1: \documentclass[prl,nofootinbib,twocolumn,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: \def\mysection#1{{\bf #1.} }
3: \def\mysections#1{{\bf #1.} }
4: %\documentstyle[12pt,prd,aps,epsfig,floats,preprint,eqsecnum]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[prd,nofootinbib,preprint,superscriptaddress%,showpacs
6: %]{revtex4}
7: %\tightenlines
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: \usepackage{amsmath}
10: %\usepackage{psfig}
11: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
12: \usepackage{longtable}
13: \usepackage{verbatim}
14: \usepackage{amsfonts}
15:
16: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}
17: \arraycolsep 2pt
18:
19:
20: \newcommand{\sla}{\slash \hspace{-0.2cm}}
21: \newcommand{\slam}{\slash \hspace{-0.25cm}}
22: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
23: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
24: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
25: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
26: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
27: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
28: %\newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
29: % \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
30: %\newenvironment{Eqnarray}%
31: % {\arraycolsep 0.14em\begin{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
32: %\def\beqa{\begin{Eqnarray}}
33: % \def\eeqa{\end{Eqnarray}}
34: \def\beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}
35: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}
36: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}
37: %\newcommand{\ol}{\overline}
38: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
39: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}} %less than or approx. symbol
40: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
41: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}} %greater than or approx. symbol
42:
43: \def\Bs{{\overline{B}}_s}
44: \begin{document}
45: %\draft
46:
47: %\preprint
48:
49: \vspace*{-30mm}
50:
51: \title{\boldmath Constraining the Phase of $B_s-\Bs$ Mixing}
52:
53: \author{Yuval Grossman}\email{yuvalg@physics.technion.ac.il}
54: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Technion-Israel
55: Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000,
56: Israel}
57:
58: \author{Yosef Nir}\email{yosef.nir@weizmann.ac.il}
59: \affiliation{Department of Particle Physics,
60: Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel}
61:
62: \author{Guy Raz}\email{guy.raz@weizmann.ac.il}
63: \affiliation{Department of Particle Physics,
64: Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel}
65:
66: \vspace*{1cm}
67: %\date{\today}
68: %\pacs{12.10.Dm, 12.10.Kt, 98.80.Cq}
69:
70: \begin{abstract}
71: New physics contributions to $B_s-\Bs$ mixing can be parametrized by
72: the size ($r_s^2$) and the phase ($2\theta_s$) of the total mixing
73: amplitude relative to the Standard Model amplitude. The phase has so
74: far been unconstrained. We first use the D$\emptyset$ measurement of
75: the semileptonic CP asymmetry $A_{\rm SL}$ to obtain the first
76: constraint on the semileptonic CP asymmetry in $B_s$ decays, $A_{\rm
77: SL}^s=-0.008\pm0.011$. Then we combine recent measurements by
78: the CDF and D$\emptyset$ collaborations -- the mass difference ($\Delta
79: M_s$), the width difference ($\Delta\Gamma_s$) and $A_{\rm SL}^s$ -- to
80: constrain $2\theta_s$. The errors on $\Delta\Gamma_s$ and $A_{\rm
81: SL}^s$ should still be reduced to have a
82: sensitive probe of the phase, yet the central values are such that
83: the regions around $2\theta_s\sim3\pi/2$ and, in particular,
84: $2\theta_s\sim\pi/2$, are disfavored.
85: \end{abstract}
86:
87: \maketitle
88:
89: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
90: \mysection{Introduction}
91: Flavor changing $b\to s$ transitions are a particularly sensitive
92: probe of new physics. Among these, $B_s-\Bs$ mixing occupies a special
93: place. New physics contributions to the mixing amplitude $M_{12}^s$
94: can be parametrized in the most general way as follows:
95: \beq\label{defrthe}
96: M_{12}^s=r_s^2\ e^{2i\theta_s}\ (M_{12}^s)^{\rm SM},
97: \eeq
98: where $(M_{12}^s)^{\rm SM}$ is the Standard Model (SM) contribution to
99: the mixing amplitude. Values of $r_s^2\neq1$ and/or $2\theta_s\neq0$
100: would signal new physics. Assuming that the new physics can affect any
101: loop processes but is negligible for tree level processes, and that
102: the $3\times3$ CKM matrix is unitary ({\it i.e.} no quarks beyond the
103: known three generations), we can use various experimental measurements
104: to constrain the new physics parameters $r_s^2$ and $2\theta_s$:
105: \begin{enumerate}
106: \item The mass difference between the neutral $B_s$ states:
107: \beq\label{dmsnp}
108: \Delta M_s=(\Delta M_s)^{\rm SM}\ r_s^2.
109: \eeq
110: \item The width difference between the neutral $B_s$ states
111: \cite{Grossman:1996er,Dunietz:2000cr}:
112: \beq\label{dgsnp}
113: \Delta\Gamma_s^{\rm CP}=\Delta\Gamma_s\cos2\theta_s
114: =(\Delta\Gamma_s)^{\rm SM}\cos^22\theta_s.
115: \eeq
116: \item The semileptonic asymmetry in $B_s$ decays:
117: \beq\label{aslnp}
118: A_{\rm SL}^s=-{\cal R}e\left(\frac{\Gamma_{12}^s}{M_{12}^s}\right)^{\rm
119: SM}\frac{\sin2\theta_s}{r_s^2}.
120: \eeq
121: \item The CP asymmetry in $B_s$ decays into final CP eigenstates
122: such as $\psi\phi$:
123: \beq\label{sphiphi}
124: S_{\psi\phi(CP=+)}=-\sin2\theta_s.
125: \eeq
126: \end{enumerate}
127: Our convention here is defined by $\Delta M_s\equiv
128: M_{sH}-M_{sL}$ and $\Delta\Gamma_s\equiv\Gamma_{sH}-\Gamma_{sL}$. The
129: observable $\Delta\Gamma_s^{\rm CP}$ is defined by
130: $\Delta\Gamma_s^{\rm CP}\equiv\Gamma_--\Gamma_+$, where $\Gamma_-(\Gamma_+)$
131: is deduced from fitting the decay rate into a final CP-odd (-even)
132: state assuming that it is described by a single exponential. This
133: assumption introduces an error of ${\cal O}(y_s^2)=0.01$
134: [$y_s\equiv\Delta\Gamma_s/(2\Gamma_s)$]. In
135: the expressions for $\Delta\Gamma_s$ and $S_{\psi\phi}$ we neglect
136: terms of ${\cal O}(\sin2\beta_s)=0.04$ (where
137: $\beta_s=\arg[-(V_{ts}V_{tb}^*)/(V_{cs}V_{cb}^*)]$), while the
138: approximation for $A_{\rm SL}^s$ is good to ${\cal
139: O}[(m_c^2/m_b^2)\sin2\beta_s]=0.004$.
140:
141: Until very recently, experiments gave only a lower bound on $\Delta
142: M_s$, a large error on $\Delta\Gamma_s$, and no meaningful information
143: on the CP asymmetries. Under these circumstances, there has been only
144: a lower bound on $r_s^2$ and no constraint at all on $2\theta_s$.
145:
146: Recently, three important experimental developments took place in this
147: context:
148: \begin{itemize}
149: \item The CDF collaboration measured $\Delta M_s$ \cite{CDF}:
150: \beq\label{dmsexp}
151: \Delta M_s=17.33^{+0.42}_{-0.21}\pm0.07\ {\rm ps}^{-1}.
152: \eeq
153: (The D$\emptyset$ collaboration provided a milder two-sided bound
154: \cite{Abazov:2006dm}.)
155: \item The D$\emptyset$ collaboration measured \cite{dzerodgs}
156: $\Delta\Gamma_s^{\rm CP}=-0.15\pm0.10^{+0.03}_{-0.04}\ {\rm
157: ps}^{-1}$. Averaging this result with the earlier measurements by
158: CDF \cite{Acosta:2004gt} and ALEPH \cite{Barate:2000kd}, we obtain
159: \beq\label{dgsexp}
160: \Delta\Gamma_s^{\rm CP}=-0.22\pm0.08\ {\rm ps}^{-1}.
161: \eeq
162: \item The D$\emptyset$ collaboration searched for the semileptonic
163: CP asymmetry \cite{dzero,dzpri}:
164: \beq\label{aslexp}
165: A_{\rm SL}=-0.0026\pm0.0024\pm0.0017.
166: \eeq
167: \end{itemize}
168:
169: As obvious from eq. (\ref{dmsnp}), the main implication for new
170: physics of the new result for $\Delta M_s$, eq. (\ref{dmsexp}), is a
171: range for $r_s^2$ which can be further translated into constraints on
172: parameters of specific models
173: \cite{Ligeti:2006pm,Blanke:2006ig,Ciuchini:2006dx,Endo:2006dm,Foster:2006ze,Cheung:2006tm,Ball:2006xx}.
174: Here, we would like to focus instead on the phase of the mixing
175: amplitude $2\theta_s$. In order that a measurement of
176: $\Delta\Gamma_s^{\rm CP}$ can be used to constrain $\cos^22\theta_s$,
177: the experimental error should be at or below the level of
178: $(\Delta\Gamma_s)^{\rm SM}$. The new D$\emptyset$ measurement of
179: $\Delta\Gamma_s^{\rm CP}$ is the first to reach the required level. There are
180: three necessary conditions in order that a measurement of $A_{\rm SL}$
181: can be used to constrain $2\theta_s$:
182: \begin{enumerate}
183: \item The experimental error on $A_{\rm SL}$ should be at or below
184: the level of $|\Gamma_{12}^s/M_{12}^s|^{\rm SM}$;
185: \item An upper bound on $r_s^2$ should be available;
186: \item An independent upper bound on $A_{\rm SL}^d$ (the
187: semileptonic asymmetry in $B_d$ decays) should be available.
188: \end{enumerate}
189: Both the D$\emptyset$ measurement of $A_{\rm SL}$ and the CDF
190: measurement of $\Delta M_s$ are thus crucial for our purposes, because
191: they satisfy, for the first time, the first and second condition,
192: respectively.
193:
194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
195: \mysection{Relating $A_{\rm SL}$ to $A_{\rm SL}^s$}
196: The semileptonic asymmetry measured at the TeVatron,
197: \beqa\label{defasl}
198: A_{\rm SL}&\equiv&\frac{\Gamma(b\bar b\to\mu^+\mu^+ X)-\Gamma(b\bar
199: b\to\mu^-\mu^- X)}{\Gamma(b\bar b\to\mu^+\mu^+ X)+\Gamma(b\bar
200: b\to\mu^-\mu^- X)}\no\\
201: &=&\frac{\Gamma_{\rm RS}^+\Gamma_{\rm WS}^+ -
202: \Gamma_{\rm RS}^-\Gamma_{\rm WS}^-}{\Gamma_{\rm RS}^+\Gamma_{\rm WS}^+ +
203: \Gamma_{\rm RS}^-\Gamma_{\rm WS}^-},
204: \eeqa
205: sums over all $B$-hadron decays. Given that the quark subprocesses are
206: $b\to \mu^-X$ and $\bar b\to\mu^+ X$, the right-sign (RS) and
207: wrong-sign (WS) rates can be decomposed as follows:
208: \beqa\label{rsws}
209: \Gamma_{\rm RS}^-&=&
210: f_dT(\overline{B}_d\to \overline{B}_d){\overline\Gamma}_{\rm SL}^d
211: +f_sT(\overline{B}_s\to \overline{B}_s){\overline\Gamma}_{\rm SL}^s
212: +f_u{\overline\Gamma}_{\rm SL}^u,\no\\
213: \Gamma_{\rm RS}^+&=&
214: f_dT({B}_d\to{B}_d)\Gamma_{\rm SL}^d
215: +f_sT({B}_s\to{B}_s)\Gamma_{\rm SL}^s
216: +f_u\Gamma_{\rm SL}^u,\no\\
217: \Gamma_{\rm WS}^-&=&
218: f_dT({B}_d\to \overline{B}_d){\overline\Gamma}_{\rm SL}^d
219: +f_sT({B}_s\to \overline{B}_s){\overline\Gamma}_{\rm SL}^s,\no\\
220: \Gamma_{\rm WS}^+&=&
221: f_dT(\overline{B}_d\to {B}_d)\Gamma_{\rm SL}^d
222: +f_sT(\overline{B}_s\to {B}_s)\Gamma_{\rm SL}^s,
223: \eeqa
224: Here, $f_{q}$ is the production fraction of $B_{q}$ (we assume that
225: there is no production asymmetry, $f_q={\overline f}_q$), $T$ is the time
226: integrated probability, and $\Gamma_{\rm SL}^q$ (${\overline\Gamma}_{\rm
227: SL}^q$) is the semileptonic decay rate of
228: $B_q$-($\overline{B}_q$-)mesons. (One should think of the $q=u$ terms
229: as representing all $b$-hadrons that do not mix, that is, the charged
230: $B$ mesons and the $\Lambda_b$ baryons.)
231:
232: Within our assumptions, there is no direct CP violation in
233: semileptonic decays, that is, $\Gamma_{\rm SL}^q=
234: {\overline\Gamma}_{\rm SL}^q$. The time integrated probabilities fulfill
235: $T(B_{d,s}\to B_{d,s})=T(\overline{B}_{d,s}\to\overline{B}_{d,s})$.
236: Consequently, we have $\Gamma_{\rm RS}^-=\Gamma_{\rm RS}^+$.
237: This leads to a considerable simplification of eq. (\ref{defasl}):
238: \beq\label{aslws}
239: A_{\rm SL}=\frac{\Gamma_{\rm WS}^+ - \Gamma_{\rm WS}^-}{\Gamma_{\rm WS}^+ +
240: \Gamma_{\rm WS}^-}.
241: \eeq
242: Thus, the semileptonic asymmetry depends only on the wrong sign
243: rates. In particular, it is independent of the $B^\pm$ (and similarly
244: of the $\Lambda_b$) decay rates.
245:
246: To a very good approximation we expect $\Gamma_{\rm SL}^d=\Gamma_{\rm
247: SL}^s$ (this SU(3)-flavor equality is violated only by terms of
248: ${\cal O}(m_s\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b^2)$) which leads to
249: \beq\label{aslwssut}
250: A_{\rm SL}=\frac{f_dT_d^-+f_s T_s^-}{f_d T_d^++f_sT_s^+},
251: \eeq
252: where
253: \beq
254: T_q^\pm=T(\overline{B}_q\to {B}_q)\pm T({B}_q\to
255: \overline{B}_q).
256: \eeq
257: The relevant time integrated transition probabilities are as follows
258: \cite{Branco:1999fs}:
259: \beqa\label{ttbar}
260: T(B_q\to\overline{B}_q)&=&\left(\frac{1-\delta_q}{1+\delta_q}\right)\frac{Z_q}{2\Gamma_q},\no\\
261: T(\overline{B}_q\to{B}_q)&=&\left(\frac{1+\delta_q}{1-\delta_q}\right)\frac{Z_q}{2\Gamma_q}
262: \eeqa
263: where ($y_q=\Delta\Gamma_q/(2\Gamma_q)$, $x_q=\Delta M_q/\Gamma_q$)
264: \beq\label{defzq}
265: Z_q\equiv \frac{1}{1-y_q^2}-\frac{1}{1+x_q^2}.
266: \eeq
267: The quantity $\delta_q$ characterizes CP violation in mixing
268: [$\delta_q\equiv(1-|q/p|_q^2)/(1+|q/p|_q^2)$]. Given that it is small,
269: one can write to leading order $\delta_q= A_{\rm SL}^q/2$,
270: $T^-_q=A_{\rm SL}^q Z_q/\Gamma_q$ and $T^+_q=Z_q/\Gamma_q$. Taking
271: again the SU(3) limit, $\Gamma_d=\Gamma_s$ (the equality is violated
272: at high order in $1/m_b$; experimentally \cite{Barberio:2006bi}
273: $\tau_s/\tau_d\sim0.96\pm0.04$), we obtain \cite{diffpdg}
274: \beq\label{aslsut1}
275: A_{\rm SL}=\frac{f_dZ_dA_{\rm SL}^d+f_sZ_sA_{\rm SL}^s}{f_d Z_d+f_sZ_s}.
276: \eeq
277:
278: Given the experimental ranges \cite{PDG} $|y_d|=0.004\pm0.019$ and
279: $|y_s|=0.16\pm0.06$ we can safely neglect $y_d^2$ and $y_s^2$. (Within
280: our framework, we expect \cite{Beneke:2003az,Ciuchini:2003ww}\
281: $y_s^2\sim0.01$.) Using the experimental values \cite{Barberio:2006bi}
282: $f_d=0.4$, $f_s=0.1$, $x_d=0.78$ and $x_s=25.3$, we obtain
283: \beq\label{aslsut}
284: A_{\rm SL}\simeq0.6A_{\rm SL}^d+0.4A_{\rm SL}^s.
285: \eeq
286:
287: There are two sets of measurements that, in combination, allow us to
288: extract a range for $A_{\rm SL}^s$. First, we have the D$\emptyset$
289: measurement of $A_{\rm SL}$ (eq. (\ref{aslexp})), which we can average
290: together with previous measurements by the LEP experiments OPAL
291: \cite{Abbiendi:1998av} and ALEPH \cite{Barate:2000uk} (we neglect here
292: the small difference between LEP and the TeVatron regarding the
293: measured values of $f_{d,s}$). We find
294: \beq
295: A_{\rm SL}=-0.0027\pm0.0029.
296: \eeq
297: Second, we have measurements of $A_{\rm SL}^d$ at the
298: $\Upsilon(4S)$-energy by Babar \cite{Aubert:2006nf}, Belle
299: \cite{Nakano:2005jb} and CLEO \cite{Jaffe:2001hz}. We find
300: \beq
301: A_{\rm SL}^d=+0.0011\pm0.0055.
302: \eeq
303:
304: Thus, we obtain
305: \beq\label{aslnum}
306: A_{\rm SL}^s=-0.008\pm0.011.
307: \eeq
308: (One could include also the Babar measurement from hadronic modes
309: \cite{Aubert:2003hd}. While this is not, strictly speaking, a
310: measurement of $A_{\rm SL}^d$, it does give $1-|q/p|_d$. This would
311: change the average to $A_{\rm SL}^d=-0.0004\pm0.0055$ and, consequently,
312: $A_{\rm SL}^s=-0.006\pm0.011$. Our conclusions would remain
313: unchanged.)
314:
315: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
316: \mysection{Constraining $2\theta_s$}
317: Our constraints on $2\theta_s$ involve eqs. (\ref{dgsnp}) and
318: (\ref{aslnp}). As concerns $(\Gamma_{12}/M_{12})^{\rm SM}$, we use
319: \cite{Beneke:2003az} (see also \cite{Ciuchini:2003ww} for a different
320: calculation with similar results)
321: \beq\label{gmnum}
322: {\cal R}e\left(\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{M_{12}}\right)^{\rm
323: SM}=-0.0040\pm0.0016.
324: \eeq
325: As concerns
326: $(\Delta M_s)^{\rm SM}$, we use \cite{Blanke:2006ig}
327: \beqa\label{dmsnum}
328: (\Delta M_s)^{\rm SM}&=&\frac{G_F^2}{6\pi^2}\eta_B m_{B_s}\hat
329: B_{B_s}F_{B_s}^2S(x_t)|V_{tb}V_{ts}|^2\no\\
330: &=&17.8\pm4.8\ {\rm ps}^{-1}.
331: \eeqa
332: It is important to note that the range for $|V_{ts}V_{tb}|$ is derived
333: using tree level processes and CKM unitarity.
334: The combination of (\ref{gmnum}) and (\ref{dmsnum}) gives
335: \beq\label{dgsnum}
336: (\Delta\Gamma_s)^{\rm SM}=-0.07\pm0.03\ {\rm ps}^{-1}.
337: \eeq
338: We can now fit the new physics parameters $r_s^2$ and $2\theta_s$ to
339: the experimental values of eqs. (\ref{dmsexp}), (\ref{dgsexp}) and
340: (\ref{aslnum}) via eqs. (\ref{dmsnp}), (\ref{dgsnp}) and
341: (\ref{aslnp}). To do so, we use the SM estimates of
342: eqs. (\ref{gmnum}), (\ref{dmsnum}) and (\ref{dgsnum}).
343:
344: It is easy to understand the constraint on $r_s^2$ by simply using
345: eq. (\ref{dmsnp}):
346: \beq\label{rsfit}
347: r_s^2=\frac{(\Delta M_s)^{\rm exp}}{(\Delta M_s)^{\rm
348: SM}}=0.97\pm0.26,
349: \eeq
350: To get a feeling for the situation concerning $2\theta_s$, we first
351: use eqs. (\ref{dgsnp}) and (\ref{aslnp}) separately. The
352: $\Delta\Gamma_s$ measurement gives
353: \beq\label{ctsfit}
354: \cos^22\theta_s=\frac{(\Delta\Gamma_s)^{\rm CP}}{(\Delta\Gamma_s)^{\rm
355: SM}}=3.1\pm1.7.
356: \eeq
357: This range disfavors (at the $1.8\sigma$ level) small
358: $\cos^22\theta_s$ values, that is $2\theta_s\sim\pi/2,3\pi/2$. The
359: $A_{\rm SL}^s$ measurement gives
360: \beq\label{tsfit}
361: \sin2\theta_s=-\frac{A_{\rm SL}^s}{{\cal
362: R}e(\Gamma_{12}^s/M_{12}^s)^{\rm SM}}
363: \frac{(\Delta M_s)^{\rm exp}}{(\Delta M_s)^{\rm SM}}=-1.9\pm2.8.
364: \eeq
365: This range disfavors large positive $\sin2\theta_s$ values, that is
366: $2\theta_s\sim\pi/2$. The combination of the two sources of
367: constraints should therefore disfavor the regions around
368: $2\theta_s\sim\pi/2,3\pi/2$, with stronger significance for the first.
369: This can be seen in Fig. \ref{fig:cs}, where we present the
370: constraints in the $\cos2\theta_s-\sin2\theta_s$ plane. In
371: Fig. \ref{fig:rsts} we present the constraints in the $r_s^2-2\theta_s$
372: plane. Note that eqs. (\ref{ctsfit}) and (\ref{tsfit}) and
373: Fig. \ref{fig:cs} do not take into account the correlations between
374: the contributions to the various observables, since they are meant to
375: emphasize the impact of each measurement separately. The correlations
376: are, however, fully taken into account in Fig. \ref{fig:rsts}.
377:
378: \begin{figure}[bt]
379: \centering
380: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CS-color}
381: \caption{The constraints in the $\cos2\theta_s-\sin2\theta_s$ plane
382: allowing for new physics in all loop processes. The dark green,
383: light green
384: and yellow regions correspond to probability higher than 0.32,
385: 0.046, and 0.0027, respectively. The physical region
386: ($\cos^22\theta_s+\sin^22\theta_s=1$) is along the blue circle. The SM
387: point, $\cos2\theta_s=+1$, $\sin2\theta_s=0$, is marked with red.}
388: \label{fig:cs}
389: \end{figure}
390:
391: \begin{figure}[bt]
392: \centering
393: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{rs-ts-color}
394: \caption{The constraints in the $r_s^2-2\theta_s$ plane allowing for
395: new physics in all loop processes. The dark green, light green and
396: yellow regions correspond to probability higher than 0.32, 0.046, and
397: 0.0027, respectively. The SM
398: point, $2\theta_s=0$, $r^2_s=1$, is marked with red.}
399: \label{fig:rsts}
400: \end{figure}
401:
402: We note that the ${\cal O}(30\%)$ error on $r_s^2$ is mainly
403: {\it theoretical}: it reflects the theoretical uncertainty in $(\Delta
404: M_s)^{\rm SM}$. In contrast, the ${\cal O}(100\%)$ error on
405: $\sin2\theta_s$ is mainly {\it experimental}: it comes from the error
406: in the determination of $A_{\rm SL}^s$. The ${\cal O}(50\%)$ error on
407: $\cos^22\theta_s$ has both experimental and theoretical aspects.
408:
409: We learn that the constraints on $2\theta_s$ are still rather weak. In
410: principle, the error on $A_{\rm SL}^s$ is still a factor of three larger
411: than what is needed to have sensitivity to $\sin2\theta_s$. However,
412: since the central value for $\sin2\theta_s$ happens -- presumably due
413: to statistical fluctuations -- to lie below the physical region, large
414: positive values of $\sin2\theta_s$ are disfavored (at the $1\sigma$
415: level). The error on $\Delta\Gamma_s^{\rm CP}$ is closer to what is
416: needed to be sensitive to $2\theta_s$ and, indeed, the resulting
417: constraint is more significant.
418:
419: We also consider a subclass of our framework, where new physics
420: contributions are significant only in $b\to s$ transitions. This
421: modifies the analysis in three ways:
422: \begin{enumerate}
423: \item We can now extract a narrower range for $(\Delta M_s)^{\rm
424: SM}$ by using, in addition to the direct calculation of
425: eq. (\ref{dmsnum}), an indirect calculation
426: \cite{ckmfitter,Bona:2005eu} that makes use of experimental
427: measurements of $b\to d$ (and \mbox{$s\to d$}) processes and, in
428: particular, identify $\Delta M_d^{\rm exp}=\Delta M_d^{\rm SM}$:
429: $(\Delta M_s)^{\rm SM}=21.7^{+5.9}_{-4.2}\ {\rm ps}^{-1}$
430: \cite{statistics}. The direct calculation of eq. (\ref{dmsnum}) and
431: the indirect one quoted here are essentially independent of each
432: other. Therefore, we average over these two results and get
433: \beq\label{dmsnum2}
434: (\Delta M_s)^{\rm SM}=19.7\pm3.5\ {\rm ps}^{-1}.
435: \eeq
436: \item We can set $A_{\rm SL}^d=0$ and then
437: \beq\label{aslnum2}
438: A_{\rm SL}^s\simeq2.5A_{\rm SL}=-0.007\pm0.007.
439: \eeq
440: \item We can now use (\ref{dmsnum2}) to obtain a more precise estimate
441: of $(\Delta\Gamma_s)^{\rm SM}$:
442: \beq\label{dgsnum2}
443: (\Delta\Gamma_s)^{\rm SM}=-0.08\pm0.03\ {\rm ps}^{-1}.
444: \eeq
445: \end{enumerate}
446: Now we get
447: \beq
448: r_s^2=0.88\pm0.16,
449: \eeq
450: \beq\label{costs2}
451: \cos^22\theta_s=2.8\pm1.6,
452: \eeq
453: \beq\label{sints2}
454: \sin2\theta_s=-1.4\pm1.6.
455: \eeq
456: The situation is then quite similar to the first scenario.
457: The smaller central value and smaller error on $r_s^2$ and on
458: $\cos^22\theta_s$, compared to eqs. (\ref{rsfit}) and (\ref{ctsfit}),
459: respectively, correspond to the larger central value and smaller
460: theoretical error in eq. (\ref{dmsnum2}) compared to
461: eq. (\ref{dmsnum}). In contrast, the higher central value and smaller
462: error on $\sin2\theta_s$, compared to eq. (\ref{tsfit}), are both
463: mainly a result of the shift in the central value of $r_s^2$ and, in
464: particular, little affected by the smaller error on $(\Delta
465: M_s)^{\rm SM}$.
466:
467: We show the contraints in the $r_s^2-2\theta_s$ plane in
468: Fig. \ref{fig:bs}. As can be seen in the Figure, $2\theta_s=\pi/2$ is
469: disfavored at the $2\sigma$ level.
470:
471: %%%%%%%%%
472: \begin{figure}[bt]
473: \centering
474: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{fig3}
475: \caption{The constraints in the $r_s^2-2\theta_s$ plane allowing for
476: new physics in $b\to s$ loop processes only. The dark green, light
477: green and yellow regions correspond to probability higher than 0.32,
478: 0.046, and 0.0027, respectively. The SM
479: point, $2\theta_s=0$, $r^2_s=1$, is marked with red.}
480: \label{fig:bs}
481: \end{figure}
482:
483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
484: \mysection{Conclusions}
485: The measurement of $A_{\rm SL}$ by D$\emptyset$ probes CP violation in
486: $B_s-\Bs$ mixing, $A_{\rm SL}^s=-0.008\pm0.011$.
487: In combination with the measurement of $\Delta M_s$ by CDF, and the
488: measurements of $\Delta\Gamma_s^{\rm CP}$ by D$\emptyset$ and CDF, the CP
489: violating phase of the mixing amplitude is constrained for the first
490: time. The constraints are still weak. Since experiments favor
491: large values of $\Delta\Gamma_s$ compared to the SM value, small
492: values of $\cos^22\theta_s$ ({\it i.e.} $2\theta_s\sim\pi/2,3\pi/2$)
493: are disfavored. Furthermore, since experiments favor a
494: negative $A_{\rm SL}^s$ (see eqs. (\ref{aslnum}) and (\ref{aslnum2}))
495: and ${\cal R}e(\Gamma_{12}^s/M_{12}^s)^{\rm SM}$ is negative, large
496: positive values of $\sin2\theta_s$ ({\it i.e.} $2\theta_s\sim\pi/2$)
497: are disfavored even more strongly.
498:
499: To improve the constraint, smaller experimental errors on
500: $\Delta\Gamma_s$ and on $A_{\rm SL}$ are welcome. Note however that a
501: similar improvement in the measurement of $A_{\rm SL}^d$ (see
502: eq. (\ref{aslsut})) is also required. Thus, the accuracy in
503: determining $A_{\rm SL}^s$ depends on both high energy
504: hadron machines and $\Upsilon(4S)$-energy B factories.
505:
506: In principle, $A_{\rm SL}^s$ could also be extracted from
507: measurements at hadron colliders only. To do this one
508: needs, in addition to the measurement of $A_{\rm SL}$, another
509: measurement of a CP asymmetry in semileptonic decays, with a different
510: weight of $B_d$ and $B_s$ in the sample. (For example, requiring at
511: least one kaon in the final state would enhance the fraction of
512: $B_s$.)
513:
514: Of course, the phase $2\theta_s$ will be strongly constrained once
515: $S_{\psi\phi}$ is measured. Then the combination of the four
516: measuerements -- $\Delta M_s$, $\Delta\Gamma_s$, $A_{\rm SL}^s$ and
517: $S_{\psi\phi}$ -- will
518: provide a test of the assumption that new physics affects only loop
519: processes \cite{Laplace:2002ik,Ligeti:2006pm,Blanke:2006ig}. The
520: strength of this test will, however, be limited by theoretical
521: uncertainties, particularly by the calculation of $\Gamma_{12}^{\rm
522: SM}$.
523:
524: %%%%%%%%%%%%
525: \mysections{Acknowledgments} We are grateful to Daria Zieminska for
526: drawing our attention to the relevance of $\Delta\Gamma_s$ to our
527: analysis and for providing us with further valuable information and
528: advice. We are grateful to Guennadi Borissov for clarifying to us the
529: way in which $A_{\rm SL}$ was determined by D0. We thank Andrzej Buras,
530: Andreas H\"ocker, Zoltan Ligeti and Marie-H\'el\`ene Schune for useful
531: discussions. This
532: project was supported by the Albert Einstein Minerva Center for
533: Theoretical Physics, and by EEC RTN contract HPRN-CT-00292-2002. The
534: work of Y.G. is supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation
535: under Grant No. 378/05. The research of Y.N. is
536: supported by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel
537: Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and by a grant
538: from the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF),
539: Jerusalem, Israel.
540:
541: %\vspace*{-5mm}
542: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
543: \begin{thebibliography}{01}
544: \vspace*{3mm}
545:
546: %\cite{Grossman:1996er}
547: \bibitem{Grossman:1996er}
548: Y.~Grossman,
549: %``The B/s width difference beyond the standard model,''
550: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 380}, 99 (1996)
551: [arXiv:hep-ph/9603244].
552: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603244;%%
553:
554: %\cite{Dunietz:2000cr}
555: \bibitem{Dunietz:2000cr}
556: I.~Dunietz, R.~Fleischer and U.~Nierste,
557: %``In pursuit of new physics with B/s decays,''
558: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 114015 (2001)
559: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012219].
560: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012219;%%
561:
562:
563: %\cite{CDF}
564: \bibitem{CDF}
565: G. Gomez-Ceballos [CDF collaboration], talk at FPCP 2006,
566: http://fpcp2006.triumf.ca/talks/day3/1500/
567: fpcf2006.pdf.
568:
569: %\cite{Abazov:2006dm}
570: \bibitem{Abazov:2006dm}
571: V.~Abazov [D0 Collaboration],
572: %``First direct two-sided bound on the B/s0 oscillation frequency,''
573: arXiv:hep-ex/0603029.
574: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0603029;%%
575:
576: %\cite{dzerodgs}
577: \bibitem{dzerodgs}
578: D0 conference note 5052.
579: %http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~avdhesh/BSLTDIF/bsdg_conf.pdf
580:
581: %\cite{Acosta:2004gt}
582: \bibitem{Acosta:2004gt}
583: D.~Acosta {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
584: %``Analysis of decay-time dependence of angular distributions in B/s0 $\to$
585: %J/psi Phi and B/d0 $\to$ J/psi K*0 decays and measurement of the lifetime
586: %difference between B/s mass eigenstates,''
587: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94}, 101803 (2005)
588: [arXiv:hep-ex/0412057].
589: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0412057;%%
590:
591: %\cite{Barate:2000kd}
592: \bibitem{Barate:2000kd}
593: R.~Barate {\it et al.} [ALEPH Collaboration],
594: %``A study of the decay width difference in the B/s0 anti-B/s0 system using
595: %Phi Phi correlations,''
596: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 486}, 286 (2000).
597: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B486,286;%%
598:
599: %\cite{dzero}
600: \bibitem{dzero}
601: B. Casey [D0 collaboration], talk at Moriond EW 2006,
602: http://moriond.in2p3.fr/EW/2006/Transparencies/ B.Casey.pdf.
603:
604: %\cite{dzpri}
605: \bibitem{dzpri}
606: The range that is quoted in \cite{dzero} for $A_{\rm SL}$ actually
607: corresponds to $[1+(f_sZ_s)/(f_dZ_d)]A_{\rm SL}$ ($f_q$ is defined
608: below eq. (\ref{rsws}) and $Z_q$ is defined in eq. (\ref{defzq}));
609: G. Borissov, private communication.
610:
611: %\bibitem{hfag}
612: % The Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, update in preparation.
613:
614: %\cite{Ligeti:2006pm}
615: \bibitem{Ligeti:2006pm}
616: Z.~Ligeti, M.~Papucci and G.~Perez,
617: %``Implications of the measurement of the B/s0 - anti-B/s0 mass difference,''
618: arXiv:hep-ph/0604112.
619: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604112;%%
620:
621: %\cite{Blanke:2006ig}
622: \bibitem{Blanke:2006ig}
623: M.~Blanke, A.~J.~Buras, D.~Guadagnoli and C.~Tarantino,
624: %``Minimal flavour violation waiting for precise measurements of Delta(M(s)),
625: %$|$V(ub)$|$, gamma and B/s,d0 $\to$ mu+ mu-,''
626: arXiv:hep-ph/0604057.
627: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604057;%%
628:
629: %\cite{Ciuchini:2006dx}
630: \bibitem{Ciuchini:2006dx}
631: M.~Ciuchini and L.~Silvestrini,
632: %``Upper bounds on SUSY contributions to b $\to$ s transitions from B/s -
633: %anti-B/s mixing,''
634: arXiv:hep-ph/0603114.
635: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603114;%%
636:
637: %\cite{Endo:2006dm}
638: \bibitem{Endo:2006dm}
639: M.~Endo and S.~Mishima,
640: %``Constraint on right-handed squark mixings from B/s - anti-B/s mass
641: %difference,''
642: arXiv:hep-ph/0603251.
643: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603251;%%
644:
645: %\cite{Foster:2006ze}
646: \bibitem{Foster:2006ze}
647: J.~Foster, K.~i.~Okumura and L.~Roszkowski,
648: %``New constraints on SUSY flavour mixing in light of recent measurements at
649: %the Tevatron,''
650: arXiv:hep-ph/0604121.
651: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604121;%%
652:
653: %\cite{Cheung:2006tm}
654: \bibitem{Cheung:2006tm}
655: K.~Cheung, C.~W.~Chiang, N.~G.~Deshpande and J.~Jiang,
656: %``Constraints on flavor-changing Z' models by B/s mixing, Z' production, and
657: %B/s $\to$ mu+ mu-,''
658: arXiv:hep-ph/0604223.
659: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604223;%%
660:
661: %\cite{Ball:2006xx}
662: \bibitem{Ball:2006xx}
663: P.~Ball and R.~Fleischer,
664: %``Probing New Physics through B Mixing: Status, Benchmarks and Prospects,''
665: arXiv:hep-ph/0604249.
666: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604249;%%
667:
668: %\cite{Branco:1999fs}
669: \bibitem{Branco:1999fs}
670: G.~C.~Branco, L.~Lavoura and J.~P.~Silva,
671: ``CP violation,''
672: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/%\cite{Bona:2005eu}
673:
674: %\cite{Barberio:2006bi}
675: \bibitem{Barberio:2006bi}
676: E.~Barberio {\it et al.} [The Heavy Flavor Averaging Group],
677: %``Averages of b-hadron properties at the end of 2005,''
678: arXiv:hep-ex/0603003.
679: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0603003;%%
680:
681: \bibitem{diffpdg}
682: Our results differ from ref. \cite{Barberio:2006bi,Abe:1996zt,PDG},
683: where our $Z_q$ is replaced with $\chi_q=Z_q(1-y_q^2)/2$. (Our results
684: do however agree with ref. \cite{Branco:1999fs}.) Numerically
685: the difference is of ${\cal O}(y_s^2-y_d^2)$ and therefore
686: irrelevant.
687:
688: %\cite{Abe:1996zt}
689: \bibitem{Abe:1996zt}
690: F.~Abe {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
691: %``Measurement of b anti-b production correlations, B0 anti-B0 mixing, and a
692: %limit on epsilon(B) in p anti-p collisions at s**(1/2) = 1.8-TeV,''
693: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 2546 (1997).
694: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D55,2546;%%
695:
696: %\cite{PDG}
697: \bibitem{PDG}
698: S. Eidelman et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B 592}, 1 (2004) and 2005 partial
699: update for the 2006 edition available on the PDG WWW pages (URL:
700: http://pdg.lbl.gov/).
701:
702: %\cite{Beneke:2003az}
703: \bibitem{Beneke:2003az}
704: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, A.~Lenz and U.~Nierste,
705: %``CP asymmetry in flavour-specific B decays beyond leading logarithms,''
706: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 576}, 173 (2003)
707: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307344].
708: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307344;%%
709:
710: %\cite{Ciuchini:2003ww}
711: \bibitem{Ciuchini:2003ww}
712: M.~Ciuchini {\it et al.},
713: %E.~Franco, V.~Lubicz, F.~Mescia and C.~Tarantino,
714: %``Lifetime differences and CP violation parameters of neutral B mesons at
715: %the next-to-leading order in QCD,''
716: JHEP {\bf 0308}, 031 (2003)
717: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308029].
718: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308029;%%
719:
720: %\cite{Abbiendi:1998av}
721: \bibitem{Abbiendi:1998av}
722: G.~Abbiendi {\it et al.} [OPAL Collaboration],
723: %``Measurement of the B+ and B0 lifetimes and search for CP(T) violation
724: %using reconstructed secondary vertices,''
725: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 12}, 609 (2000)
726: [arXiv:hep-ex/9901017].
727: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9901017;%%
728:
729: %\cite{Barate:2000uk}
730: \bibitem{Barate:2000uk}
731: R.~Barate {\it et al.} [ALEPH Collaboration],
732: %``Investigation of inclusive CP asymmetries in B0 decays,''
733: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 20}, 431 (2001).
734: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C20,431;%%
735:
736: %\cite{Aubert:2006nf}
737: \bibitem{Aubert:2006nf}
738: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
739: % ``Search for T, CP and CPT violation in $B^0 \overline{B}^0$ mixing with
740: %inclusive dilepton events,''
741: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 251802 (2006)
742: [arXiv:hep-ex/0603053].
743: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0603053;%%
744:
745: %\cite{Nakano:2005jb}
746: \bibitem{Nakano:2005jb}
747: E.~Nakano {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
748: %``Charge asymmetry of same-sign dileptons in B0 - anti-B0 mixing,''
749: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 112002 (2006)
750: [arXiv:hep-ex/0505017].
751: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0505017;%%
752:
753: %\cite{Jaffe:2001hz}
754: \bibitem{Jaffe:2001hz}
755: D.~E.~Jaffe {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
756: %``Bounds on the CP asymmetry in like sign dileptons from B0 anti-B0 meson
757: %decays,''
758: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 5000 (2001)
759: [arXiv:hep-ex/0101006].
760: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0101006;%%
761:
762: %\cite{Aubert:2003hd}
763: \bibitem{Aubert:2003hd}
764: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
765: %``Limits on the decay-rate difference of neutral B mesons and on CP, T, and
766: %CPT violation in B0 anti-B0 oscillations,''
767: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 181801 (2004)
768: [arXiv:hep-ex/0311037].
769: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0311037;%%
770:
771: %\cite{ckmfitter}
772: \bibitem{ckmfitter}
773: CKMfitter Group (J. Charles et al.),
774: Eur. Phys. J. C41, 1-131 (2005) [hep-ph/0406184],
775: updated results and plots available at: http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr
776:
777: %\cite{Bona:2005eu}
778: \bibitem{Bona:2005eu}
779: M.~Bona {\it et al.} [UTfit Collaboration],
780: %``The UTfit collaboration report on the status of the unitarity triangle
781: %beyond the standard model. I: Model-independent analysis and minimal flavour
782: %violation,''
783: JHEP {\bf 0603}, 080 (2006)
784: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509219].
785: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509219;%%
786:
787: \bibitem{statistics}
788: The statistical approaches of the CKMfitter \cite{ckmfitter} and UTfit
789: \cite{Bona:2005eu} groups are different from each other. We
790: consistently use here the approach of ref. \cite{ckmfitter}, and so
791: the indirect range for $\Delta M_s^{\rm SM}$ that we quote is the one
792: from \cite{ckmfitter}. Had we used the methods of \cite{Bona:2005eu},
793: we would expect quantitative differences but not qualitative ones.
794:
795: %\cite{Laplace:2002ik}
796: \bibitem{Laplace:2002ik}
797: S.~Laplace, Z.~Ligeti, Y.~Nir and G.~Perez,
798: %``Implications of the CP asymmetry in semileptonic B decay,''
799: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 094040 (2002)
800: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202010].
801: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202010;%%
802:
803:
804: \end{thebibliography}
805:
806: \end{document}
807:
808:
809:
810:
811:
812:
813: