}}$
3939: is now somewhat on the lower side, and there are a couple of puzzles in the
3940: $B$-factory data. It will be very interesting to monitor these effects, which
3941: could be first hints for physics beyond the SM, as the data improve. Moreover,
3942: it is crucial to refine the corresponding theoretical analyses further, to have a
3943: critical look at the underlying working assumptions and to check them through
3944: independent tests, and to explore correlations with other flavour probes.
3945:
3946: Despite this impressive progress, there are still regions of the
3947: $B$-physics landscape left that are essentially unexplored.
3948: For instance, $b\to d$ penguin processes are now entering the
3949: stage, since lower bounds for the corresponding branching ratios
3950: that can be derived in the SM turn out to be very close to
3951: the corresponding experimental upper limits. Indeed, we have now
3952: evidence for the $B_d\to K^0\bar K^0$ and $B^\pm\to K^\pm K$ channels,
3953: and the first signals for the radiative $B\to\rho\gamma$ transitions
3954: were recently reported, representing one of the hot topics of this summer.
3955: These modes have now to be explored in much more detail, and several other
3956: decays are waiting to be observed.
3957:
3958: Moreover, also the $B_s$-meson system, which cannot be studied
3959: with the BaBar and Belle experiments, is still essentially unexplored.
3960: The accurate measurement of the mass difference $\Delta M_s$ is a key element
3961: for the testing of the quark-flavour sector of the SM, and the width difference
3962: $\Delta \Gamma_s$ may be sizeable, thereby offering studies with
3963: ``untagged" $B_s$ decay rates. Moreover, the $B_s$-meson
3964: system provides sensitive probes to search for CP-violating NP contributions
3965: to $B^0_s$--$\bar B^0_s$ mixing, allows several determinations the angle
3966: $\gamma$ of the UT in an essentially unambiguous way, and offers
3967: further tests of the SM through strongly suppressed rare decays. After
3968: new results from run II of the Tevatron, the promising physics potential of
3969: the $B_s$-meson system can be fully exploited at the LHC, in particular by
3970: the LHCb experiment.
3971:
3972: These studies can nicely be complemented through the kaon system, which
3973: governed the stage of CP violation for more than 35 years. The future lies now
3974: on rare decays, in particular on the $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ and
3975: $K_{\rm L}\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$ modes; there is a new proposal to measure
3976: the former channel at the CERN SPS, and efforts to explore the latter
3977: at KEK/J-PARC in Japan. Furthermore, flavour physics offers several other
3978: exciting topics. Important examples are top-quark physics, the $D$-meson
3979: system, the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, electric dipole moments
3980: and the flavour violation in the charged lepton and neutrino sectors.
3981:
3982: The established neutrino oscillations as well as the evidence for dark matter and the baryon asymmetry of the Universe tell us that the SM is incomplete, and specific
3983: extensions contain usually also new sources of flavour and CP violation, which
3984: may manifest themselves at the flavour factories. Fortunately, the LHC is expected
3985: to go into operation in the autumn of 2007. This new accelerator will provide
3986: insights into electroweak symmetry breaking and, hopefully, also give us direct
3987: evidence for physics beyond the SM through the production and subsequent
3988: decays of NP particles in the ATLAS and CMS detectors. It is obvious that there
3989: should be a very fruitful interplay between these ``direct" studies of NP, and the
3990: ``indirect" information provided by flavour physics \cite{workshop}. I have no
3991: doubt that an exciting future is ahead of us!
3992:
3993:
3994: \newpage
3995:
3996:
3997: \section*{References}
3998: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
3999: \bibitem{CP-obs}J.H. Christenson {\it et al.},
4000: %``Evidence For The 2 Pi Decay Of The K(2)0 Meson,''
4001: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 13}, 138 (1964).
4002: %%CITATION = PRLTA,13,138;%%
4003:
4004: \bibitem{eps-prime}V.~Fanti {\it et al.}\ [NA48 Collaboration],
4005: %``A new measurement of direct CP violation in two pion decays of the
4006: %neutral kaon,''
4007: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B465}, 335 (1999);\\
4008: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9909022;%%
4009: A.~Alavi-Harati {\it et al.}\ [KTeV Collaboration],
4010: %``Observation of direct CP violation in K(S,L) $\to$ pi pi decays,''
4011: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 83}, 22 (1999).
4012:
4013: \bibitem{NA48-final}J.R.~Batley {\it et al.}\ [NA48 Collaboration],
4014: %``A precision measurement of direct CP violation in the decay of neutral
4015: %kaons into two pions,''
4016: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B544}, 97 (2002).
4017:
4018: \bibitem{KTeV-final}A.~Alavi-Harati {\it et al.}\ [KTeV Collaboration],
4019: %``Measurements of direct CP violation, CPT symmetry, and other parameters
4020: %in the neutral kaon system,''
4021: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D67}, 012005 (2003).
4022: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0208007;%%
4023:
4024: \bibitem{CP-B-obs}B. Aubert {\it et al.}\ [BaBar Collaboration],
4025: %``Observation of CP violation in the B0 meson system,''
4026: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 87}, 091801 (2001);\\
4027: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107013;%%
4028: K. Abe {\it et al.}\ [Belle Collaboration],
4029: %``Observation of large CP violation in the neutral B meson system,''
4030: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 87}, 091802 (2001).
4031: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107061;%%
4032:
4033: \bibitem{CP-B-dir}B. Aubert {\it et al.}\ [BaBar Collaboration],
4034: %``Observation of direct CP violation in B0 $\to$ K+ pi- decays,''
4035: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 93}, 131801 (2004);\\
4036: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0407057].
4037: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0407057;%%
4038: Y. Chao {\it et al.}\ [Belle Collaboration],
4039: %``Evidence for direct CP violation in B0 $\to$ K+ pi- decays,''
4040: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 93}, 191802 (2004).
4041: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0408100].
4042: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408100;%%
4043:
4044: \bibitem{sach}A.D. Sakharov,
4045: %``Violation Of CP Invariance, C Asymmetry, And Baryon Asymmetry Of The
4046: %Universe,''
4047: {\it JETP Lett.}~{\bf 5}, 24 (1967).
4048: %%CITATION = ZFPRA,5,32;%%
4049:
4050: \bibitem{shapos}V.A. Rubakov, M.E. Shaposhnikov,
4051: {\it Usp.\ Fiz.\ Nauk} {\bf 166}, 493 (1996);
4052: {\it Phys.\ Usp.}~{\bf 39}, 461 (1996);\\
4053: A. Riotto and M. Trodden, {\it Annu.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\
4054: Sci.}~{\bf 49}, 35 (1999).
4055:
4056: \bibitem{LG-rev}For a recent review, see W. Buchm\"uller, R.D. Peccei
4057: and T. Yanagida,
4058: %``Leptogenesis as the origin of matter,''
4059: hep-ph/0502169.
4060: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502169;%%
4061:
4062: \bibitem{cab}N. Cabibbo,
4063: %``Unitary Symmetry And Leptonic Decays,''
4064: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 10}, 531 (1963).
4065: %%CITATION = PRLTA,10,531;%%
4066:
4067: \bibitem{KM}M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa,
4068: %``CP Violation In The Renormalizable Theory Of Weak Interaction,''
4069: {\it Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.}~{\bf 49}, 652 (1973).
4070: %%CITATION = PTPKA,49,652;%%
4071:
4072: \bibitem{CKM-book}M. Battaglia {\it et al.}, CERN 2003-002-corr,
4073: {\it The CKM matrix and the unitarity triangle}
4074: (CERN, Geneva, 2003) [hep-ph/0304132].
4075: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304132;%%
4076:
4077: \bibitem{epsp-rev}For a recent review, see A.J. Buras and M. Jamin,
4078: %``epsilon'/epsilon at the NLO: 10 years later,''
4079: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0401}, 048 (2004).
4080: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0306217].
4081: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306217;%%
4082:
4083: \bibitem{superweak}L. Wolfenstein,
4084: %``Violation Of CP Invariance And The Possibility Of Very Weak Interactions,''
4085: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 13}, 562 (1964).
4086: %%CITATION = PRLTA,13,562;%%
4087:
4088: \bibitem{BLS-textbook}G. Branco, L. Lavoura
4089: and J. Silva, {\it CP Violation}, International Series of Monographs on
4090: Physics 103, Oxford Science Publications (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999).
4091:
4092: \bibitem{BiSa-textbook}I.I. Bigi and A. I. Sanda, {\it CP Violation},
4093: Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and
4094: Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
4095:
4096: \bibitem{KK-textbook}K. Kleinknecht, {\it Springer Tracts in Modern Physics},
4097: Vol.\ {\bf 195} (2004).
4098:
4099: \bibitem{nir-rev}Y. Nir,
4100: %``CP violation in meson decays,''
4101: hep-ph/0510413.
4102: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510413;%%
4103:
4104: \bibitem{gro-rev}M. Gronau,
4105: %``Weak phases and CP violation,''
4106: hep-ph/0510153.
4107: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510153;%%
4108:
4109: \bibitem{buras-spain}A.J. Buras,
4110: %``Flavour physics and CP violation,''
4111: hep-ph/0505175.
4112: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505175;%%
4113:
4114: \bibitem{ali-ichep}A. Ali,
4115: %``Review of heavy quark physics: Theory,''
4116: {\it Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.}~{\bf A20}, 5080 (2005).
4117: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0412128].
4118: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412128;%%
4119:
4120: \bibitem{GIM}S.L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos and L. Maiani,
4121: %``Weak Interactions With Lepton - Hadron Symmetry,''
4122: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D2}, 1285 (1970).
4123: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D2,1285;%%
4124:
4125: \bibitem{PDG}S. Eidelman {\it et al.}\ [Particle Data Group],
4126: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B592}, 1 (2004).
4127:
4128: \bibitem{wolf}L. Wolfenstein, {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 51},
4129: 1945 (1983).
4130: %%CITATION = PRLTA,51,1945;%%
4131:
4132: \bibitem{blo}A.J. Buras, M.E. Lautenbacher and G. Ostermaier,
4133: %``Waiting for the top quark mass, K+ $\to$ pi+ neutrino anti-neutrino, B(s)0
4134: %- anti-B(s)0 mixing and CP asymmetries in B decays,''
4135: {\it Phys.\ Rev}~{\bf D50}, 3433 (1994).
4136: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9403384].
4137: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403384;%%
4138:
4139: \bibitem{CKMfitter}J. Charles {\it et al.}~[CKMfitter Group],
4140: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C 41}, 1 (2005); for the most recent updates, see
4141: {\tt http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/}.
4142:
4143: \bibitem{UTfit}M.~Bona {\it et al.}~[UTfit Collaboration],
4144: %``The 2004 UTfit collaboration report on the status of the unitarity triangle
4145: %in the standard model,''
4146: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0507}, 028 (2005); for the most recent updates, see
4147: {\tt http://utfit.roma1.infn.it/}.
4148: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0501199].
4149: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501199;%%
4150:
4151: \bibitem{IL}T. Inami and C.S. Lim,
4152: %``Effects Of Superheavy Quarks And Leptons In Low-Energy Weak Processes K(L)
4153: %$\to$ Mu Anti-Mu, K+ $\to$ Pi+ Neutrino Anti-Neutrino And K0 <---> Anti-K0,''
4154: {\it Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.}~{\bf 65}, 297 [E: {\bf 65}, 1772] (1981).
4155: %%CITATION = PTPKA,65,297;%%
4156:
4157: \bibitem{LLNP}S. Laplace, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir and G. Perez,
4158: %``Implications of the CP asymmetry in semileptonic B decay,''
4159: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D65}, 094040 (2002).
4160: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0202010].
4161: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202010;%%
4162:
4163: \bibitem{BBLN-CFLMT}M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, A. Lenz and U. Nierste,
4164: %``CP asymmetry in flavor specific B decays beyond leading logarithms,''
4165: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B576}, 173 (2003);\\
4166: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0307344].
4167: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307344;%%
4168: M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, F. Mescia and C. Tarantino,
4169: %``Lifetime differences and CP violation parameters of neutral B mesons at the
4170: %next-to-leading order in QCD,''
4171: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0308}, 031 (2003).
4172: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0308029].
4173: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308029;%%
4174:
4175: \bibitem{HFAG}Heavy Flavour Averaging Group:
4176: {\tt http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/}.
4177:
4178: \bibitem{B-LH98}G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras and M.E. Lautenbacher,
4179: %``Weak Decays Beyond Leading Logarithms,''
4180: {\it Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.}~{\bf 68}, 1125 (1996);\\
4181: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512380;%%
4182: A.J. Buras,
4183: %``Weak Hamiltonian, CP violation and rare decays,''
4184: hep-ph/9806471.
4185: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806471;%%
4186:
4187: \bibitem{largeN}A.J. Buras and J.-M. G\'erard,
4188: %``1/N Expansion For Kaons,''
4189: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B264}, 371 (1986);\\
4190: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B264,371;%%
4191: A.J. Buras, J.-M. G\'erard and R. R\"uckl,
4192: %``1/N Expansion For Exclusive And Inclusive Charm Decays,''
4193: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B268}, 16 (1986).
4194: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B268,16;%%
4195:
4196: \bibitem{QCDF-old}J.D. Bjorken, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ (Proc.\ Suppl.)}
4197: {\bf B11}, 325 (1989);
4198: M. Dugan and B.~Grinstein, {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B255}, 583 (1991);
4199: H.D. Politzer and M.B. Wise, {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B257}, 399 (1991).
4200:
4201: \bibitem{BBNS}M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. Sachrajda,
4202: %``{QCD} factorization for B $\to$ pi pi decays: Strong phases and CP
4203: %violation in the heavy quark limit,''
4204: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 83}, 1914 (1999);
4205: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905312;%%
4206: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B591}, 313 (2000);
4207: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006124;%%
4208: %``QCD factorization in B $\to$ pi K, pi pi decays and extraction of
4209: %Wolfenstein parameters,''
4210: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B606}, 245 (2001).
4211: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104110;%%
4212:
4213: \bibitem{PQCD}H.-n.\ Li and H.L. Yu,
4214: %``Perturbative QCD analysis of B meson decays,''
4215: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D53}, 2480 (1996);
4216: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411308;%%
4217: Y.Y. Keum, H.-n.\ Li and A.I. Sanda,
4218: %``Fat penguins and imaginary penguins in perturbative QCD,''
4219: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B504}, 6 (2001);
4220: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0004004].
4221: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004004;%%
4222: Y.Y. Keum and H.-n.\ Li,
4223: %``Nonleptonic charmless B decays: Factorization vs. perturbative QCD,''
4224: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D63}, 074006 (2001).
4225: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006001;%%
4226:
4227: \bibitem{SCET}C.W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I.W. Stewart,
4228: %``A proof of factorization for B $\to$ D pi,''
4229: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 87}, 201806 (2001),
4230: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107002;%%
4231: %``Soft-collinear factorization in effective field theory,''
4232: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D65}, 054022 (2002);
4233: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0109045].
4234: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109045;%%
4235: C.W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I.Z. Rothstein and I.W. Stewart,
4236: %``Hard scattering factorization from effective field theory,''
4237: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D66}, 014017 (2002);
4238: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0202088].
4239: C.W. Bauer, B. Grinstein, D. Pirjol and I.W. Stewart,
4240: %``Testing factorization in B $\to$ D(*) X decays,''
4241: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D67}, 014010 (2003).
4242: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0208034].
4243: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208034;%%
4244:
4245: \bibitem{LCSR}A. Khodjamirian,
4246: %``B $\to$ pi pi decay in QCD,''
4247: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B605}, 558 (2001);\\
4248: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012271;%%
4249: A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and B. Melic,
4250: %``QCD light-cone sum rule estimate of charming penguin contributions in B
4251: %$\to$ pi pi,''
4252: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B571}, 75 (2003).
4253: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0304179].
4254: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304179;%%
4255:
4256: \bibitem{BFRS}A.J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel and F. Schwab,
4257: %``B $\to$ pi pi, new physics in B $\to$ pi K and implications for rare K and
4258: %B decays,''
4259: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 92}, 101804 (2004);\\
4260: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0312259].
4261: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312259;%%
4262: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B697}, 133 (2004).
4263: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0402112].
4264: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402112;%%
4265:
4266: \bibitem{ALP}A. Ali, E. Lunghi and A.Y. Parkhomenko,
4267: %``An analysis of the time-dependent CP asymmetry in B $\to$ pi pi decays in
4268: %the standard model,''
4269: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C36}, 183 (2004).
4270: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0403275].
4271: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403275;%%
4272:
4273: \bibitem{CGRS}C.W. Chiang, M. Gronau, J.L. Rosner and D.A. Suprun,
4274: %``Charmless B $\to$ P P decays using flavor SU(3) symmetry,''
4275: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D70}, 034020 (2004).
4276: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0404073].
4277: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404073;%%
4278:
4279: \bibitem{strong-CP}For detailed discussions, see, for instance,
4280: M. Dine,
4281: %``The strong CP problem,''
4282: hep-ph/0011376;
4283: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011376;%%
4284: R.D. Peccei,
4285: %``Reflections on the strong CP problem,''
4286: hep-ph/9807514.
4287: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807514;%%
4288:
4289: \bibitem{gw}M. Gronau and D. Wyler,
4290: %``On determining a weak phase from CP asymmetries in charged B decays,''
4291: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B265}, 172 (1991).
4292: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B265,172;%%
4293:
4294: \bibitem{ADS}D. Atwood, I. Dunietz, A. Soni,
4295: %``Enhanced CP violation with B $\to$ K D0 (anti-D0) modes and extraction of
4296: %the CKM angle gamma,''
4297: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 78}, 3257 (1997);
4298: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9612433].
4299: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612433;%%
4300: %``Improved methods for observing CP violation in B+- $\to$ K D and measuring
4301: %the CKM phase gamma,''
4302: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D63}, 036005 (2001).
4303: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0008090].
4304: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008090;%%
4305:
4306: \bibitem{fw}R. Fleischer and D. Wyler,
4307: %``Exploring CP violation with B/c decays,''
4308: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D62}, 057503 (2000).
4309: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0004010].
4310: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004010;%%
4311:
4312: \bibitem{GHLR}M. Gronau, J.L. Rosner and D. London,
4313: %``Weak coupling phase from decays of charged B mesons to pi K and pi pi,''
4314: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 73}, 21 (1994);\\
4315: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9404282].
4316: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9404282;%%
4317: M. Gronau, O.F. Hernandez, D. London and J.L. Rosner,
4318: %``Decays of B mesons to two light pseudoscalars,''
4319: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D50}, 4529 (1994).
4320: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9404283].
4321: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9404283;%%
4322:
4323: \bibitem{bisa}A.B. Carter and A.I. Sanda,
4324: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 45}, 952 (1980);
4325: %%CITATION = PRLTA,45,952;%%
4326: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D23}, 1567 (1981);\\
4327: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,1567;%%
4328: I.I. Bigi and A.I. Sanda,
4329: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B193}, 85 (1981).
4330: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B193,85;%%
4331:
4332: \bibitem{buras-NP}A.J. Buras,
4333: %``Waiting for clear signals of new physics in B and K decays,''
4334: hep-ph/0402191.
4335: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402191;%%
4336:
4337: \bibitem{RF-Phys-Rep}R. Fleischer,
4338: %``CP violation in the B system and relations to K $\to$ pi nu anti-nu
4339: %decays,''
4340: {\it Phys.\ Rep.}~{\bf 370}, 537 (2002).
4341: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0207108].
4342: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207108;%%
4343:
4344: \bibitem{rare}For reviews, see, for instance,
4345: A. Ali,
4346: %``Review of heavy quark physics: Theory,''
4347: hep-ph/0412128;
4348: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412128;%%
4349: G. Isidori,
4350: %``Theory of radiative and rare B decays,''
4351: {\it AIP Conf.\ Proc.}~{\bf 722}, 181 (2004);
4352: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0401079].
4353: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401079;%%
4354: M. Misiak,
4355: %``NNLO QCD calculations of rare B decays,''
4356: {\it Acta Phys.\ Polon.}~{\bf B34}, 4397 (2003).
4357: %%CITATION = APPOA,B34,4397;%%
4358:
4359: \bibitem{FM-BpsiK}R. Fleischer and T. Mannel,
4360: %``General analysis of new physics in B $\to$ J/psi K,''
4361: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B506}, 311 (2001).
4362: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0101276].
4363: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101276;%%
4364:
4365: \bibitem{FIM}R. Fleischer, G. Isidori and J. Matias,
4366: %``Shedding light on the 'dark side' of B/d0 - anti-B/d0 mixing through B/d
4367: %$\to$ pi+ pi-, K $\to$ pi nu anti-nu and B/d,s $\to$ mu+ mu-,''
4368: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0305}, 053 (2003).
4369: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0302229].
4370: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302229;%%
4371:
4372: \bibitem{FM-BphiK}R. Fleischer and T. Mannel,
4373: %``Exploring new physics in the B $\to$ Phi K system,''
4374: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B511}, 240 (2001).
4375: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0103121].
4376: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103121;%%
4377:
4378: \bibitem{GOSST}T. Goto {\it et al.},
4379: %Y.~Okada, Y.~Shimizu, T.~Shindou and M.~Tanaka,
4380: %``Exploring flavor structure of supersymmetry breaking from rare B decays
4381: %and unitarity triangle,''
4382: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D70}, 035012 (2004).
4383: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0306093].
4384: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306093;%%
4385:
4386: \bibitem{JN}S. J\"ager and U. Nierste,
4387: %``B/s - anti-B/s mixing in an SO(10) SUSY GUT model,''
4388: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C33}, S256 (2004).
4389: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0312145].
4390: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312145;%%
4391:
4392: \bibitem{CFMS} M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini,
4393: %``Worries and hopes for SUSY in CKM physics: The b $\to$ s example,''
4394: {\it eConf} {\bf C0304052}, WG307 (2003)
4395: [{\it J.\ Korean Phys.\ Soc.}~{\bf 45}, S223 (2004)].
4396: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0308013].
4397: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308013;%%
4398:
4399: \bibitem{BKK}P. Ball, S. Khalil and E. Kou,
4400: %``B/s0-anti-B/s0 mixing and the B/s $\to$ J/psi Phi asymmetry in
4401: %supersymmetric models,''
4402: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D69}, 115011 (2004).
4403: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0311361].
4404: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311361;%%
4405:
4406: \bibitem{Ko}P. Ko,
4407: %``B physics and supersymmetry,''
4408: {\it J.\ Korean Phys.\ Soc.}~{\bf 45}, S410 (2004).
4409: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0411351].
4410: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411351;%%
4411:
4412: \bibitem{GHK}E. Gabrielli, K. Huitu and S. Khalil,
4413: %``Supersymmetric Models and CP violation in B decays,''
4414: hep-ph/0504168.
4415: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504168;%%
4416:
4417: \bibitem{LR-sym}P. Ball, J.M. Frere and J. Matias,
4418: %``Anatomy of mixing-induced CP asymmetries in left-right-symmetric models
4419: %with spontaneous CP violation,''
4420: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B572}, 3 (2000);\\
4421: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9910211].
4422: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910211;%%
4423: P. Ball and R. Fleischer,
4424: %``An analysis of B/s decays in the left-right symmetric model with
4425: %spontaneous CP violation,''
4426: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B475}, 111 (2000).
4427: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9912319].
4428: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912319;%%
4429:
4430: \bibitem{extra-dim}A.J. Buras, M. Spranger and A. Weiler,
4431: %``The impact of universal extra dimensions on the unitarity triangle and rare
4432: %K and B decays. ((U)),''
4433: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B660}, 225 (2003);\\
4434: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0212143].
4435: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212143;%%
4436: A.J. Buras, A. Poschenrieder, M. Spranger and A. Weiler,
4437: %``The impact of universal extra dimensions on B $\to$ X/s gamma, B $\to$ X/s
4438: %gluon, B $\to$ X/s mu+ mu-, K(L) $\to$ pi0 e+ e-, and epsilon'/epsilon,''
4439: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B678}, 455 (2004);\\
4440: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0306158].
4441: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306158;%%
4442: K. Agashe, G. Perez and A. Soni,
4443: %``B-factory signals for a warped extra dimension,''
4444: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 93}, 201804 (2004),
4445: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0406101].
4446: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406101;%%
4447: %K.~Agashe, G.~Perez and A.~Soni,
4448: %``Flavor structure of warped extra dimension models,''
4449: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D71}, 016002 (2005).
4450: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0408134].
4451: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408134;%%
4452:
4453: \bibitem{Z-prime}V. Barger, C.W. Chiang, J. Jiang and P. Langacker,
4454: %``B/s anti-B/s mixing in Z' models with flavor-changing neutral currents,''
4455: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B596}, 229 (2004).
4456: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0405108].
4457: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405108;%%
4458:
4459: \bibitem{little-higgs}S.R. Choudhury, N. Gaur, A. Goyal and N. Mahajan,
4460: %``B/d - anti-B/d mass difference in little Higgs model,''
4461: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B601}, 164 (2004);\\
4462: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0407050].
4463: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407050;%%
4464: A.J. Buras, A. Poschenrieder and S. Uhlig,
4465: %``Particle antiparticle mixing, epsilon(K) and the unitarity triangle in the
4466: %littlest Higgs model,''
4467: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B716}, 173 (2005).
4468: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0410309].
4469: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410309;%%
4470:
4471: \bibitem{hou-4}W.S. Hou, M. Nagashima and A. Soddu,
4472: %``Difference in B+ and B0 direct CP asymmetry as effect of a fourth
4473: %generation,''
4474: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 95}, 141601 (2005).
4475: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0503072].
4476: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503072;%%
4477:
4478: \bibitem{MFV-1}A.J. Buras, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, S. J\"ager and L. Silvestrini,
4479: %``Universal unitarity triangle and physics beyond the standard model,''
4480: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B500}, 161 (2001).
4481: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0007085].
4482: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007085;%%
4483:
4484: \bibitem{MFV-2}G. D'Ambrosio, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia,
4485: %``Minimal flavour violation: An effective field theory approach,''
4486: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B645}, 155 (2002).
4487: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0207036].
4488: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207036;%%
4489:
4490: \bibitem{buras-MFV}A.J. Buras,
4491: %``Minimal flavor violation,''
4492: {\it Acta Phys.\ Polon.}~{\bf B34}, 5615 (2003).
4493: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0310208].
4494: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310208;%%
4495:
4496: \bibitem{NMFV}K. Agashe, M. Papucci, G. Perez and D. Pirjol,
4497: %``Next to minimal flavor violation,''
4498: hep-ph/0509117.
4499: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509117;%%
4500:
4501: \bibitem{petrov}For a review, see A.A. Petrov,
4502: %``Mixing and CP-violation in charm,''
4503: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ (Proc.\ Suppl.)}~{\bf B142}, 333 (2005).
4504: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0409130].
4505: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409130;%%
4506:
4507: \bibitem{PR}For a review, see M. Pospelov and A. Ritz,
4508: %``Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics,''
4509: {\it Annals Phys.}~{\bf 318}, 119 (2005).
4510: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0504231].
4511: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504231;%%
4512:
4513: \bibitem{CEPRT}For a recent analysis, see
4514: P.H. Chankowski, J.R. Ellis, S. Pokorski, M. Raidal and K. Turzynski,
4515: %``Patterns of lepton flavor violation motivated by decoupling and sneutrino
4516: %inflation,''
4517: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B690}, 279 (2004).
4518: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0403180].
4519: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403180;%%
4520:
4521: \bibitem{RF-BdsPsiK}R. Fleischer,
4522: %``Extracting gamma from B/s(d) $\to$ J/psi K(S) and B/d(s) $\to$ D/d(s)+
4523: %D/d(s)-,''
4524: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C10}, 299 (1999).
4525: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9903455].
4526: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903455;%%
4527:
4528: \bibitem{s2b-babar}B. Aubert {\it et al.}\ [BaBar Collaboration],
4529: %``Improved measurement of CP asymmetries in B0 $\to$ (c anti-c) K(*)0
4530: %decays,''
4531: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 94}, 161803 (2005).
4532: % hep-ex/0408127.
4533: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408127;%%
4534:
4535: \bibitem{s2b-belle}K. Abe {\it et al.} \ [Belle Collaboration],
4536: %``Time-dependent CP asymmetries in b $\to$ s anti-q q transitions and
4537: %sin(2phi(1)) in B0 $\to$ J/psi K0 decays with 386 million B anti-B pairs,''
4538: BELLE-CONF-0569 [hep-ex/0507037].
4539: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507037;%%
4540:
4541: \bibitem{BMR}H. Boos, T. Mannel and J. Reuter,
4542: %``The gold-plated mode revisited: sin(2beta) and B0 $\to$ J/psi K(S) in the
4543: %standard model,''
4544: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D70}, 036006 (2004).
4545: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0403085].
4546: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403085;%%
4547:
4548: \bibitem{CPS}M. Ciuchini, M. Pierini and L. Silvestrini,
4549: %``The effect of penguins in the B/d $\to$ J/psi K0 CP asymmetry,''
4550: hep-ph/0507290.
4551: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507290;%%
4552:
4553: \bibitem{LHC-Book}P. Ball {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0003238,
4554: in CERN Report on {\it Standard Model physics (and more) at
4555: the LHC} (CERN, Geneva, 2000), p.\ 305.
4556: %``B decays at the LHC,''
4557: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003238;%%
4558:
4559: \bibitem{RF-EWP-rev}R. Fleischer,
4560: %``CP violation and the role of electroweak penguins in non-leptonic B
4561: %decays,''
4562: {\it Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.}~{\bf A12}, 2459 (1997).
4563: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9612446].
4564: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612446;%%
4565:
4566: \bibitem{FlMa}R. Fleischer and J. Matias,
4567: %``Exploring CP violation through correlations in B $\to$ pi K, B/d $\to$ pi+
4568: %pi-, B/s $\to$ K+ K- observable space,''
4569: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D66}, 054009 (2002).
4570: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0204101].
4571: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204101;%%
4572:
4573: \bibitem{babar-c2b}B. Aubert {\it et al.}\ [BaBar Collaboration],
4574: %``Ambiguity-free measurement of cos(2beta): Time-integrated and
4575: %time-dependent angular analyses of B $\to$ J/psi K pi,''
4576: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D71}, 032005 (2005).
4577: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0411016].
4578: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0411016;%%
4579:
4580: \bibitem{RF-gam-ca}R. Fleischer,
4581: %``New strategies to obtain insights into CP violation through B/s $\to$
4582: %D/s+- K-+, D/s*+- K-+, ... and B/d $\to$ D+- pi-+, D*+- pi-+, ... decays,''
4583: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B671}, 459 (2003).
4584: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0304027].
4585: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304027;%%
4586:
4587: \bibitem{bo-ge}A. Bondar, T. Gershon and P. Krokovny,
4588: %``A method to measure phi(1) using anti-B0 $\to$ D h0 with multibody D
4589: %decay,''
4590: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B624}, 1 (2005).
4591: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0503174].
4592: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503174;%%
4593:
4594: \bibitem{gershon}Tim Gershon, private communication.
4595:
4596: \bibitem{RF-BdDpi0}R. Fleischer,
4597: %``New, efficient and clean strategies to explore CP violation through
4598: %neutral B decays,''
4599: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B562} (2003) 234;
4600: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0301255].
4601: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301255;%%
4602: %``A closer look at B/d,s $\to$ D f(r) decays and novel avenues to determine
4603: %gamma,''
4604: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B659} (2003) 321.
4605: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0301256].
4606: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301256;%%
4607:
4608: \bibitem{BphiK-old}D. London and R.D. Peccei,
4609: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B223}, 257 (1989);\\
4610: N.G. Deshpande and J. Trampetic,
4611: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D41}, 895 and 2926 (1990);\\
4612: J.-M. G\'erard and W.-S. Hou, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D43}, 2909;
4613: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B253}, 478 (1991).
4614:
4615: \bibitem{RF-EWP}R. Fleischer,
4616: %``Electroweak Penguin effects beyond leading logarithms in the B meson
4617: %decays B- $\to$ K- Phi and B- $\to$ pi- anti-K0,''
4618: {\it Z.\ Phys.}~{\bf C62}, 81 (1994).
4619: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C62,81;%%
4620:
4621: \bibitem{DH-PhiK}N.G. Deshpande and X.-G. He, {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B336},
4622: 471 (1994).
4623:
4624: \bibitem{growo}Y. Grossman and M.P. Worah,
4625: %``CP asymmetries in B decays with new physics in decay amplitudes,''
4626: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B395}, 241 (1997).
4627: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9612269].
4628: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612269;%%
4629:
4630: \bibitem{Z-prime-BpiK}V. Barger, C.W. Chiang, P. Langacker and H.S. Lee,
4631: %``Solution to the B $\to$ pi K puzzle in a flavor-changing Z' model,''
4632: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B598}, 218 (2004).
4633: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0406126].
4634: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406126;%%
4635:
4636: \bibitem{LP03}XXI International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions
4637: at High Energies (LP '03), 11--16 August 2003, Fermilab, Batavia, IL, USA,
4638: {\tt http://conferences.fnal.gov/lp2003/}.
4639:
4640: \bibitem{ICHEP04}32nd International Conference on High-Energy Physics
4641: (ICHEP '04), 16--22 August 2004, Beijing, China,
4642: {\tt http://ichep04.ihep.ac.cn/}.
4643:
4644: \bibitem{LP05}XXII International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions
4645: at High Energies (LP '05), 30 June -- 5 July 2005, Uppsala, Sweden,
4646: {\tt http://lp2005.tsl.uu.se/~lp2005/}.
4647:
4648: \bibitem{BaBar-Bphi-K}B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
4649: %``Measurement of CP asymmetries in B0 $\to$ Phi K0 and B0 $\to$ K+ K- K0(S)
4650: %decays,''
4651: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D71}, 091102 (2005).
4652: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0502019].
4653: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0502019;%%
4654:
4655: \bibitem{Belle-Bphi-K}K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
4656: %``Time-dependent CP asymmetries in b $\to$ s anti-q q transitions and
4657: %sin(2phi(1)) in B0 $\to$ J/psi K0 decays with 386 million B anti-B pairs,''
4658: BELLE-CONF-0569 [hep-ex/0507037].
4659: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507037;%%
4660:
4661: \bibitem{PAPIII}R. Fleischer,
4662: %``Strategies for Fixing the CKM-angle $\gamma$ and Obtaining Experimental
4663: %Insights into the World of Electroweak Penguins,''
4664: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B365}, 399 (1996).
4665: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9509204].
4666: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509204;%%
4667:
4668: \bibitem{loso}D. London and A. Soni,
4669: %``Measuring the CP angle beta in hadronic b $\to$ s penguin decays,''
4670: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B407}, 61 (1997).
4671: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9704277].
4672: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704277;%%
4673:
4674: \bibitem{GGR}M. Gronau, Y. Grossman and J.L. Rosner,
4675: %``Interpreting the time-dependent CP asymmetry in B0 $\to$ pi0 K(S),''
4676: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B579}, 331 (2004).
4677: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0310020].
4678: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310020;%%
4679:
4680: \bibitem{beneke}M. Beneke,
4681: %``Corrections to sin(2beta) from CP asymmetries in B0 $\to$ (pi0, rho0, eta,
4682: %eta', omega, Phi) K(S) decays,''
4683: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf 620}, 143 (2005).
4684: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0505075].
4685: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505075;%%
4686:
4687: \bibitem{BFRS-5}A.J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel and F. Schwab,
4688: %``New Aspects of B $\to$ pi pi, pi K and their Implications for Rare
4689: %Decays,''
4690: hep-ph/0512032,\\
4691: to appear in {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C}.
4692: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512032;%%
4693:
4694: \bibitem{RF-BsKK}R. Fleischer,
4695: %``New strategies to extract beta and gamma from B/d $\to$ pi+ pi- and B/s
4696: %$\to$ K+ K-,''
4697: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B459}, 306 (1999).
4698: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9903456].
4699: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903456;%%
4700:
4701: \bibitem{GL}M. Gronau and D. London,
4702: %``Isospin Analysis Of CP Asymmetries In B Decays,''
4703: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 65}, 3381 (1990).
4704: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,3381;%%
4705:
4706: \bibitem{SiWo}J.P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein,
4707: %``Determining the penguin effect on CP violation in B0 $\to$ pi+ pi-,''
4708: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D49}, 1151 (1994).
4709: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9309283].
4710: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9309283;%%
4711:
4712: \bibitem{FM-Bpipi}R. Fleischer and T. Mannel,
4713: %``Penguin zoology in B $\to$ pi pi and the extraction of the CKM angle
4714: %alpha,''
4715: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B397}, 269 (1997).
4716: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610357;%%
4717:
4718: \bibitem{GQ}Y. Grossman and H.R. Quinn,
4719: %``Bounding the effect of penguin diagrams in a(CP)(B0 $\to$ pi+ pi-),''
4720: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D58}, 017504 (1998).
4721: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9712306].
4722: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712306;%%
4723:
4724: \bibitem{charles}J. Charles,
4725: %``Taming the penguin in the B/d0(t) $\to$ pi+ pi- CP-asymmetry:
4726: %Observables and minimal theoretical input,''
4727: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D59}, 054007 (1999).
4728: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806468;%%
4729:
4730: \bibitem{GLSS}M. Gronau, D. London, N. Sinha and R. Sinha,
4731: %``Improving bounds on penguin pollution in B $\to$ pi pi,''
4732: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B514}, 315 (2001).
4733: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0105308].
4734: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105308;%%
4735:
4736: \bibitem{BaBar-Bpipi-05}B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
4737: %``Improved measurements of CP-violating asymmetry amplitudes in B0 $\to$ pi+
4738: %pi- decays,''
4739: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 95}, 151803 (2005).
4740: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0501071].
4741: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0501071;%%
4742:
4743: \bibitem{Belle-Bpipi-05}K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
4744: %``CP-violating asymmetries in B0 $\to$ pi+ pi- decays with 275 million B
4745: %anti-B pairs,''
4746: BELLE-CONF-0501 [hep-ex/0502035].
4747: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0502035;%%
4748:
4749: \bibitem{RF-Bpipi} R. Fleischer,
4750: %``Constraining penguin contributions and the CKM angle gamma through B/d
4751: %$\to$ pi+ pi-,''
4752: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C16}, 87 (2000).
4753: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0001253].
4754: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001253;%%
4755:
4756: \bibitem{FleischerMatias}
4757: R. Fleischer and J. Matias,
4758: %``Exploring CP violation through correlations in B $\to$ pi K, B/d $\to$ pi+
4759: %pi-, B/s $\to$ K+ K- observable space,''
4760: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D66}, 054009 (2002).
4761: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0204101].
4762: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204101;%%
4763:
4764: \bibitem{gam-SCET}C.W. Bauer, I.Z. Rothstein and I.W. Stewart,
4765: %``Determining gamma from B $\to$ pi pi decays without the CP-asymmetry C(pi0
4766: %pi0),''
4767: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 94}, 231802 (2005).
4768: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0412120].
4769: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412120;%%
4770:
4771: \bibitem{SCET-Bdpi0K0}C.W. Bauer, I.Z. Rothstein and I.W. Stewart,
4772: %``SCET analysis of B $\to$ K pi, B $\to$ K anti-K, and B $\to$ pi pi
4773: %decays,''
4774: hep-ph/0510241.
4775: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510241;%%
4776:
4777: \bibitem{Babar-Dal}B. Aubert {\it et al.}\ [BaBar Collaboration],
4778: %``Measurement of gamma in B-+ $\to$ D(*) K-+ and B-+ $\to$ D K*-+ decays with
4779: %a Dalitz analysis of D $\to$ K0(S) pi- pi+,''
4780: BABAR-CONF-05-018 [hep-ex/0507101].
4781: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507101;%%
4782:
4783: \bibitem{Belle-Dal}K. Abe {\it et al.}\ [Belle Collaboration],
4784: %``Measurement of phi(3) with Dalitz plot analysis of B+- $\to$ D(*) K+- decay
4785: %at Belle,''
4786: BELLE-CONF-0476 [hep-ex/0411049].
4787: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0411049;%%
4788:
4789: \bibitem{GNW}Y. Grossman, Y. Nir and M.P. Worah,
4790: %``A model independent construction of the unitarity triangle,''
4791: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B407}, 307 (1997).
4792: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9704287].
4793: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704287;%%
4794:
4795: \bibitem{refut}T. Goto, N. Kitazawa, Y. Okada and M. Tanaka,
4796: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D53}, 6662 (1996);\\
4797: A.G. Cohen, D.B. Kaplan, F. Lepeintre and A.E. Nelson,
4798: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 78}, 2300 (1997);\\
4799: %\cite{Grossman:1997dd}
4800: %\bibitem{Grossman:1997dd}
4801: G. Barenboim, G. Eyal and Y. Nir,
4802: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 83}, 4486 (1999).
4803:
4804: \bibitem{UTfit-NP}M. Bona {\it et al.}\ [UTfit Collaboration],
4805: %``The UTfit collaboration report on the status of the unitarity triangle
4806: %beyond the standard model. I: Model-independent analysis and minimal flavour
4807: %violation,''
4808: hep-ph/0509219.
4809: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509219;%%
4810:
4811: \bibitem{Babar-alph}B. Aubert {\it et al.}\ [BaBar Collaboration],
4812: %``Improved measurement of the CKM angle alpha using B0 (anti-B0) $\to$ rho+
4813: %rho- decays,''
4814: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 95}, 041805 (2005).
4815: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0503049].
4816: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0503049;%%
4817:
4818: \bibitem{Belle-alph}K. Abe {\it et al.}\ [Belle Collaboration]
4819: %``Measurement of the branching fraction, polarization, and CP asymmetry in B0
4820: %$\to$ rho+ rho- decays,''
4821: BELLE-CONF-0545 [hep-ex/0507039].
4822: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507039;%%
4823:
4824: \bibitem{FM-BpiK-NP}R. Fleischer and T. Mannel,
4825: %``New physics in penguin dominated B $\to$ pi K decays,''
4826: hep-ph/9706261.
4827: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706261;%%
4828:
4829: \bibitem{trojan}Y. Grossman, M. Neubert and A.L. Kagan,
4830: %``Trojan penguins and isospin violation in hadronic B decays,''
4831: {\it JHEP} {\bf 9910}, 029 (1999).
4832: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9909297].
4833: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909297;%%
4834:
4835: \bibitem{BF00}A.J. Buras and R. Fleischer,
4836: %``Constraints on the CKM angle gamma and strong phases from B $\to$ pi K
4837: %decays,''
4838: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C16}, 97 (2000).
4839: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003323;%%
4840:
4841: \bibitem{CLEO00}D. Cronin-Hennessy {\it et al.}\ [CLEO Collaboration],
4842: %``Observation of B $\to$ K+- pi0 and B $\to$ K0 pi0, and evidence for B
4843: %$\to$ pi+ pi-,''
4844: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 85}, 515 (2000).
4845: %%CITATION = PRLTA,85,515;%%
4846:
4847: \bibitem{BeNe}M. Beneke and M. Neubert,
4848: %``QCD factorization for B $\to$ P P and B $\to$ P V decays,''
4849: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B675}, 333 (2003).
4850: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0308039].
4851: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308039;%%
4852:
4853: \bibitem{yoshikawa}T. Yoshikawa,
4854: %``A possibility of large electro-weak penguin contribution in B $\to$ K pi
4855: %modes,''
4856: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D68}, 054023 (2003).
4857: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0306147].
4858: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306147;%%
4859:
4860: \bibitem{GR03}M. Gronau and J.L. Rosner,
4861: %``Rates and asymmetries in B $\to$ K pi decays,''
4862: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B572}, 43 (2003).
4863: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0307095].
4864: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307095;%%
4865:
4866: \bibitem{MY}S. Mishima and T. Yoshikawa,
4867: %``Large electroweak penguin contribution in B $\to$ K pi and pi pi decay
4868: %modes,''
4869: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D70}, 094024 (2004).
4870: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0408090].
4871: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408090;%%
4872:
4873: \bibitem{WZ}Y.L. Wu and Y.F. Zhou,
4874: %``Implications of charmless B decays with large direct CP violation,''
4875: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D71} 021701 (2005);
4876: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0409221].
4877: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409221;%%
4878: %``Charmless decays B $\to$ pi pi, pi K and K K in broken SU(3) symmetry,''
4879: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D72} 034037 (2005).
4880: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0503077].
4881: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503077;%%
4882:
4883: \bibitem{BPRS}C.W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, I.Z. Rothstein and I.W. Stewart,
4884: %``B $\to$ M(1) M(2): Factorization, charming penguins, strong phases, and
4885: %polarization,''
4886: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D70}, 054015 (2004).
4887: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0401188].
4888: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401188;%%
4889:
4890: \bibitem{FeHu}T. Feldmann and T. Hurth,
4891: %``Non-factorizable contributions to B $\to$ pi pi decays,''
4892: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0411}, 037 (2004).
4893: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0408188].
4894: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408188;%%
4895:
4896: \bibitem{BF98}A.J. Buras and R. Fleischer,
4897: %``A general analysis of gamma determinations from B $\to$ pi K decays,''
4898: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C11}, 93 (1999).
4899: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9810260].
4900: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810260;%%
4901:
4902: \bibitem{GPY}M. Gronau, D. Pirjol and T.M. Yan,
4903: %``Model-independent electroweak penguins in B decays to two pseudoscalars,''
4904: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D60}, 034021 (1999)
4905: [E: {\bf D69}, 119901 (2004)].
4906: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9810482].
4907: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810482;%%
4908:
4909: \bibitem{ALP-Bpipi}A. Ali, E. Lunghi and A.Y. Parkhomenko,
4910: %``An analysis of the time-dependent CP asymmetry in B $\to$ pi pi
4911: %decays in the
4912: %standard model,''
4913: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C36}, 183 (2004).
4914: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0403275].
4915: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403275;%%
4916:
4917: \bibitem{busa}G. Buchalla and A.S. Safir,
4918: %``CP violation in B $\to$ pi+ pi- and the unitarity triangle,''
4919: hep-ph/0406016.
4920: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406016;%%
4921:
4922: \bibitem{kesa}Y.Y. Keum and A.I. Sanda,
4923: %``CP violation and nonleptonic B-meson decays via k(T)-factorization,''
4924: {\it eConf} {\bf C0304052}, WG420 (2003).
4925: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0306004].
4926: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306004;%%
4927:
4928: \bibitem{FM}R. Fleischer and T. Mannel,
4929: %``Constraining the CKM angle gamma and penguin contributions through
4930: %combined
4931: %B $\to$ pi K branching ratios,''
4932: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D57}, 2752 (1998).
4933: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9704423].
4934: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704423;%%
4935:
4936: \bibitem{defan}R. Fleischer,
4937: %``Rescattering and electroweak penguin effects in strategies to constrain and
4938: %determine the CKM angle gamma from B $\to$ pi K decays,''
4939: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C6}, 451 (1999).
4940: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9802433].
4941: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802433;%%
4942:
4943: \bibitem{neubert}M. Neubert,
4944: %``Model-independent analysis of B $\to$ pi K decays and bounds on the weak
4945: %phase gamma,''
4946: {\it JHEP} {\bf 9902}, 014 (1999).
4947: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9812396].
4948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812396;%%
4949:
4950: \bibitem{BFRS-up}A.J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel and F. Schwab,
4951: {\it Acta Phys.\ Polon.}~{\bf B36}, 2015 (2005).
4952: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0410407].
4953: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410407;%%
4954:
4955: \bibitem{NR}M. Neubert and J.L. Rosner,
4956: %``New bound on gamma from B+- $\to$ pi K decays,''
4957: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B441}, 403 (1998);
4958: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808493;%%
4959: %``Determination of the weak phase gamma from rate measurements in
4960: %B+- $\to$ pi K, pi pi decays,''
4961: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 81}, 5076 (1998).
4962: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809311;%%
4963:
4964: \bibitem{BaBar-pi0KS}B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
4965: %``Measurement of the branching fraction and the CP-violating asymmetry for
4966: %the decay B0 $\to$ K0(S) pi0,''
4967: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D71}, 111102 (2005).
4968: % [arXiv:hep-ex/0503011].
4969: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0503011;%%
4970:
4971: \bibitem{SU3-bounds}M. Gronau, Y. Grossman and J.L. Rosner,
4972: %``Interpreting the time-dependent CP asymmetry in B0 $\to$ pi0 K(S),''
4973: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B579}, 331 (2004).
4974: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0310020].
4975: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310020;%%
4976:
4977: \bibitem{Z-pen-analyses}A.J. Buras, and L. Silvestrini,
4978: %``Upper bounds on K $\to$ pi nu anti-nu and K(L) $\to$ pi0 e+ e- from
4979: %epsilon'/epsilon and K(L) $\to$ mu+ mu-,''
4980: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B546}, 299 (1999);
4981: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9811471].
4982: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811471;%%
4983: A.J. Buras, G. Colangelo, G. Isidori, A. Romanino, and L. Silvestrini,
4984: %``Connections between epsilon'/epsilon and rare kaon decays in
4985: %supersymmetry,''
4986: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B566}, 3 (2000);
4987: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9908371].
4988: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908371;%%
4989: A.J. Buras, T. Ewerth, S. J\"ager and J. Rosiek,
4990: %``K+ $\to$ pi+ nu anti-nu and K(L) $\to$ pi0 nu anti-nu decays in the general
4991: %MSSM,''
4992: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B714}, 103 (2005).
4993: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0408142].
4994: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408142;%%
4995:
4996: \bibitem{BuHi}G. Buchalla, G. Hiller and G. Isidori,
4997: %``Phenomenology of non-standard Z couplings in exclusive semileptonic
4998: %b $\to$ s transitions,''
4999: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D63}, 014015 (2001);\\
5000: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0006136].
5001: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006136;%%
5002: D. Atwood and G. Hiller,
5003: %``Implications of non-standard CP violation in hadronic B decays,''
5004: hep-ph/0307251.
5005: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307251;%%
5006:
5007: \bibitem{BFRS-I}A.J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel and F. Schwab,
5008: %``The B $\to$ pi K puzzle and its relation to rare B and K decays,''
5009: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C32}, 45 (2003).
5010: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0309012].
5011: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309012;%%
5012:
5013: \bibitem{Bobeth:2005ck}
5014: C. Bobeth, M. Bona, A.J. Buras, T. Ewerth, M. Pierini, L. Silvestrini and A. Weiler,
5015: %``Upper bounds on rare K and B decays from minimal flavor violation,''
5016: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B726}, 252 (2005).
5017: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505110;%%
5018:
5019: \bibitem{Baracchini:2005wp}
5020: E. Baracchini and G. Isidori,
5021: %``Electromagnetic corrections to non-leptonic two-body B and D decays,''
5022: hep-ph/0508071.
5023: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508071;%%
5024:
5025: \bibitem{BSU}A.J. Buras, F. Schwab and S. Uhlig,
5026: %``Waiting for precise measurements of K+ $\to$ pi+ nu anti-nu and K(L) $\to$
5027: %pi0 nu anti-nu,''
5028: TUM-HEP-547, hep-ph/0405132.
5029: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405132;%%
5030:
5031: \bibitem{quinn}H.R. Quinn,
5032: %``CP violation in B decays,''
5033: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.}~{\bf 37A}, 21 (1994).
5034: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,37A,21;%%
5035:
5036: \bibitem{RF-BdKK}R. Fleischer,
5037: %``Mixing induced CP violation in the decay B(d) $\to$ K0 anti-K0 within the
5038: %standard model,''
5039: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B341}, 205 (1994).
5040: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9409290].
5041: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409290;%%
5042:
5043: \bibitem{BFM}A.J. Buras, R. Fleischer and T. Mannel,
5044: %``Penguin topologies, rescattering effects and penguin hunting with B(u,d)
5045: %$\to$ K anti-K and B+- $\to$ pi+- K,''
5046: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B533}, 3 (1998).
5047: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9711262].
5048: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711262;%%
5049:
5050: \bibitem{charming}M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli and L. Silvestrini,
5051: %``Charming penguins in B decays,''
5052: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B501}, 271 (1997);\\
5053: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9703353].
5054: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703353;%%
5055: M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, M. Pierini
5056: and L. Silvestrini,
5057: %``Charming penguins strike back,''
5058: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B515}, 33 (2001);\\
5059: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0104126].
5060: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104126;%%
5061: C. Isola, M. Ladisa, G. Nardulli, T.N. Pham and P. Santorelli,
5062: %``Charming penguin contributions to charmless B decays into two pseudoscalar
5063: %mesons,''
5064: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D65}, 094005 (2002);\\
5065: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0110411].
5066: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110411;%%
5067: C.W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, I.Z. Rothstein and I.W. Stewart,
5068: %``B $\to$ M(1) M(2): Factorization, charming penguins, strong phases, and
5069: %polarization,''
5070: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D70}, 054015 (2004).
5071: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0401188].
5072: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401188;%%
5073:
5074: \bibitem{FR1}R. Fleischer and S. Recksiegel,
5075: %``Waiting for the discovery of B/d0 $\to$ K0 anti-K0,''
5076: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C38}, 251 (2004).
5077: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0408016].
5078: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408016;%%
5079:
5080: \bibitem{Ball}P. Ball and R. Zwicky,
5081: %``New results on B $\to$ pi, K, eta decay formfactors from light-cone sum
5082: %rules,''
5083: {\it Phys.\ Rev}.~{\bf D71}, 014015 (2005).
5084: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0406232].
5085: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406232;%%
5086:
5087: \bibitem{BaBar-BKK}B. Aubert {\it et al.}\ [BaBar Collaboration],
5088: %``Measurements of branching fractions and CP-violating asymmetries in
5089: %B-meson decays to the charmless two-body states K0 pi+, anti-K0 K+, and K0
5090: %anti-K0,''
5091: BABAR-CONF-04-044 [hep-ex/0408080];\\
5092: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408080;%%
5093: B. Aubert {\it et al.}\ [BaBar Collaboration],
5094: %``Evidence for B+ $\to$ anti-K0 K+ and B0 $\to$ K0 anti-K0, and measurement
5095: %of the branching fraction and search for direct CP violation in B+ $\to$ K0
5096: %pi+,''
5097: BABAR-PUB-05-035 [hep-ex/0507023].
5098: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507023;%%
5099:
5100: \bibitem{Belle-BKK}K. Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
5101: %``Measurements of B decays to two kaons,''
5102: BELLE-CONF-0524 [hep-ex/0506080].
5103: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0506080;%%
5104:
5105: \bibitem{giri-moh}A.K. Giri and R. Mohanta,
5106: %``Can there be any new physics in b $\to$ d penguins,''
5107: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0411}, 084 (2004).
5108: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0408337].
5109: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408337;%%
5110:
5111: \bibitem{GP}B. Grinstein and D. Pirjol,
5112: %``Long-distance effects in B $\to$ V gamma radiative weak decays,''
5113: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D62}, 093002 (2000).
5114: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0002216].
5115: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002216;%%
5116:
5117: \bibitem{FR2}R. Fleischer and S. Recksiegel,
5118: %``General lower bounds for B $\to$ D penguin processes,''
5119: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D71}, 051501(R) (2005).
5120: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0409137].
5121: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409137;%%
5122:
5123: \bibitem{ALP-rare}A. Ali, E. Lunghi and A.Y. Parkhomenko,
5124: %``Implication of the B $\to$ (rho, omega) gamma branching ratios for the CKM
5125: %phenomenology,''
5126: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B595}, 323 (2004).
5127: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0405075].
5128: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405075;%%
5129:
5130: \bibitem{BoBu}S.W. Bosch and G. Buchalla,
5131: %``Constraining the unitarity triangle with B $\to$ V gamma,''
5132: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0501}, 035 (2005).
5133: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0408231].
5134: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408231;%%
5135:
5136: \bibitem{Ball-Braun}P. Ball, V.M. Braun,
5137: %``Exclusive semileptonic and rare B meson decays in {QCD},''
5138: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D 58}, 094016 (1998).
5139: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9805422].
5140: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805422;%%
5141:
5142: \bibitem{Babar-Brhogamma-bound}B.~Aubert {\it et al.}\ [BaBar Collaboration],
5143: %``Search for the radiative penguin decays B+ $\to$ rho+ gamma, B0 $\to$ rho0
5144: %gamma, and B0 $\to$ omega gamma,''
5145: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 94}, 011801 (2005).
5146: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0408034].
5147: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408034;%%
5148:
5149: \bibitem{Belle-Brhogamma-bound}K.~Abe {\it et al.}\ [Belle Collaboration],
5150: %``Search for the b $\to$ d gamma process,''
5151: BELLE-CONF-0401 [hep-ex/0408137].
5152: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408137;%%
5153:
5154: \bibitem{Belle-bdgam-obs}K. Abe {\it et al.},
5155: %``Observation of b $\to$ d gamma and determination of $|$V(td)/V(ts)$|$,''
5156: BELLE-CONF-0520 [hep-ex/0506079].
5157: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0506079;%%
5158:
5159: \bibitem{Belle-press}For the press release of the Belle collaboration about the
5160: observation of the $b\to d$ penguins, see {\tt
5161: http://belle.kek.jp/hot/lp05$\mbox{}_-$press.html}.
5162:
5163: \bibitem{GGLP}B. Grinstein, Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti and D. Pirjol,
5164: %``The photon polarization in B $\to$ X gamma in the standard model,''
5165: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D71}, 011504 (2005).
5166: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0412019].
5167: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412019;%%
5168:
5169: \bibitem{BKll}A. Ali, P. Ball, L.T. Handoko and G. Hiller,
5170: %``A comparative study of the decays B $\to$ (K,K*) l+ l- in standard
5171: %model and
5172: %supersymmetric theories,''
5173: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D61}, 074024 (2000);\\
5174: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9910221].
5175: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910221;%%
5176: M. Beneke, T. Feldmann and D. Seidel,
5177: %``Systematic approach to exclusive B $\to$ V l+ l-, V gamma decays,''
5178: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B612}, 25 (2001);\\
5179: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0106067].
5180: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106067;%%
5181: A. Ali and A.S. Safir,
5182: %``Helicity analysis of the decays B $\to$ K* l+ l- and B $\to$ rho l nu/l in
5183: %the large energy effective theory,''
5184: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C25}, 583 (2002).
5185: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205254].
5186: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205254;%%
5187:
5188: \bibitem{HM}T. Hurth and T. Mannel,
5189: %``CP asymmetries in b $\to$ (s/d) transitions as a test of CKM CP
5190: %violation,''
5191: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B511}, 196 (2001).
5192: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0103331].
5193: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103331;%%
5194:
5195: \bibitem{LEPBOSC}$B$ Oscillations Working Group:
5196: {\tt http://lepbosc.web.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/}.
5197:
5198: \bibitem{schneider}O. Schneider, talk at the ``Flavour in the era of the LHC" workshop,
5199: 7--10 November 2005, CERN, {\tt http://cern.ch/flavlhc}.
5200:
5201: \bibitem{oldeman}R. Oldeman, talk at the ``Flavour in the era of the LHC" workshop,
5202: 7--10 November 2005, CERN, {\tt http://cern.ch/flavlhc}.
5203:
5204: \bibitem{lattice}For a recent review, see S. Hashimoto,
5205: %``Recent results from lattice calculations,''
5206: {\it Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.}~{\bf A20}, 5133 (2005).
5207: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0411126].
5208: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411126;%%
5209:
5210: \bibitem{SR-calc}A.A. Penin and M. Steinhauser,
5211: %``Heavy-light meson decay constant from QCD sum rules in three-loop
5212: %approximation,''
5213: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D65}, 054006 (2002);\\
5214: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0108110].
5215: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108110;%%
5216: M. Jamin and B.O. Lange,
5217: %``f(B) and f(B/s) from QCD sum rules,''
5218: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D65}, 056005 (2002);\\
5219: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0108135].
5220: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108135;%%
5221: K. Hagiwara, S. Narison and D. Nomura,
5222: %``B0/d,s - anti-B0/d,s mass-differences from QCD spectral sum rules,''
5223: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B540}, 233 (2002).
5224: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205092].
5225: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205092;%%
5226:
5227: \bibitem{lenz}A. Lenz,
5228: %``Decay rate difference in the neutral B system: Delta(Gamma(B/s)) and
5229: %Delta(Gamma(B/d)),''
5230: hep-ph/0412007.
5231: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412007;%%
5232:
5233: \bibitem{dun}I. Dunietz,
5234: %``B(s) - anti-B(s) mixing, CP violation and extraction of CKM phases from
5235: %untagged B(s) data samples,''
5236: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D52}, 3048 (1995).
5237: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9501287].
5238: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9501287;%%
5239:
5240: \bibitem{FD-CP}R. Fleischer and I. Dunietz,
5241: %``CP violation and CKM phases from angular distributions for $B_s$
5242: %decays into
5243: %admixtures of CP eigenstates,''
5244: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D55}, 259 (1997).
5245: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9605220].
5246: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605220;%%
5247:
5248: \bibitem{FD-NCP}R. Fleischer and I. Dunietz,
5249: %``CP violation and the CKM angle $\gamma$ from angular distributions of
5250: %untagged $B_s$ decays governed by $\bar b\to\bar c u\bar s$,''
5251: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B387}, 361 (1996).
5252: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9605221].
5253: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605221;%%
5254:
5255: \bibitem{DDF}A.S. Dighe, I. Dunietz and R. Fleischer,
5256: %``Extracting CKM phases and B/s anti-B/s mixing parameters from
5257: %angular distributions of non-leptonic B decays,''
5258: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}~{\bf C6}, 647 (1999).
5259: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804253;%%
5260:
5261: \bibitem{DFN}I. Dunietz, R. Fleischer and U. Nierste,
5262: %``In pursuit of new physics with B/s decays,''
5263: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D63}, 114015 (2001).
5264: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0012219].
5265: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012219;%%
5266:
5267: \bibitem{CDF-DG}D. Acosta {\it et al.}\ [CDF Collaboration],
5268: %``Analysis of decay-time dependence of angular distributions in B/s0 $\to$
5269: %J/psi Phi and B/d0 $\to$ J/psi K*0 decays and measurement of the lifetime
5270: %difference between B/s mass eigenstates,''
5271: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 94}, 101803 (2005).
5272: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0412057].
5273: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0412057;%%
5274:
5275: \bibitem{D0-DG}V.M. Abazov {\it et al.}\ [D0 Collaboration],
5276: %``Measurement of the lifetime difference in the B/s0 system,''
5277: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}~{\bf 95}, 171801 (2005).
5278: % [arXiv:hep-ex/0507084].
5279: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507084;%%
5280:
5281: \bibitem{DDLR}A.S. Dighe, I. Dunietz, H. Lipkin and J.L. Rosner,
5282: %``Angular distributions and lifetime differences in $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$
5283: %decays,''
5284: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B369}, 144 (1996).
5285: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9511363].
5286: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511363;%%
5287:
5288: \bibitem{RF-ang}R. Fleischer,
5289: %``Extracting CKM phases from angular distributions of B/d,s decays into
5290: %admixtures of CP eigenstates,''
5291: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D60}, 073008 (1999).
5292: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9903540].
5293: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903540;%%
5294:
5295: \bibitem{NiSi}Y. Nir and D.J. Silverman,
5296: %``Exploring New Physics With CP Asymmetries In B0 Decays,''
5297: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B345}, 301 (1990).
5298: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B345,301;%%
5299:
5300: \bibitem{Branco}G.C. Branco, T. Morozumi, P.A. Parada and M.N. Rebelo,
5301: %``CP asymmetries in B0 decays in the presence of flavor changing neutral
5302: %currents,''
5303: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D48}, 1167 (1993).
5304: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D48,1167;%%
5305:
5306: \bibitem{BsDsK}R. Aleksan, I. Dunietz and B. Kayser,
5307: %``Determining the CP violating phase gamma,''
5308: {\it Z.\ Phys.}~{\bf C54}, 653 (1992).
5309: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C54,653;%%
5310:
5311: \bibitem{BdDpi}I. Dunietz and R.G. Sachs,
5312: %``Asymmetry Between Inclusive Charmed And Anticharmed Modes In B0,
5313: %Anti-B0 Decay As A Measure Of CP Violation,''
5314: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D37}, 3186 (1988) [E: {\bf D39}, 3515 (1989)];\\
5315: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D37,3186;%%
5316: I. Dunietz,
5317: %``Clean CKM information from B/d(t) $\to$ D*-+ pi+-,''
5318: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B427}, 179 (1998);\\
5319: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712401;%%
5320: D.A. Suprun, C.W. Chiang and J.L.Rosner,
5321: %``Extraction of a weak phase from B $\to$ D(*) pi,''
5322: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D65}, 054025 (2002).
5323: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110159;%%
5324:
5325: \bibitem{wilkinson-CKM}G. Wilkinson, talk at CKM 2005, Workshop on the
5326: Unitarity Triangle, 15--18 March 2005, San Diego, CA, USA,
5327: {\tt http://ckm2005.ucsd.edu/WG/WG5/thu2/Wilkinson-WG5-S3.pdf}.
5328:
5329: \bibitem{LHCb-analyses}G. Balbi {\it et al.}, CERN-LHCb/2003-123 and
5330: 124;\\
5331: R. Antunes Nobrega {\it et al.}\ [LHCb Collaboration], {\it Reoptimized
5332: LHCb Detector, Design and Performance}, Technical Design Report 9,
5333: CERN/LHCC 2003-030.
5334:
5335: \bibitem{KMM}A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and M. Melcher,
5336: %``Flavour SU(3) symmetry in charmless B decays,''
5337: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D68}, 114007 (2003).
5338: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0308297].
5339: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308297;%%
5340:
5341: \bibitem{CDF-BsKK}D. Tonelli (representing the CDF collaboration),
5342: %``Branching fractions of B-->h+h'- modes at CDF,''
5343: hep-ex/0512024.
5344: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0512024;%%
5345:
5346: \bibitem{safir} A.S. Safir,
5347: %``Exploring the unitarity triangle through CP violation observables in B/s
5348: %$\to$ K+ K-,''
5349: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0409}, 053 (2004).
5350: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0407015].
5351: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407015;%%
5352:
5353: \bibitem{BLMV}S. Baek, D. London, J. Matias and J. Virto,
5354: %``Supersymmetric contributions to B/s0 $\to$ K+ K-,''
5355: hep-ph/0511295.
5356: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511295;%%
5357:
5358: \bibitem{GR-BspiK}M. Gronau and J.L. Rosner,
5359: %``The role of B/s $\to$ K pi in determining the weak phase gamma,''
5360: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B482}, 71 (2000).
5361: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0003119].
5362: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003119;%%
5363:
5364: \bibitem{skands}P.Z. Skands,
5365: %``Branching ratios for B/d,s $\to$ J/psi eta and B/d,s $\to$ eta l+ l-,
5366: %extracting gamma from B/d,s $\to$ J/psi eta, and possibilities for
5367: %constraining C(10A) in semileptonic B decays,''
5368: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0101}, 008 (2001).
5369: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0010115].
5370: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010115;%%
5371:
5372: \bibitem{SoSu}A. Soni and D.A. Suprun,
5373: %``Determination of gamma from charmless B+ $\to$ M0 M+ decays using U-spin,''
5374: hep-ph/0511012.
5375: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511012;%%
5376:
5377: \bibitem{BB-Bmumu}G. Buchalla and A.J. Buras,
5378: %``The rare decays K $\to$ pi nu anti-nu, B $\to$ X nu anti-nu and
5379: %B $\to$ l+l-: An update,''
5380: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B548}, 309 (1999).
5381: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9901288].
5382: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901288;%%
5383:
5384: \bibitem{eta-Y}G. Buchalla and A.J. Buras,
5385: %``QCD corrections to rare K and B decays for arbitrary top quark mass,''
5386: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B400}, 225 (1993).
5387: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B400,225;%%
5388:
5389: \bibitem{MiU}M. Misiak and J. Urban,
5390: %``{QCD} corrections to FCNC decays mediated by Z-penguins and W-boxes,''
5391: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B451}, 161 (1999).
5392: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9901278].
5393: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901278;%%
5394:
5395: \bibitem{Brev01}A.J. Buras, hep-ph/0101336.
5396: %lectures given at Erice International School
5397: %of Subnuclear Physics: Theory and Experiment Heading for New Physics,
5398: %Erice, Italy, 27 August -- 5 September 2000.
5399:
5400: \bibitem{CDF-Bmumu}A. Abulencia {\it et al.}\ [CDF Collaboration],
5401: %``Search for B/s $\to$ mu+ mu- and B/d $\to$ mu+ mu- decays in p anti-p
5402: %collisions with CDF II,''
5403: hep-ex/0508036.
5404: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0508036;%%
5405:
5406: \bibitem{D0-Bmumu}D0 Collaboration, D0note 4733-CONF (2005)
5407: [{\tt http://www-d0.fnal.gov}].
5408:
5409: \bibitem{Buras-rel}A.J. Buras,
5410: %``Relations between Delta(M(s,d)) and B/s,d $\to$ mu anti-mu in models with
5411: %minimal flavour violation,''
5412: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B566}, 115 (2003).
5413: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0303060].
5414: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303060;%%
5415:
5416: \bibitem{EOS}J.R. Ellis, K.A. Olive and V.C. Spanos,
5417: %``On the interpretation of B/s $\to$ mu+ mu- in the CMSSM,''
5418: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B624}, 47 (2005).
5419: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0504196].
5420: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504196;%%
5421:
5422: \bibitem{workshop}This topic is currently addressed in detail within a
5423: workshop: {\tt http://cern.ch/flavlhc}.
5424:
5425: \end{thebibliography}
5426:
5427: \end{document}
5428:
5429: