1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %\usepackage{rotating}
3: \usepackage{setspace}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: %\input psfig
7: \textheight 22truecm
8: \textwidth 16truecm
9: \topmargin -5mm
10: \oddsidemargin 0.5cm
11: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
12: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
13: \def\ba{\begin{array}}
14: \def\ea{\end{array}}
15: \def\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}
16: \def\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \def\nonum{\nonumber}
18: \def\bt{\begin{tabular}}
19: \def\et{\end{tabular}}
20: \def\bc{\begin{center}}
21: \def\ec{\end{center}}
22: \singlespacing
23:
24: \begin{document}
25: \title{Implications of unitarity and precision measurements on CKM matrix elements}
26: \author{Gulsheen Ahuja$^1$, Manmohan Gupta$^1$, Sanjeev Kumar$^2$,
27: Monika Randhawa$^3$ \\
28: \\{$^1$ \it Department of Physics, Centre of Advanced Study, P.U.,
29: Chandigarh, India.}\\{$^2$ \it Department of Physics, H.P.U.,
30: Shimla, India.}\\{$^3$ \it University Institute of Engineering and
31: Technology, P.U., Chandigarh, India.}\\{\it Email:
32: mmgupta@pu.ac.in}}
33: \maketitle
34: \begin{abstract}
35: Unitarity along with precision measurements of sin$\,2\beta$,
36: $V_{us}$ and $V_{cb}$ allows one to find a lower bound $V_{ub}\geq
37: 0.0035$ which, on using the recently measured angle $\alpha$ of
38: the unitarity triangle, translates to $V_{ub}= 0.0035\pm 0.0002$.
39: This precise value, stable for a good deal of changes in $\alpha$,
40: along with CP violating phase $\delta$ found from unitarity allows
41: the construction of a `precise' CKM matrix. The above unitarity
42: based value of $V_{ub}$ is in agreement with the latest exclusive
43: value used as input by UTfit, CKMfitter, HFAG, however underlines
44: the so called `tension' faced by the latest inclusive
45: $V_{ub}=0.00449 \pm 0.00033$. Further, using this inclusive value
46: of $V_{ub}$ along with the latest sin$\,2\beta$, one finds
47: $\delta=23 ^{\rm o}- 39 ^{\rm o}$, again in conflict with $\delta$
48: measured in B-decays. The calculated ranges of the elements of the
49: CKM matrix are in excellent agreement with those obtained recently
50: by UTfit, CKMfitter and HFAG. Also, the ratio
51: $\frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}$ is in agreement with its latest measured
52: value, whereas there is some disagreement between the `measured'
53: and the calculated $V_{td}$ values.
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: In the last few years, extremely important developments have taken
57: place in the context of phenomenology of Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa
58: (CKM) matrix \cite{ckm}, both from theoretical as well as
59: experimental point of view. The precise measurement of CP
60: violating parameter sin$\,2\beta$ \cite{s2b}-\cite{hfag} and a
61: fairly precise measurement of angle $\alpha$ \cite{gronau} of the
62: unitarity triangle in B-decays have allowed a precise
63: determination of the phase of the CKM matrix. Several detailed and
64: extensive phenomenological analyses
65: \cite{utfit}-\cite{hfag},\cite{pdgnew} have allowed us to conclude
66: that the single CKM phase looks to be a viable solution of CP
67: violation not only in the case of K-decays but also in the context
68: of B-decays, at least to the leading order. On the one hand, this
69: situation looks highly satisfactory from the Standard Model (SM)
70: point of view, on the other hand, it has also triggered intense
71: amount of activity on the theoretical as well as experimental
72: front for finding clues to New Physics (NP).
73:
74: Several authors \cite{bnp}-\cite{ligeti} have suggested possible
75: strategies for deciphering NP in the context of CKM phenomenology.
76: One possible way to observe NP is by discovering violations of
77: unitarity, as emphasized by Buras \cite{bnp}. In this context, it
78: needs to be noted that the persistent $2\sigma$ violation of
79: unitarity by the first row elements of the CKM matrix has been
80: eliminated by improving the precision in the measurement of
81: $V_{us}$ \cite{utfit,vus}. This, however, has also triggered a
82: great deal of interest in measuring the other CKM elements to
83: better and better accuracy for testing unitarity of the CKM
84: matrix. There are several CKM elements and phenomenological
85: parameters, e.g., $V_{us}, V_{cb}, V_{ud}, \alpha, \beta$, etc.,
86: wherein the error bars are limited to only a few percent, however,
87: this is not true in the case of several other CKM elements such as
88: $V_{ub},V_{cs}, V_{ts}$ and $V_{td}$. A precise knowledge of these
89: elements would not only test unitarity to better and better level,
90: but would also provide clues to the possibility of existence of
91: NP. It may be noted that the elements $V_{ts}$ and $V_{td}$, under
92: the present circumstances, can only be measured indirectly,
93: whereas the elements $V_{ub}$ and $V_{cs}$ can be measured through
94: tree level decays, therefore, one would expect considerable
95: improvements in these in the near future. At present, even after
96: recent updating by various groups, the situation regarding
97: $V_{ub}$ remains largely unclear. As per PDG 2006 \cite{pdgnew}
98: the exclusive and inclusive values respectively are $V_{ub} =
99: 0.00384 + 0.00067 - 0.00049$ and $V_{ub} = 0.00440 \pm 0.00029 \pm
100: 0.00027$, whereas the October 2006 (including Summer (ICHEP06)
101: updates) updated analysis by UTfit Collaboration \cite{utfit},
102: also agreed by CKM05 Workshops \cite{cfitter} and HFAG\cite{hfag},
103: uses as inputs exclusive $V_{ub}=0.0035 \pm 0.0004$ and inclusive
104: $V_{ub}=0.00449 \pm 0.00033$. Keeping in mind the significance of
105: the difference between the exclusive and inclusive values of
106: $V_{ub}$, the UTfit \cite{utfit} carries out a separate analyses
107: for these. This point of view has also been advocated by several
108: authors \cite{ali}.
109:
110: The unprecedented accuracy in the measurement of sin$\,2\beta$
111: \cite{s2b}-\cite{hfag}, $V_{us}$ \cite{utfit,vus} and $V_{cb}$
112: \cite{utfit} provides a strong motivation for carrying out a fine
113: grained analysis for testing CKM paradigm to better and better
114: accuracy as well as in search for clues to situations which have
115: potential seeds for NP. Similarly, a very recent precise
116: measurement of $\Delta M_{B_s}$ \cite{mbs} would not only have
117: implications for CKM elements $V_{ts}$ and $V_{td}$ but would also
118: have implications for other CKM phenomenological parameters
119: \cite{utfit}. In this context, unlike the several global analyses
120: \cite{utfit}-\cite{hfag},\cite{pdgnew} carried out recently, it
121: would perhaps be desirable to fine tune the implications of each
122: of the vital inputs of CKM paradigm separately along with the
123: precision measurements on the CKM matrix elements and other
124: phenomenological parameters. To this end, an analysis emphasizing
125: unitarity of the CKM matrix and the precisely measured CKM
126: parameters as well as some of the over constraining measurements
127: would be very desirable.
128:
129: The purpose of the present communication is to study the
130: implications of unitarity along with the well measured $V_{us}$,
131: $V_{cb}$, sin$\,2\beta$, and angle $\alpha$ of the unitarity
132: triangle on some of the lesser known elements of the CKM matrix
133: such as $V_{ub}, V_{cs}, V_{ts}$ and $V_{td}$. In particular, one
134: would like to examine in detail the implications of unitarity
135: along with recently refined sin$\,2\beta$ on exclusive and
136: inclusive values of $V_{ub}$ and CP violating phase $\delta$.
137: Using minimal inputs, e.g., unitarity and other well measured
138: quantities, it would also be of interest to explore the
139: possibility of constructing a `precise' CKM matrix. Apart from
140: examining the compatibility of over constraining measurements, we
141: would also like to find the unitarity based predictions for
142: Jarlskog's rephasing invariant parameter $J$ as well as the
143: Wolfenstein-Buras parameters $\overline{\rho}$ and
144: $\overline{\eta}$.
145:
146: Most of the present day analyses, related to CKM phenomenology,
147: have been carried out using the Wolfenstein-Buras parametrization
148: \cite{wolfbur} of the CKM matrix. However, in the present case, as
149: the emphasis is on unitarity therefore we find it more convenient
150: to use the PDG representation of the CKM matrix, wherein the
151: unitarity is built-in. For ready reference as well as to facilitate discussion of
152: results, we begin by considering the quark mixing matrix,
153: \be V_{{\rm CKM}}
154: = \left( \ba{ccc} V_{ud} & V_{us} & V_{ub} \\ V_{cd} & V_{cs} &
155: V_{cb} \\ V_{td} & V_{ts} & V_{tb} \ea \right), \label{ckm} \ee
156: which in the PDG representation, involving angles $\theta_{12},
157: \theta_{23}, \theta_{13}$ and phase $\delta$ \cite{pdgnew} is
158: given as
159: \be V_{{\rm CKM}}=\left( \ba{ccl} c_{12} c_{13} & s_{12} c_{13} &
160: s_{13}e^{-i \delta} \\ - s_{12} c_{23} - c_{12} s_{23}
161: s_{13} e^{i \delta_{13}} & c_{12} c_{23} - s_{12} s_{23}
162: s_{13} e^{i \delta_{13}} & s_{23} c_{13} \\ s_{12} s_{23} - c_{12}
163: c_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta_{13}} & - c_{12} s_{23} - s_{12} c_{23}
164: s_{13} e^{i \delta_{13}} & c_{23} c_{13} \ea \right), \label{mm} \ee
165: with $c_{ij}={\rm cos}\, \theta_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}={\rm sin}\,
166: \theta_{ij}$, for $i,\,j=1,2,3$. In this representation, one can
167: consider up to 4th decimal place $V_{us} = s_{12}$ and $V_{cb} =
168: s_{23}$, whereas $|V_{ub}| = s_{13}$, henceforth $|V_{ub}|$ would
169: be written as $V_{ub}$.
170:
171: Unitarity of the $V_{{\rm CKM}}$ implies nine relations, three in
172: terms of normalization conditions also referred to as `weak
173: unitarity conditions', and the other six are usually expressed
174: through unitarity triangles in the complex plane. Because of the
175: strong hierarchical nature of the CKM matrix elements as well as
176: the limitations imposed by the present level of measurements, it
177: is difficult to study the implications of normalization relations,
178: therefore, the six non-diagonal relations are used to study the
179: implications of unitarity on CKM phenomenology. Out of the six,
180: four triangles implied by these relations are highly skewed and it
181: is difficult to study their implications \cite{mon,botella} with
182: the present knowledge of the CKM matrix elements. The implications
183: of the other two are usually studied through the triangle
184: expressed by the relation
185: \be V_{ud} V_{ub}^* + V_{cd} V_{cb}^* + V_{td}
186: V_{tb}^* =0\,,\label{db} \ee also referred to as $db$ triangle.
187: The angles of this triangle, in terms of $V_{{\rm CKM}}$ elements,
188: mixing angles and CP violating phase $\delta$ \cite{pdgnew},
189: related to CP asymmetries, are expressed as
190: \begin{eqnarray}\alpha\equiv{\rm arg}\left[-\frac{V_{td} V_{tb}^*}{V_{ud}
191: V_{ub}^*}\right]=\tan^{-1}\left[\frac{s_{12}
192: s_{23}\, {\rm sin}\, \delta}{c_{12} c_{23} s_{13}-s_{12} s_{23}\, {\rm cos}\,\delta}\right]
193: ,\label{alpha} \end{eqnarray}
194: \begin{eqnarray} \beta\equiv{\rm arg}\left[-\frac{V_{cd} V_{cb}^*}{V_{td}
195: V_{tb}^*}\right]=\tan^{-1}\left[\frac{c_{12}
196: s_{12} s_{13}\, {\rm sin}\,\delta}{c_{23} s_{23} (s_{12}^2-c_{12}^2 s_{13}^2)-c_{12} s_{12} s_{13}
197: (c_{23}^2-s_{23}^2)\, {\rm cos}\,\delta}\right]
198: ,\label{beta} \end{eqnarray}
199: \begin{eqnarray} \gamma\equiv{\rm arg}\left[-\frac{V_{ud} V_{ub}^*}{V_{cd}
200: V_{cb}^*}\right]=\tan^{-1}\left[\frac{s_{12}
201: c_{23}\, {\rm sin}\,\delta}{c_{12} s_{23} s_{13}+s_{12} c_{23}\, {\rm cos}\,\delta}\right]
202: \label{gamma}. \end{eqnarray} To obtain information about the CP
203: violating phase $\delta$ from the experimentally well determined
204: angle $\beta$ one can express equation (\ref{beta}) as
205: \be
206: {\rm tan}\,\frac{\delta}{2} = \frac{A - \sqrt{A^2-(B^2-A^2
207: C^2){\rm tan}^2 \beta}}{(B+AC){\rm tan}\,\beta}, \label{tand} \ee
208: where $A=c_{12} s_{12} s_{13}$, $B=c_{23} s_{23}(s_{12}^2-c_{12}^2
209: s_{13}^2)$ and $C=c_{23}^2-s_{23}^2$. Using $s_{12}^2 \gg c_{12}^2
210: s_{13}^2$ and $s_{23}^2 \ll
211: c_{23}^2$, the above relation can be re-expressed as
212: \be
213: \delta~=-\beta+{\rm
214: sin}^{-1}\left(\frac{s_{12}s_{23}}{c_{12}s_{13}}{\rm
215: sin}\beta\right), \label{delb}\ee which can also be written as
216: \be
217: \frac{{\rm sin}\,(\delta+\beta)}{{\rm
218: sin}\,\beta}=\frac{s_{12}s_{23}}{c_{12}s_{13}}. \label{dpb}\ee
219: From equation (\ref{gamma}), one can easily show that $\gamma =
220: \delta$ with an error of around 2 $\%$, therefore, using the
221: closure property of the angles of the triangle,
222: $\alpha+\beta+\gamma=\pi$, the above
223: equation can be written as
224: \be
225: s_{13}=\frac{s_{12}s_{23}\,{\rm sin}\,\beta}{c_{12}\,{\rm
226: sin}\,\alpha}, \label{s13ab} \ee which can also be derived from
227: equation (\ref{alpha}) by using the closure property of the
228: triangle. Equation (\ref{dpb}) can be used to provide a lower
229: bound on $s_{13}$, e.g.,
230: \be
231: s_{13}~\geq~\frac{s_{12}s_{23}}{c_{12}}\,{\rm sin}\,\beta.
232: \label{lbs13} \ee
233:
234: \begin{table}
235: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline
236: Parameter & Latest (October 2006) Values & PDG 2006 values
237: \cite{pdgnew}
238: \\ \hline$V_{us}$ & 0.2258 $\pm$ 0.0014 & 0.2257 $\pm$ 0.0021\\
239: $V_{cb}$ & 0.0416 $\pm$ 0.0007 & 0.0416 $\pm$ 0.0006 \\
240: ${\rm sin}\,2\beta$ & 0.675 $\pm$ 0.026
241: & 0.687 $\pm$ 0.032\\
242: $\beta$ & (21.24 $\pm$ 1.01)$^{\rm
243: o}$& (21.7 $\pm$ 1.2)$^{\rm o}$\\
244: $\alpha$ & (91.0 $\pm$ 7.0 $\pm$ 3.0)$^{\rm o}$&
245: (99.0 + 13.0 - 8.0)$^{\rm o}$\\
246: $\gamma$ or $\delta$ & $(63.0 + 15.0 - 12.0)^{\rm o}$&
247: $(63.0 + 15.0 - 12.0)^{\rm o}$\\
248: $V_{ub}$~(excl.) & 0.0035 $\pm$ 0.0004& 0.00384 + 0.00067 - 0.00049\\
249: $V_{ub}$~(incl.) & 0.00449 $\pm$ 0.00033 & 0.00440 $\pm$
250: 0.00029 $\pm$ 0.00027\\
251: \hline
252: \end{tabular}
253: \caption{The PDG 2006 \cite{pdgnew} measured values and the latest
254: October 2006 (including Summer (ICHEP06) updates) input values
255: used by UTfit Collaboration \cite{utfit}, also agreed by CKM05
256: Workshops \cite{cfitter} and HFAG\cite{hfag}. The latest values of
257: $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are from \cite{gronau} and
258: \cite{cfitter,glw} respectively.}
259: \label{input}
260: \end{table}
261:
262: Before we discuss the details of our analysis, in table
263: \ref{input} we present the PDG 2006 \cite{pdgnew} measured values
264: and the latest input values of some of the CKM elements and the
265: angles of the unitarity triangle used by UTfit Collaboration
266: \cite{utfit}, also agreed by CKM05 Workshops \cite{cfitter} and
267: HFAG\cite{hfag}. The values of angles $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ have
268: not been used as inputs by UTfit Collaboration, therefore we use
269: their latest values from \cite{gronau} and \cite{cfitter,glw}
270: respectively.
271:
272: To begin with, we study the implications of unitarity and
273: precisely measured recently improved sin$\,2\beta$ on CP violating
274: phase $\delta$ and $V_{ub}$. On examining unitarity based equation
275: (\ref{tand}), we find that $\delta$ is dependent on $V_{us}$,
276: $V_{cb}$, angle $\beta$ as well as it involves $V_{ub}$. Using
277: this equation, in figure \ref{vubdel} we have plotted the CP
278: violating phase $\delta$ versus $V_{ub}$, also included in the
279: figure is the experimentally measured $\delta=(63.0 + 15.0
280: -12.0)^{\rm o}$ shown by horizontal dashed lines, inclusive of
281: results of various global analyses. The solid central line depicts
282: $\delta$ obtained by using the mean values of $V_{us}$, $V_{cb}$
283: and sin$\,2\beta$ whereas the outer lines correspond to the
284: 1$\sigma$ ranges of these inputs. A general look at the figure
285: reveals several interesting points, e.g., for values of $V_{ub} >
286: 0.00355$, the central value of $\delta$ shows a smooth decline as
287: well as the range of $\delta$ gets narrower and narrower with
288: increasing $V_{ub}$, however for $V_{ub} < 0.00355$ it seems that
289: there is a sharp broadening of the $\delta$ range, with no
290: restriction on $\delta$ when $V_{ub} < 0.0035$. From the graph one
291: finds that the 1$\sigma$ range of the recent inclusive value of
292: $V_{ub}$, as given in table \ref{input} restricts $\delta$ to $23
293: ^{\rm o}- 39 ^{\rm o}$, whereas the mean value of the recent
294: exclusive value does not constrain $\delta$, however the upper
295: limit of the 1$\sigma$ range of the exclusive value provides only
296: a lower bound $\delta > 38 ^{\rm o}$. In conclusion, we would like
297: to emphasize that the precisely known sin$\,2\beta$, for the
298: inclusive value of $V_{ub}$ implies a narrow range for $\delta$,
299: whereas for the exclusive value of $V_{ub}$ it implies only a
300: lower bound on $\delta$. Figure \ref{vubdel} can also be used for
301: constraining $V_{ub}$ for particular values of $\delta$, e.g., the
302: range given in the table implies $V_{ub} < 0.0038$. One may wonder
303: whether a similar analysis can be carried out using the latest
304: measured value of angle $\alpha$. We have carried out such an
305: analysis, however it does not lead to any new conclusions.
306:
307: Our conclusions about $V_{ub}$ and $\delta$ can be sharpened
308: further by using other unitarity based relations. To this end,
309: equation (\ref{dpb}) allows $V_{ub}$ to be expressed in terms of
310: the well determined quantities $V_{us}$, $V_{cb}$ and sin$\beta$.
311: Interestingly, in case $\delta$ is also a well measured quantity,
312: then this equation immediately leads to a precise prediction for
313: $V_{ub}$. However, even in the case where $\delta$ is not well
314: determined, one can use equation (\ref{lbs13}) to obtain a
315: rigorous lower bound on $V_{ub}$. A simple calculation using the
316: mean values of input parameters immediately leads one to
317: \be
318: V_{ub}\geq 0.0035. \label{alb} \ee It may be noted that this bound
319: is independent of the value of $\delta$ as well as contamination
320: of NP in the measurement of $\delta$. Interestingly, equation
321: (\ref{dpb}) can also be used to show $V_{ub}\leq 0.00402$, found
322: by using the lower limits of $\delta$ and $\beta$ as given in the
323: table.
324:
325: Our predictions regarding $V_{ub}$ can be refined further in case
326: we incorporate angle $\alpha$ of the unitarity triangle, measured
327: from $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$ and $B \rightarrow \rho \rho$ decays.
328: Using its present consensus value \cite{gronau}, as given in table
329: \ref{input}, from equation (\ref{s13ab}) one finds \be
330: V_{ub}= 0.0035\pm 0.0002. \label{s13r} \ee
331: Interestingly, this precise value is in full agreement with the
332: recently used input value of exclusive $V_{ub}$ by UTfit
333: \cite{utfit}, however it has much smaller error bars. The above
334: value of $V_{ub}$ is a consequence of unitarity and the precisely
335: measured elements $V_{us}$, $V_{cb}$ and angles $\beta$ and
336: $\alpha$. It may also be emphasized that this value is quite
337: insensitive to a change in the value of angle $\alpha$. In fact,
338: even if the mean value of $\alpha$ changes by more than 20 $\%$,
339: still $V_{ub}$ would register a variation of only a few percent.
340: Also, refinements in the measurement of $\delta$ would not affect
341: the value of $V_{ub}$ in equation (\ref{s13r}) as $\delta$ along
342: with sin$\,2\beta$ gives only a lower bound on $V_{ub}$, mentioned
343: in equation (\ref{alb}). Therefore, the above prediction of
344: $V_{ub}$ can be considered as a rigorous and robust consequence of
345: unitarity.
346:
347: The above discussion also underlines the fact that precisely
348: measured sin$\,2\beta$ along with $V_{us}$ and $V_{cb}$ does not
349: lead to any well defined conclusion regarding $\delta$ because of
350: the persistent difference between exclusive and inclusive values
351: of $V_{ub}$. Therefore, to find unitarity based $\delta$ one has
352: to use the closure property of the angles of the unitarity
353: triangle. Using the well measured angles $\alpha$ and $\beta$, one
354: obtains
355: \be \delta=67.8^{\rm o}\pm 7.3^{\rm o}. \label{delta}\ee
356: This unitarity based value of $\delta$ is compatible with the
357: directly measured value in $B^\pm \rightarrow D K^\pm$ decays
358: \cite{glw} as well as with the recently obtained $\delta$
359: \cite{buras1} from the $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$ and $B \rightarrow
360: \pi K$ decays. It may also be mentioned that this value is
361: compatible with the $\delta$ bound given by exclusive $V_{ub}$, as
362: obtained from figure \ref{vubdel}, however does not agree with the
363: $\delta$ range obtained for inclusive $V_{ub}$.
364:
365: After having found $V_{ub}$ and $\delta$ from unitarity, one would
366: like to construct the entire CKM matrix which is obtained at
367: 1$\sigma$ C.L. as follows
368: \be V_{{\rm CKM}} = \left( \ba{ccc}
369: 0.9738 ~{\rm to}~ 0.9745 & 0.2244~ {\rm to} ~0.2272 & 0.0033 ~{\rm to} ~0.0036 \\
370: 0.2243 ~{\rm to}~ 0.2270 & 0.9730 ~{\rm to}~ 0.9736 & 0.0409~ {\rm to}~ 0.0423\\
371: 0.0082 ~{\rm to}~ 0.0091 & 0.0401 ~{\rm to}~ 0.0415 & 0.9990~
372: {\rm to}~ 0.9991 \ea \right). \label{1sm} \ee
373:
374: It may be mentioned that this matrix is free from contamination by
375: NP to the extent that the measured values of angles $\alpha$ and
376: $\beta$ are free from NP effects. Also, it needs to be emphasized
377: that this has been constructed by using minimal inputs such as
378: $V_{us}$, $V_{cb}$, $V_{ub}$, sin$\,2\beta$ and the unitarity
379: based PDG parametrization, however without incorporating the full
380: constraints due to unitarity. A general look at the matrix reveals
381: that the ranges of CKM elements obtained here are quite compatible
382: with those obtained by recent global analyses. In particular, the
383: ranges found here are in excellent agreement with those emerging
384: from global fits by UTfit, CKMfitter and HFAG. This perhaps
385: indicates that unitarity plays a key role even in the case of
386: global analyses. However, it must be mentioned that although the
387: matrix presented here agrees well with the one given by PDG, yet
388: there is a slight disagreement in the case of $V_{ub}$ and
389: $V_{td}$. The discrepancy in $V_{ub}$ can be easily understood as
390: the $V_{ub}$ value used here is somewhat lower than the average
391: $V_{ub}$ value considered by PDG 2006. The disagreement in the
392: value of the element $V_{td}$, sensitive to both loop and NP
393: effects, suggests the need for further experimental scrutiny in
394: this case. An experimental confirmation of the values of the CKM
395: elements would strengthen the present unitarity based analysis as
396: well as its predictions regarding $V_{ub}$ and $\delta$.
397:
398: For the sake of completeness and better appreciation of the
399: present results, we have evaluated the Jarlskog's rephasing
400: invariant parameter $J$ and the Wolfenstein-Buras parameters
401: $\overline{\rho}$ and $\overline{\eta}$ by expressing these in
402: terms of the mixing angles and the CP violating phase $\delta$.
403: Using the experimental values of $V_{us}$, $V_{cb}$ as well as the
404: unitarity based values of $V_{ub}$ and $\delta$ found above, we
405: obtain \be J=(2.95 \pm 0.22) 10^{-5} \label{j}, \ee
406: \be \overline{\rho}=0.14 \pm 0.04~~~~~~~~~~{\rm
407: and}~~~~~~~~~~~ \overline{\eta}=0.34 \pm 0.02 \label{rhoeta}. \ee
408: Interestingly, the value of $\overline{\eta}$ is in complete
409: agreement with those found by recent global analyses
410: \cite{utfit}-\cite{hfag},\cite{pdgnew}, whereas in case of
411: $\overline{\rho}$ the value found here agrees with the one
412: obtained by UTfit Collaboration \cite{utfit}.
413:
414: The present analysis brings out several points which need to be
415: emphasized. The so called `tension' between the precisely known
416: sin$\,2\beta$ and the inclusive value of $V_{ub}$, as has already
417: been observed by several authors \cite{utfit,ligeti,tension},
418: becomes quite evident in the present analysis. In the present
419: context, this tension gets depicted in the form of disagreement
420: between the value of $\delta$ implied by inclusive $V_{ub}$ and
421: the measured value of $\delta$. From figure \ref{vubdel}, one
422: immediately finds that the $\delta$ value corresponding to
423: inclusive $V_{ub}$ comes out to be much smaller than the
424: experimentally measured $\delta$. This `tension' is also visible
425: in the form that the present unitarity based $V_{ub}$ is much
426: smaller than the inclusive value of $V_{ub}$, however is in
427: excellent agreement with the latest exclusive $V_{ub}$. Therefore,
428: the so called `tension' can also be seen as a disagreement between
429: the unitarity based/exclusive and inclusive values of $V_{ub}$. It
430: also becomes clear that in the case of PDG 2006, the exclusive
431: value used by them is somewhat higher than the one used by other
432: global analyses, therefore, they find corresponding reduction in
433: the so called `tension'.
434:
435: The CKM matrix constructed above allows us to calculate the ratio
436: $\frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}$ which is expected to be free from hadronic
437: uncertainties. The present calculated value $4.69 \pm 0.23$ looks
438: to be quite precise and has an excellent overlap with $4.7 \pm
439: 0.4$ \cite{klein}, found recently from precision measurements of
440: $\Delta M_{B_s}$. Also, the measured value of the ratio
441: $\frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}$ can be considered as an over constraining
442: check on the above unitarity based predictions. Interestingly,
443: this measurement also provides an indirect check on the unitarity
444: based $\delta$ value used here which can be seen as follows. One
445: can easily check that $V_{ts}$ is essentially independent of
446: $\delta$ and $V_{ub}$, therefore can be predicted quite accurately
447: from unitarity. The element $V_{td}$ has hardly any dependence on
448: $V_{ub}$ while it is known to be very much $\delta$ dependent,
449: therefore the ratio $\frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}$ measurement can be
450: considered to imply a precise value of $\delta$ which would fully
451: agree with the value considered here. This possibility also
452: ensures the validity of our $\delta$ dependent construction of CKM
453: matrix even if the error bars in $\alpha$ become larger leading to
454: larger error in the $\delta$ value found from the closure
455: relationship.
456:
457: One would also like to emphasize that the present $V_{td}=0.0087
458: \pm 0.0004$ looks to be at variance with $V_{td}=0.0072 \pm 0.0008
459: $ \cite{ulrich} found from $\Delta {M_B}_d$. In case one takes the
460: present values of hadronic factors used in the calculation of
461: $\Delta {M_B}_d$ seriously, then this difference may indicate the
462: presence of NP in $B^0 - \overline{B}^0$ mixing. The above
463: mentioned conflict in the $V_{td}$ values gets further sharpened
464: in case we consider the recently obtained $\delta=74^{\rm o} \pm
465: 6^{\rm o}$ \cite{buras1} from the $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$ and $B
466: \rightarrow \pi K$ decays. While this value would be compatible
467: with the implied $\delta$ bound found from the present unitarity
468: based $V_{ub}$, however would be in conflict with the one found
469: using inclusive $V_{ub}$, as well as would imply $V_{td}\sim
470: 0.0091$, aggravating the above conflict further.
471:
472: It also needs to be mentioned that a further precision in the
473: measurement of sin$\,2\beta$, needless to say, would have far
474: reaching implications for CKM phenomenology, particularly for CP
475: violating phase $\delta$ and $V_{ub}$. It should also be noted
476: that in case the value of $V_{ub}$ is found to be $\sim 0.0035$
477: then it will need a careful scrutiny for studying its implications
478: as around this value the behaviour of $\delta$ and $V_{ub}$ in
479: figure \ref{vubdel} depicts sharp changes.
480:
481: A summary of our principal conclusions is as follows. Unitarity
482: along with precisely measured $V_{us}$, $V_{cb}$ and sin$\,2\beta$
483: leads to $V_{ub}\geq 0.0035$. In case one uses the measured value
484: of the angle $\alpha$ of the unitarity triangle, one finds
485: $V_{ub}= 0.0035 \pm 0.0002$, this precise value can be considered
486: as a rigorous prediction of unitarity along with the other
487: precisely measured quantities as it is almost independent of good
488: deal of changes in $\alpha$. This is in agreement with the latest
489: exclusive $V_{ub}=0.0035 \pm 0.0004$ used as input by UTfit,
490: CKMfitter and HFAG, however is in conflict with the latest
491: inclusive $V_{ub}=0.00449 \pm 0.00033$, bringing out the so called
492: `tension' faced by inclusive $V_{ub}$. Further, when this
493: inclusive $V_{ub}$ is used along with sin$\,2\beta$ one finds
494: $\delta=23 ^{\rm o}- 39 ^{\rm o}$, again in conflict with the
495: $\gamma$ or $\delta$ measured in B-decays.
496:
497: Using unitarity based closure property of the angles of the
498: unitarity triangle, one can find almost precise $\delta$ which
499: along with other precisely known elements allows one to construct
500: an almost `precise' CKM matrix. The ranges of CKM elements of the
501: present matrix, constructed by using `minimal inputs', are in
502: excellent agreement with those emerging from global fits by UTfit,
503: CKMfitter and HFAG. Also, the ratio $\frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}$
504: \cite{klein} is in full agreement with its latest measured value,
505: whereas in the case of $V_{td}$ there is some disagreement with
506: its recent measured value \cite{ulrich}, perhaps indicating the
507: presence of NP. The unitarity based values of $J,~\overline{\rho}$
508: and $\overline{\eta}$ found here are in agreement with those found
509: by some latest global analyses.
510:
511: \vskip 0.2cm {\bf Acknowledgements} \\ The authors would like to
512: thank A. Ali and I. Bigi for useful suggestions. M.G. and G.A.
513: would like to thank DAE, BRNS (grant No.2005/37/4/BRNS), India,
514: for financial support. S.K. acknowledges the financial support
515: provided by CSIR, India. M.R. would like to thank the Director,
516: UIET for providing facilities to work.
517:
518: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
519:
520: \bibitem{ckm} N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 531; M.
521: Kobayashi, T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652.
522:
523: \bibitem{s2b}B. Aubert {\it et al.}, [BABAR Collaboration], hep-ex/0607107,
524: K.-F. Chen {\it et al.}, [Belle Collaboration], hep-ex/0608039.
525:
526: \bibitem{utfit}M. Bona {\it et al.}, [UTfit Collaboration], JHEP 0610 (2006)
527: 081, updated results available at http://www.utfit.org/.
528:
529: \bibitem{cfitter}J. Charles {\it et al.}, [CKMfitter Group], Eur.
530: Phys. J. C41 (2005) 1, updated results available at
531: http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/.
532:
533: \bibitem{hfag}E. Barberio {\it et al.}, Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG),
534: hep-ex/0603003, updated results available at
535: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/.
536:
537: \bibitem{gronau}M. Gronau, hep-ph/0510153, hep-ph/0607282.
538:
539: \bibitem{pdgnew}W.-M. Yao {\it et al.}, J. Phys. G 33 (2006) 1,
540: updated results available at http://pdg.lbl.gov/.
541:
542: \bibitem{bnp}A. J. Buras, hep-ph/0505175.
543:
544: \bibitem{nir}Y. Nir, hep-ph/0510413.
545:
546: \bibitem{gro}M. Gronau, Phys. Lett. B627 (2005) 82.
547:
548: \bibitem{ligeti}Z. Ligeti, PoS LAT2005 (2005) 012.
549:
550: \bibitem{vus}A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 093006.
551:
552: \bibitem{ali}Private communication from A. Ali and I. Bigi.
553:
554: \bibitem{mbs}http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/bottom/060406.blessed-Bsmix/BsMixingMeasurement.pdf.
555:
556: \bibitem{wolfbur}L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 1945;
557: A. J. Buras, M. E. Lautenbacher, G. Ostermaier, Phys. Rev. 50
558: (1994) 3433.
559:
560: \bibitem{mon}M. Randhawa, V. Bhatnagar, P. S. Gill, M. Gupta, Mod.
561: Phys. Lett. A (2000) 2363; M. Randhawa, M. Gupta, Phys. Lett. B516
562: (2001) 446.
563:
564: \bibitem{botella}F. J. Botella, G. C. Branco, M. Nebot, M. N. Rebelo,
565: Nucl. Phys. B725 (2005) 155.
566:
567: \bibitem{glw}A. Hocker {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. C21
568: (2001) 225, updated results available at
569: http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/.
570:
571: \bibitem{buras1}A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel,
572: F. Schwab, Eur. Phys. J. C45 (2006) 701.
573:
574: \bibitem{tension}G. Paz, hep-ph/0612077, updated results available
575: at http://www.slac.stanford.
576: edu/xorg/ckmfitter /plots
577: beauty06/ckmEval results beauty06 .ps.gz.
578:
579: \bibitem{klein}K. Kleinknecht, B. Renk, Phys. Lett. B639 (2006) 612.
580:
581: \bibitem{ulrich}U. Nierste, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A21 (2006) 1724.
582:
583: \end{thebibliography}
584:
585: \vskip 5cm
586: \begin{figure}[hbt]
587: \centerline{\psfig{figure=vubdelnew.eps,width=3.5in,height=2.5in}}
588: \caption{Plot showing variation of $V_{ub}$ versus CP violating
589: phase $\delta$, obtained by using equation (\ref{tand}). The
590: central solid line corresponds to mean value of input parameters,
591: whereas the other 2 lines correspond to 1$\sigma$ variations. The
592: horizontal dashed lines correspond to $\delta=(63.0 + 15.0
593: -12.0)^{\rm o}$, the central line corresponds to mean value.}
594: \label{vubdel}
595: \end{figure}
596:
597: \end{document}
598: