1: \documentclass[prd,showpacs,preprint]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{braket}
5:
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{New constraints on R-parity violating couplings through the measurements of the $B^0_{s(d)}$-${\bar{B}^0_{s(d)}}$ and $K^0$-$\bar{K}^0$ mixing}
10: \author{Gao Xiangdong}
11: \email{gaoxiangdong@pku.edu.cn}
12: \author{Chong Sheng Li}
13: \email{csli@pku.edu.cn}
14: \author{Li Lin Yang}
15: \email{llyang@pku.edu.cn}
16: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China}
17:
18: \date{\today}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21:
22:
23: We calculate contributions to $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing through
24: tree-level sneutrino exchange in the framework of the minimal
25: supersymmetric standard model with R-parity violation, including the
26: next-to-leading-order QCD corrections. We compare our results with
27: the updated bounds on the $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mass difference reported
28: by CDF collaborations, and present new constraints on the relevant
29: combinations of parameters of the minimal supersymmetric standard
30: model with R-parity violation. Our results show that upper bound on
31: the relevant combination of couplings of $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing is
32: of the order $10^{-9}$. We also calculate the $B^0_d-\bar{B}^0_d$
33: and $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mass differences, and show that the upper bounds
34: on the relevant combinations of couplings are two and four orders of
35: magnitude stronger than ones reported in the literatures,
36: respectively. We also discuss the case of complex couplings and show
37: that how the relevant combinations of couplings are constrained by
38: the updated experiment data of $B_s-\bar{B}_s$, $B_d-\bar{B}_d$
39: mixing and time-dependent CP asymmetry $S_{J/\psi K_s}$, and future
40: possible observations of $S_{J/\psi\phi}$ at LHCb, respectively.
41:
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \pacs{14.40.Nd, 12.60.Jv, 12.15.Mm, 14.80.Ly}
45:
46: \maketitle
47:
48: \section{introduction}
49:
50: Very recently, the {D\O} collaboration and the CDF collaboration at
51: the Fermilab Tevatron reported their updated measurements of the
52: mass difference between $B_s$ and $\bar{B}_s$ mesons ($\Delta m_s$).
53: The new bounds on the mass difference are~\cite{exp1,exp2}:
54: \begin{align}
55: &\text{D\O:} \quad 17~\text{ps}^{-1} < \Delta m_s < 21~\text{ps}^{-1} \nonumber
56: \\
57: &\text{CDF:} \quad \Delta m_s = 17.77^{+0.10}_{-0.10} \pm 0.07~\text{ps}^{-1}
58: \label{FBsmixing}
59: \end{align}
60: It was the first time that both the lower bound and the upper bound
61: for the $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing are presented. Especially the CDF
62: result has reached an accuracy of about 1\%. The new results are
63: important for the precision test of the standard model (SM),
64: especially for the determination of the unitary triangle. Moreover,
65: if the SM predictions are consistent with the above results, these
66: data will put severe constraints on the flavor structure of the
67: possible new physics models beyond the SM.
68:
69: In the literature, there have already been many discussions about
70: the implications of the new measurements. In
71: Ref.~\cite{buras2,Ligeti:2006pm,Ball:2006xx,Alakabha Datta,UTfit},
72: the authors carried out model-independent analysis of the
73: constraints on extensions of the SM. There are also model-dependent
74: calculations in some new physics models beyond the SM
75: \cite{FVMSSM,LHM,Zprime,Zprime2,GUT,Paradisi,Jonparry}. In this
76: paper, we further investigate the effects of the minimal
77: supersymmetric standard model with R-parity violation
78: (MSSM-RPV)~\cite{RPV} on the neutral meson mixing.
79:
80: R-parity is a discrete symmetry defined by $R_p=(-1)^{3B+L+2S}$,
81: where B is the baryon number,L is the lepton number and S is the
82: spin of the particle. In a supersymmetric extension of the SM, all
83: the particles in the SM have $R_p=1$, while all the superpartners
84: have $R_p=-1$. R-parity conservation is imposed in the minimal
85: supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) to keep proton stable. However,
86: this requirement is not necessary for a fundamental theory, and one
87: can always introduce lepton number or baryon number violating terms
88: in the Lagrangian. For the neutral meson mixing, the relevant terms
89: in the Lagrangian are
90: \begin{equation}
91: \mathcal{L}_{\text{RPV}} = \lambda'_{ijk} \tilde{\nu}_{iL}
92: \bar{d}_{kR} d_{jL} + h.c. \label{largrangian}
93: \end{equation}
94: These interaction terms can induce $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing through
95: tree level sneutrino exchange, and thus, probably, the relevant
96: combination of couplings $\sum\limits_i \lambda'_{i32}
97: \lambda'^*_{i23}$ will be severely constrained by the recent
98: measurements\cite{exp1,exp2}. Similarly, the terms shown in Eq.
99: (\ref{largrangian}) also can induce the $B^0_d-\bar{B}^0_d$ and
100: $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixing, which were discussed in Ref.~\cite{Rparity1}
101: at the leading-order, and the constraints on the relevant
102: combinations of couplings through comparing with data were given
103: by~\cite{Rparity1}
104: \begin{align}
105: \sum_i \lambda'_{i31} \lambda'^*_{i13} n_{i} \lesssim
106: 3.3\times10^{-8}, \nonumber
107: \\
108: \sum_i \lambda'_{i21} \lambda'^*_{i12} n_{i} \lesssim
109: 4.5\times10^{-9}, \label{eq:old}
110: \end{align}
111: where $n_i \equiv (100~\text{GeV}/{m_{\tilde{\nu}_{iL}}})^2$,
112: $m_{\tilde{\nu}_{iL}}$ is the mass of the sneutrino of the $i$-th
113: generation. However, authors of Ref.~\cite{Rparity1} did not include
114: the contributions of the SM, since they believed that both
115: theoretical and experimental results involved considerable
116: uncertainties at that time. Recently, both SM theoretical
117: predictions and experimental results has been improved significantly
118: \cite{B0andK}. Thus, besides investigating of
119: $B^0_{s}$-${\bar{B}^0_{s}}$ mixing, it is also worthwhile to
120: reinvestigate the constraints on the combinations of R-parity
121: violating (RPV) couplings with the updated data on
122: $B^0_{d}$-${\bar{B}^0_{d}}$ and $K^0$-$\bar{K}^0$ mixing including
123: the SM contributions. Moreover, in general, the
124: next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD corrections are significant, so we
125: also calculate the NLO QCD effects on the above neutral meson mixing
126: in this paper.
127:
128: In addition to the above mass differences, the R-parity violating
129: couplings
130: can also contribute to the CP asymmetries in the meson decay processes, when
131: the couplings are complex. So the combinations of RPV couplings discussed above can affect
132: observables related to time-dependent CP violation in processes such as $B_d \to J/\psi
133: K_s$ and $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$. In this paper, we also consider the constraints on the
134: relevant combinations of MSSM-RPV couplings from these CP violation observables.
135:
136:
137: We organize our paper as following. Section~\ref{sec:basic} is a
138: brief summary of the formalism for the calculation of the neutral
139: meson mixing , CP asymmetry in B physics and the results in the SM.
140: In Section~\ref{sec:nlo} , we calculate the contributions from the
141: MSSM-RPV at leading-order and next-to-leading-order in QCD. In
142: section~\ref{sec:num}, we present our numerical results and
143: discussions.
144:
145:
146: \section{Basic formalism and analytical results in the SM}
147: \label{sec:basic}
148:
149: In order to make our paper self-contained, we first illustrate the
150: basic formalism for the calculation of the
151: $B^0_{s(d)}$-$\bar{B}^0_{s(d)}$ and $K^0$-$\bar{K}^0$ mass
152: differences $\Delta m$, the time-dependent CP asymmetry in $B_d$
153: decay, $S_{J/\psi K_s}$ and the time-dependent CP asymmetry in $B_s$
154: decay, $S_{J/\psi \phi}$.
155:
156: We start from the $\Delta{F}=2$ effective Hamiltonian~\cite{buras1}
157: \begin{align}
158: \mathcal{H}_{\text{eff}} = \sum_i C_i Q_i + h.c. .
159: \label{effeham}
160: \end{align}
161: The relevant operators for our concerning are
162: \begin{align}
163: Q_0 &= \bar{q}^\alpha \gamma_\mu P_L b^\alpha \bar{q}^\beta \gamma_\mu P_L b^\beta,
164: \\
165: Q_1 &= \bar{q}^\alpha P_L b^\alpha \bar{q}^\beta P_R b^\beta,
166: \\
167: Q_2 &= \bar{q}^\alpha P_L b^\beta \bar{q}^\beta P_R b^\alpha,
168: \end{align}
169: where $q=d,s$ for $B_d$ or $B_s$ meson mixing, respectively. Similar
170: expressions for $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixing can be obtained by replacing
171: $b$ with $s$ and setting $q=d$.
172:
173: With this effective Hamiltonian, the $B_q-\bar{B}_q$ mass difference
174: can be expressed as
175: \begin{align}
176: &\Delta m_q = 2 \left| \bra{\bar{B}_q} \mathcal{H}_{\text{eff}} \ket{B_q} \right| =
177: 2 \left| \sum_i C_i \bra{\bar{B}_q} Q_i \ket{B_q}
178: \right|;
179: \end{align}
180: $a_{J/\psi K_s ( \phi )}$, time-dependent CP asymmetry in $B_{d( s
181: )} \rightarrow J/\psi K_s ( \phi )$ decays, can be expressed as
182: \begin{align}
183: a_{J/\psi K_s ( \phi ) } = S_{J/\psi K_s ( \phi ) } \text{sin} \Delta m_{d(s)} t,
184: \end{align}
185: where $S_{J/\psi K_s ( \phi ) } = \text{sin} 2 \beta_{eff}$, and
186: $\beta_{eff} =\frac{1}{2} \text{arg} \bra{\bar{B}_{d(s)}}
187: \mathcal{H}_{\text{eff}} \ket{B_{d(s)}} $. In the framework of SM,
188: \begin{align}
189: S^{SM}_{J/\psi K_s} = \text{sin} 2 \beta ,
190: ~~S^{SM}_{J/\psi \phi} = \text{sin} 2 \beta_s ,
191: \end{align}
192: with
193: \begin{align}
194: \beta = \text{arg}( -
195: \frac{(V_{CKM})_{cd}(V_{CKM}^{\ast})_{cb}}{(V_{CKM})_{td}(V_{CKM}^{\ast})_{tb}}),
196: \nonumber
197: \\
198: \beta_s = \text{arg}( -
199: \frac{(V_{CKM})_{ts}(V_{CKM}^{\ast})_{tb}}{(V_{CKM})_{cs}(V_{CKM}^{\ast})_{cb}}).
200: \end{align}
201:
202: In the SM, only $C_0$ is nonzero, which has been calculated to the
203: NLO in QCD~\cite{NLOQCDSM,buras1} and is given by
204: \begin{align}
205: C_0(\mu) = \frac{G_F^2m_W^2}{4\pi^2} (V^*_{tb} V_{tq})^2 \eta_B S_0(x_t) \left(
206: \alpha_s^{(5)}(\mu) \right)^{-6/23} \left[ 1 + \frac{\alpha_s^{(5)}(\mu)}{4\pi} J_5
207: \right],
208: \end{align}
209: where $\eta_B=0.55\pm0.1$~\cite{etaparameter}, $J_5=1.627$ in the naive dimensional
210: regularization scheme (NDR), $x_t=m_t^2/m_W^2$ and $S_0(x_t)$ is the Inami-Lim
211: function~\cite{Inami-Lim}. The scale $\mu$ is usually taken to be $\sim m_b$ in $B$
212: physics.
213:
214: The expression for the $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mass difference is a little
215: different, which is given by
216: \begin{align}
217: \Delta m_K = 2 \mathrm{Re} \bra{\bar{K}^0} \mathcal{H}_{\text{eff}} \ket{K^0} = 2
218: \mathrm{Re} \sum_i C_i \bra{\bar{K}^0} Q_i \ket{K^0}.
219: \label{K}
220: \end{align}
221: The nonzero NLO Wilson coefficient in the SM is
222: \begin{align}
223: C_0(\mu) = \frac{G_F^2m_W^2}{4\pi^2} \left[ \lambda_c^2 \eta_1 S_0(x_c) + \lambda_t^2
224: \eta_2 S_0(x_t) + 2 \lambda_c \lambda_t \eta_3 S_0(x_c,x_t) \right] \left(
225: \alpha_s^{(3)}(\mu) \right)^{-2/9} \left[ 1 + \frac{\alpha_s^{(3)}(\mu)}{4\pi} J_3
226: \right],
227: \end{align}
228: where $\lambda_i = V^*_{is} V_{id}$, $J_3=1.895$ in the NDR scheme
229: and the parameters $\eta_i$ are $\eta_1=1.38\pm0.20$,
230: $\eta_2=0.57\pm0.01$,
231: $\eta_3=0.47\pm0.04$~\cite{etaofK,etaparameter}, respectively. $S_0$
232: functions can be found in Ref.\cite{buras1}.
233:
234: The matrix elements of the operators $Q_i$ (i=0,1,2) between two
235: hadronic states can be obtained by using the vacuum insertion
236: approximation (VIA) and partial axial current conservation (PCAC).
237: We refer the readers to Ref.~\cite{CP-violation} for details. The
238: results are
239: \begin{align}
240: \braket{Q_0(\mu)} &\equiv \bra{\bar{B}_s} Q_0(\mu) \ket{B_s} = \frac{1}{3} f_{B_s}^2
241: m_{B_s} B_0(\mu),
242: \\
243: \braket{Q_1(\mu)} &\equiv \bra{\bar{B}_s} Q_1(\mu) \ket{B_s} = f_{B_s}^2 m_{B_s} \left(
244: \frac{1}{24} - \frac{m_{B_s}^2}{4(m_s(\mu)+m_b(\mu))^2} \right) B_1(\mu),
245: \\
246: \braket{Q_2(\mu)} &\equiv \bra{\bar{B}_s} Q_2(\mu) \ket{B_s} = f_{B_s}^2 m_{B_s} \left(
247: \frac{1}{8} -\frac{m_{B_s}^2}{12(m_s(\mu)+m_b(\mu))^2} \right) B_2(\mu),
248: \end{align}
249: where $m_{B_s}$ and $f_{B_s}$ is the mass and decay constant of the
250: $B_s$ mesons, respectively. Clearly, the expressions for $B_d$ and
251: $K^0$ mesons can be obtained by simple substitutions. $B_i(\mu)$ is
252: the non-perturbative parameters and can be calculated with lattice
253: method~\cite{KBparameter,latticeB}. We list their values to be used
254: in our numerical calculations in table \ref{Bpara}:
255: \begin{table}
256: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
257: \hline & $B_0(\mu)$ & $B_1(\mu)$ & $B_2(\mu)$ \\
258: \hline $K^0 (\mu=2 GeV)$ & 0.69 & 1.03 & 0.73 \\
259: \hline $B_d (\mu=m_b)$ & 0.87 & 1.16 & 1.91 \\
260: \hline $B_s (\mu=m_b)$ & 0.86 & 1.17 & 1.94 \\
261: \hline
262: \end{tabular}
263: \caption{Non-perturbative parameters used in our numerical calculations.}
264: \label{Bpara}
265: \end{table}
266:
267:
268: \section{MSSM-RPV contributions and NLO QCD corrections}
269: \label{sec:nlo}
270:
271: In the MSSM-RPV, there are tree-level contributions to the
272: $B_{s(d)}-\bar{B}_{s(d)}$ and $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixing through
273: sneutrino exchange. The tree diagrams contribute through the
274: operator $Q_1$, and the corresponding Wilson coefficient is
275: \begin{align}
276: C_1 = - \sum_i \frac{\lambda'_{ijk}\lambda'^*_{ikj}}{m_{\tilde{\nu}_i}^2} +
277: \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s),
278: \end{align}
279: where $jk=32,31,21$ for $B_s$, $B_d$ and $K^0$ mesons, respectively.
280: We assume universal sneutrino masses for simplicity, i.e.,
281: $m_{\tilde{\nu}_i}=m_{\tilde{\nu}}$, $i=1,2,3$.
282:
283: At NLO in QCD, both $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ contribute due to color
284: exchange. To calculate the NLO Wilson coefficients, we match the
285: full theory onto the effective theory at the SUSY scale, and then
286: run the coefficients down to the hadronic scales using the
287: renormalization group equations (RGE). In our calculations, we use
288: dimensional regularization in $d=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions to
289: regulate, and use $\overline{\text{MS}}$ scheme to renormalize the
290: ultraviolet (UV) divergences. We keep the heaviest quark mass $m_Q$
291: ($Q=b$ for $B$ mesons and $Q=s$ for $K$ mesons) and set all other
292: quark masses to be zero in the Wilson coefficients. However, we will
293: keep the lighter quark mass $m_q$ in the intermediate stages of our
294: calculation in order to regulate the infrared (IR) divergences. We
295: also set all external momenta to zero, since the coefficients should
296: not depend on them.
297:
298: \begin{figure}[ht!]
299: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{full.eps}
300: \caption{One-loop Feynman diagrams in the full theory.}
301: \label{full}
302: \end{figure}
303:
304: The NLO diagrams in the full theory are shown in Fig.~\ref{full} In the full theory, all
305: the UV divergences should be removed by the renormalization of the quark wave functions
306: and the coupling constants. The renormalized amplitude in the full theory is
307: \begin{align}
308: A_{\text{full}} &= - \sum_i \frac{\lambda'_{ijk}\lambda'^*_{ikj}}{m^2_{\tilde{\nu}}}
309: \left\{ \left[ 1 + \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} C_F \left( 1 - 2\ln\frac{m_Q^2}{\mu^2} \right)
310: + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \frac{ m_{\tilde{\nu}}^2 \ln\frac{m_Q^2}{m_q^2} + m_Q^2
311: \ln\frac{m_q^2}{m_{\tilde{\nu}}^2} } {m_{\tilde{\nu}}^2-m_Q^2} \right]
312: \braket{Q_1}_{\text{tree}} \right. \nonumber
313: \\
314: &\qquad \left. - \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \frac{1}{N} \frac{ m_{\tilde{\nu}}^2
315: \ln\frac{m_Q^2}{m_q^2} + m_Q^2 \ln\frac{m_q^2}{m_{\tilde{\nu}}^2} }
316: {m_{\tilde{\nu}}^2-m_Q^2} \braket{Q_2}_{\text{tree}} \right\},
317: \end{align}
318: where $C_F=4/3$, $N=3$ is the number of colors, and $\braket{Q_i}_{\text{tree}}$ is the
319: tree level matrix elements of the operators.
320:
321: \begin{figure}[ht!]
322: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{effective.eps}
323: \caption{The next-to-leading-order corrections in the effective theory.}
324: \label{effective}
325: \end{figure}
326:
327: In the effective theory, there are remaining UV divergences after
328: taking into account the quark field renormalization, which must be
329: canceled by the renormalization of the effective operators.
330: Calculating the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{effective} with the insertion
331: of the operators $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, we get the following amplitudes
332: after quark field renormaliztion:
333: \begin{align}
334: \braket{Q_1^0} &= \left[ 1 + \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} C_F \left( \frac{3}{\hat{\epsilon}}
335: + 2 - 4\ln\frac{m_Q^2}{\mu^2} \right) + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
336: \ln\frac{m_Q^2}{m_q^2} \right] \braket{Q_1}_{\text{tree}} - \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
337: \frac{1}{N} \ln\frac{m_Q^2}{m_q^2} \braket{Q_2}_{\text{tree}},
338: \\
339: \braket{Q_2^0} &= \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \left( \frac{3}{\hat{\epsilon}} + 1 -
340: 3\ln\frac{m_Q^2}{\mu^2} - \frac{1}{N} \ln\frac{m_Q^2}{m_q^2} \right)
341: \braket{Q_1}_{\text{tree}} \nonumber
342: \\
343: &\qquad + \left[ 1 - \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \frac{1}{N} \left( \frac{3}{\hat{\epsilon}}
344: + 1 - 3\ln\frac{m_Q^2}{\mu^2} \right) + \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} C_F \left( 1 -
345: \ln\frac{m_Q^2}{\mu^2} \right) + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \ln\frac{m_Q^2}{m_q^2}
346: \right] \braket{Q_2}_{\text{tree}},
347: \end{align}
348: where $1/\hat{\epsilon}=1/\epsilon-\gamma_E+\ln{4\pi}$. The renormalization constant
349: matrix for the two operators is
350: \begin{align}
351: \hat{Z}_Q = 1 + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \frac{1}{\hat{\epsilon}}
352: \begin{pmatrix} 8 & 0 \\ 3 & -1 \end{pmatrix},
353: \end{align}
354: from which we obtain the anomalous dimension matrix:
355: \begin{align}
356: \hat{\gamma}_Q = - \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}
357: \begin{pmatrix} 8 & 0 \\ 3 & -1 \end{pmatrix}.
358: \end{align}
359: Our results of anomalous dimensions agree with those in Ref.~\cite{general anomalous
360: dimension}.
361:
362: Matching the results in the full theory and the effective theory, we extract the Wilson
363: coefficients:
364: \begin{align}
365: C_1(m_{\tilde{\nu}}) &= - \sum_i
366: \frac{\lambda'_{ijk}\lambda'^*_{ikj}}{m^2_{\tilde{\nu}}} \left( 1
367: +
368: \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \frac{x\ln {x}}{1-x} \right),
369: \\
370: C_2(m_{\tilde{\nu}}) &= ~~ \sum_i
371: \frac{\lambda'_{ijk}\lambda'^*_{ikj}}{m^2_{\tilde{\nu}}} \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
372: \frac{1}{N} \frac{x\ln {x}}{1-x},
373: \end{align}
374: where $x=m_Q^2/m^2_{\tilde{\nu}}$. These coefficients satisfy the renormalization group
375: equations
376: \begin{align}
377: \frac{d}{d\ln\mu} \begin{pmatrix} C_1(\mu) \\ C_2(\mu) \end{pmatrix} =
378: \hat{\gamma}_Q^T(\alpha_s(\mu))
379: \begin{pmatrix} C_1(\mu) \\ C_2(\mu) \end{pmatrix},
380: \end{align}
381: from which we can solve the Wilson coefficients for arbitrary scale $\mu$.
382:
383: $\Delta m_{B}$, $S_{J/\psi K_s(\phi)}$ are defined in terms of the
384: matrix element $\bra{\bar{B}_{s(d)}} \mathcal{H}^{\Delta B =
385: 2}_{eff} \ket{B_{s(d)}}$, which can be written as
386:
387: \begin{equation}
388: \bra{\bar{B}_{s(d)}} \mathcal{H}^{\Delta B = 2}_{eff} \ket{B_{s(d)}}
389: = \mathcal{A}_{SM} + \mathcal{A}_{RPV} = \mathcal{A}_{SM} (1 +
390: \frac{\mathcal{A}_{RPV}}{\mathcal{A}_{SM}} ),
391: \end{equation}
392: where $\mathcal{A}_{SM}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{RPV}$ denote matrix
393: elements of the SM and the MSSM-RPV effective hamiltanian,
394: respectively. With the above matrix element, $\Delta m_{B}$ and
395: $S_{J/\psi K_s(\phi)}$ can be expressed
396: \begin{align}
397: &\Delta m_{B} = 2 \left| \bra{\bar{B}_{s(d)}} \mathcal{H}^{\Delta B
398: = 2}_{eff} \ket{B_{s(d)}} \right| = \Delta m^{SM}_{B} \left| 1 +
399: \frac{\mathcal{A}_{RPV}}{\mathcal{A}_{SM}} \right|, \nonumber
400: \\
401: &S_{J/\psi K_s(\phi)} = \text{sin} \left( 2 \beta_{(s)} + \text{arg}
402: \left( 1 + \frac{\mathcal{A}_{RPV}}{\mathcal{A}_{SM}}\right)
403: \right), \label{basicformula}
404: \end{align}
405: where $\Delta m^{SM}_{B}$ and $\beta_{(s)}$ denotes the SM
406: contributions, respectively. In Eq.(\ref{basicformula}), hadronic
407: uncertainties arising from hadron decay constants cancel between
408: $\mathcal{A}_{SM}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{RPV}$, and hadronic
409: uncertainties remain only in $\Delta m^{SM}_{B}$ and $\beta_{(s)}$.
410: As for $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixing, $\Delta m_K$ can be obtained
411: straightforwardly.
412:
413:
414: \section{Numerical results}
415: \label{sec:num}
416:
417: In this section we present our numerical results. The SUSY scale is
418: taken to be the mass of the sneutrino $m_{\tilde{\nu}}$. The CKM
419: matrix elements are parametrized in the Wolfenstein convention with
420: four parameters $A=0.809$, $\lambda=0.2272$, $\rho=0.197$ and
421: $\eta=0.339$. The other standard model parameters are taken to be
422: $G_F=1.16637^{-5}$~GeV$^{-2}$, $\alpha_s(m_Z)=0.118$,
423: $m_t=173$~GeV~\cite{Bparameter}. The mass of B meson and K meson are
424: $m_{B_s}=5367.5$~MeV, $m_{B_0}=5279.4$~MeV and
425: $m_{K}=497.648$~MeV~\cite{Bparameter}. The time-dependent CP
426: asymmetry in $B_d$ decay $S_{J/\psi
427: K_s}=0.687^{+0.032}_{-0.032}$~\cite{Bparameter}. The recent
428: experimental values of the mass differences of the $B_d$ and $K^0$
429: mesons mixing are
430: $\Delta{m_K}=(0.5292\pm0.0009)\times10^{-2}$~ps$^{-1}$,
431: $\Delta{m_{B_d}}=0.507^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$~ps$^{-1}$~\cite{Bparameter},
432: and $\Delta{m_s}$ is shown in Eq.~(\ref{FBsmixing}).
433:
434: In our numerical calculations, we first neglect the uncertainties
435: from the hadronic parameters in the SM and assume that the
436: predictions of the SM can reproduce the central values of the
437: experimental data. Thus we demand that the RPV contributions must
438: not exceed the experimental upper and lower bounds of the
439: corresponding data.
440:
441: First, we consider the new measurement of $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing,
442: which can constrain the combination
443: $\Lambda_{32}\equiv\sum\limits_i\lambda'_{i32}\lambda'^*_{i23}$ once
444: the sneutrino mass is given. Fig.~\ref{diagram1} shows the allowed
445: region in the $\Lambda_{32}-m_{\tilde{\nu}}$ plane, where the gray
446: area and the dark area is the allowed region extracted from the
447: leading-order amplitude. We find that with the new data, the
448: couplings are constrained to the level of $10^{-9}$. After including
449: the NLO QCD corrections, the gray area is excluded and only the dark
450: area survives. One can see that since the NLO QCD effects increase
451: the resulting mass difference, the bound is more stringent (about
452: 50\% lower) than that from LO calculations. If setting
453: $m_{\tilde{\nu}}=100$~GeV, the bounds on $\Lambda_{32}$ from the
454: calculations of LO and NLO are
455: \begin{align}
456: &\Lambda_{32} < 4.6\times10^{-9}\text{(LO)}, \quad
457: 2.4\times10^{-9}\text{(NLO)} ,
458: \label{constraintsBs}
459: \end{align}
460: respectively.
461:
462: \begin{figure}
463: \includegraphics[scale=1.2]{Bsp.eps}
464: \caption{\label{diagram1}The bounds for
465: $\sum\limits_i\lambda'_{i32}\lambda'^*_{i23}$
466: vary with the mass of the sneutrino. The gray area and the dark area are the allow
467: region extracted from the LO amplitude. After NLO corrections, the gray area is
468: excluded and only the dark area survives.}
469: \end{figure}
470:
471: Fig.~\ref{diagram2} and Fig.~\ref{diagram3} show the constraints on
472: the combination
473: $\Lambda_{31}\equiv\sum\limits_i\lambda'_{i31}\lambda'^*_{i13}$ from
474: $B_0-\bar{B}_0$ mixing and
475: $\Lambda_{21}\equiv\sum\limits_i\lambda'_{i21}\lambda'^*_{i12}$ from
476: $K_0-\bar{K}_0$ mixing. The situation here is similar to that in
477: $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing: the NLO QCD corrections increase the mass
478: differences and thus give more strong constraints on the
479: combinations of couplings of MSSM-RPV. At the reference point
480: $m_{\tilde{\nu}}=100$~GeV, the bounds are
481: \begin{align}
482: &\Lambda_{31} < 2.9\times10^{-10}\text{(LO)}, \quad
483: 1.5\times10^{-10}\text{(NLO)},
484: \label{constraintsBd}
485: \\
486: &\Lambda_{21} < 8.8\times10^{-14}\text{(LO)}, \quad 2.8\times10^{-14}\text{(NLO)}.
487: \label{constraintsK}
488: \end{align}
489: Above bounds are two and four orders of magnitude stronger than ones
490: given in Ref.~\cite{Rparity1}, as shown in Eq.~(\ref{eq:old}), which
491: is due to the fact that the updated data of the measurements and the
492: contributions from the SM have been considered in our calculations.
493:
494: \begin{figure}
495: \includegraphics[scale=1.2]{B0p.eps}
496: \caption{\label{diagram2}The bounds for
497: $\sum\limits_i\lambda'_{i31}\lambda'^*_{i13}$
498: vary with the mass of the sneutrino.}
499: \end{figure}
500:
501: \begin{figure}
502: \includegraphics[scale=1.2]{Kp.eps}
503: \caption{\label{diagram3}The bounds for
504: $\sum\limits_i\lambda'_{i21}\lambda'^*_{i12}$
505: vary with the mass of the sneutrino.}
506: \end{figure}
507:
508: We further consider the situation that the hadronic
509: uncertainties are involved. In this case, the bounds on the combinations of couplings
510: in MSSM-RPV are looser than those in Eqs. (\ref{constraintsBs}), (\ref{constraintsBd})
511: and (\ref{constraintsK}). The new bounds from the three observables are
512: \begin{align}
513: \Lambda_{32} &< 12.392\times10^{-8} \quad\text{(LO)},
514: \nonumber
515: \\
516: &< 6.481\times10^{-8} \quad\text{(NLO)} ;
517: \nonumber
518: \\
519: \Lambda_{31} &< 7.833\times10^{-9} \quad\text{(LO)},
520: \nonumber
521: \\
522: &< 4.096\times10^{-9}\quad\text{(NLO)};
523: \nonumber
524: \\
525: \Lambda_{21} &< 3.47\times10^{-11} \quad\text{(LO)},
526: \nonumber
527: \\
528: &< 1.39\times10^{-11} \quad\text{(NLO)} ,
529: \end{align}
530: respectively.
531:
532:
533: We also discuss the situation that $\Lambda_{ij}$ is complex, and
534: parametrize the combinations of relevant couplings as $\Lambda_{ij}
535: = |\Lambda_{ij}| e ^{2i\sigma_{ij}}$, where $ij$ can be $32$ and
536: $31$. After assuming arbitrary phases $\sigma_{ij}$, we can obtain
537: constraints on the magnitude $|\Lambda_{ij}|$. Fig.~\ref{diagramBsc}
538: and Fig.~\ref{diagramBsd} shows the the allowed range of
539: $\Lambda_{32}$ and $\Lambda_{31}$ for $m_{\tilde{\nu}} = 100$GeV,
540: taking into account the constraints from $\Delta m_s$ and $\Delta
541: m_d$. For the $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing, $\Lambda_{32}$ is about
542: $\mathcal{O}(10^{-9})$, while for the $B_d-\bar{B}_d$ mixing,
543: $\Lambda_{31}$ is about $\mathcal{O}(10^{-11})$. In both figures,
544: there are additional areas with large $|\Lambda_{ij}|$ besides
545: ordinary areas with small $|\Lambda_{ij}|$, which correspond to ones
546: where contributions from the MSSM-RPV are larger than those from the
547: SM, roughly twice the SM contributions but with different signs. We
548: do not discuss complex couplings in K system due to the fact that
549: Eq. (\ref{K}) holds only under the condition that imaginary part of
550: $\bra{\bar{K}^0} \mathcal{H}_{\text{eff}} \ket{K^0}$ is far less
551: than the real part.
552:
553:
554: \begin{figure}
555: \includegraphics[scale=1.2]{Bsc.eps}
556: \caption{\label{diagramBsc}The allowed range of the magnitude and
557: phase of $\sum\limits_i\lambda'_{i32}\lambda'^*_{i23}$ constrained
558: by the updated experimental data of $\Delta m_s$. The gray area
559: accounts for the tree level results. When the QCD corrections are
560: added, the allowed area is reduced to the dark area. }
561: \end{figure}
562:
563: \begin{figure}
564: \includegraphics[scale=1.2]{Bdc.eps}
565: \caption{\label{diagramBsd}The allowed range of the magnitude and
566: phase of $\sum\limits_i\lambda'_{i31}\lambda'^*_{i13}$ constrained
567: by the experimental data of $\Delta m_d$.}
568: \end{figure}
569:
570:
571: The combinations of complex couplings can introduce new CP-violation
572: origins, so we further investigate how the CP asymmetries in B decays constrain these
573: combinations of couplings. Using the experimental data of $S_{J/\psi
574: K_s}$~\cite{Bparameter}, we plot the allowed areas of the magnitude $|\Lambda_{31}|$
575: and the phase $\sigma_{31}$ in Fig.\ref{sinbeta}, which shows that the upper bound for
576: $|\Lambda_{31}|$ is generally about $\mathcal{O}(10^{-10})$, except for some special values of
577: $\sigma_{31}$. Those special values correspond to
578: $\arg(1+\mathcal{A}_{RPV}/\mathcal{A}_{SM}) = 0$, and we have
579: $\sin(2\beta_{\text{eff}})=\sin(2\beta)$.
580: In fact, another area with
581: $\arg(1+\mathcal{A}_{RPV}/\mathcal{A}_{SM}) = \pi-4\beta$ also
582: survives from constraint of experiment data of $S_{J/\psi K_s}$,
583: however, this possibility has been excluded by an angular analysis
584: of $B^0 \rightarrow J/\psi K^{*0}$ and a time-dependent Dalitz plot
585: analysis of $B^0 \rightarrow \bar{D}^0h^0 (h^0 = \pi^0, \eta^0,
586: \omega)$\cite{piminus2beta}.
587: For the CP asymmetry in $B_s$ decays,
588: although there is no experimental data of $S_{J/\psi \phi} $ currently, future LHCb
589: experiment will provide enough data to reach $\sigma_{stat}(S_{J/\psi \phi})\approx
590: 0.03$ in the first year~\cite{LHCb}, which would provide a strong constraint on new
591: physics. So we assume $S_{J/\psi \phi} = 0.04 \pm 0.03$ and plot constraints on
592: $|\Lambda_{32}|$ and $\sigma_{32}$ in Fig.\ref{sinbetas}, which shows that the upper
593: bound for $|\Lambda_{32}|$ is about $\mathcal{O}(10^{-8})$ except for some special
594: values of $\sigma_{32}$ similar to the case of $S_{J/\psi K_s}$.
595:
596: \begin{figure}
597: \includegraphics[scale=1.2]{sinbeta.eps}
598: \caption{\label{sinbeta}The allowed range of the magnitude and phase
599: of $\sum\limits_i\lambda'_{i31}\lambda'^*_{i13}$ using experimental
600: data of $S_{J/\psi K_s}$.}
601: \end{figure}
602:
603: \begin{figure}
604: \includegraphics[scale=1.2]{sinbetas.eps}
605: \caption{\label{sinbetas}The allowed range of the magnitude and
606: phase of $\sum\limits_i\lambda'_{i32}\lambda'^*_{i23}$, assuming the
607: first year LHCb data provide an experiment measurement $S_{J/\psi
608: \phi} = 0.04 \pm 0.03$.}
609: \end{figure}
610:
611: In conclusion, using the updated data, we have calculated
612: contributions to $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing, $B_d-\bar{B}_d$ mixing and
613: $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixing in the framework of the minimal
614: supersymmetric standard model with R-parity violation including NLO
615: QCD corrections, and presented new constraints on the relevant
616: couplings of MSSM-RPV. Our results show that upper bound on the
617: relevant combination of couplings of $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing is of
618: the order $10^{-9}$, and upper bounds on the relevant combinations
619: of couplings of $B_d-\bar{B}_d$ mixing and $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixing
620: are two and four orders of magnitude stronger than ones reported in
621: Ref.~\cite{Rparity1}, respectively. We also discussed the case of
622: complex couplings and showed that how the relevant combinations of
623: couplings are constrained by the updated experiment data of
624: $B_s-\bar{B}_s$, $B_d-\bar{B}_d$ mixing and time-dependent CP
625: asymmetry $S_{J/\psi K_s}$, and future possible observations of
626: $S_{J/\psi\phi}$ at LHCb, respectively.
627:
628:
629:
630: $Note~added$. While preparing this manuscript the paper of
631: \cite{RPVnew} appeared where the same coupling combination from
632: $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing is also discussed. However, the authors
633: of~\cite{RPVnew} mainly dealt with contributions through the box
634: diagram. Our results induced by the tree-level diagram is a few
635: orders of magnitude stronger than theirs.
636:
637:
638:
639:
640: \begin{acknowledgments}
641: This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science
642: Foundation of China, under Grant No.~10421503, No.~10575001 and
643: No.~10635030, and the Key Grant Project of Chinese Ministry of
644: Education under Grant No.~305001 and the Specialized Research Fund
645: for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education.
646: \end{acknowledgments}
647:
648:
649:
650: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
651:
652: \bibitem{exp1} V.~Abazov \textit{et~al}. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 021802 (2006).
653:
654: \bibitem{exp2} A.~Abulencia \textit{et~al}. (CDF collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 062003
655: (2006); hep-ex/0609040.
656:
657: \bibitem{buras2} Monika Blanke, Andrzej J. Buras, Diego Guadagnoli, Cecilia
658: Tarantino, hep-ph/0604057.
659:
660: \bibitem{Ligeti:2006pm}
661: Z.~Ligeti, M.~Papucci and G.~Perez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 101801 (2006).
662:
663: \bibitem{Ball:2006xx}
664: P.~Ball and R.~Fleischer, hep-ph/0604249.
665:
666: \bibitem{Alakabha Datta} Alakabha Datta, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 014022.
667:
668: \bibitem{UTfit} UTfit Collaboration: M. Bona, \textit{et~al}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 151803
669: (2006).
670:
671: \bibitem{FVMSSM} M. Ciuchini, L. Silvestrini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 021803.
672:
673: \bibitem{LHM} M. Blanke, A. J. Buras, A. Poschenrieder, C. Tarantino, S. Uhlig, A.
674: Weiler, hep-ph/0605214.
675:
676: \bibitem{Zprime} Seungwon Baek, Jong Hun Jeon, C. S. Kim, hep-ph/0607113.
677:
678: \bibitem{Zprime2} Kingman Cheung, Cheng-Wei Chiang, N. G. Deshpande, J.
679: Jiang, hep-ph/0604223.
680:
681: \bibitem{GUT} Bhaskar Dutta, Yukihiro Mimura, hep-ph/0607147.
682:
683: \bibitem{Paradisi} Gino Isidori, Paride Paradisi, Phys. Lett. B639 (2006)
684: 499-507.
685:
686: \bibitem{Jonparry} J. K. Parry, hep-ph/0606150; hep-ph/0608192.
687:
688: \bibitem{RPV} G. Farrar, P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 575; R. Barbier, \textit{et~al}, Phys. Rept. 420 (2005)
689: 1-202.
690:
691: \bibitem{Rparity1} D. Choudhury, P. Roy, Phys. Lett.B 378 (1996) 153-158.
692:
693: \bibitem{B0andK} [Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG)], hep-ex/0603003.
694:
695: \bibitem{buras1} Andrzej J. Buras, hep-ph/9806471.
696:
697: \bibitem{NLOQCDSM} F. J. Gilman, M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 27 1128(1983).
698:
699: \bibitem{etaparameter} A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, P. H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B347, 491 (1990); J.
700: Urban, F. Krauss, U. Jentschura and G. Soff, Nucl. Phys. B523,
701: 40(1998).
702:
703: \bibitem{Inami-Lim} T. Inami and C. S. Lim, Prog. Theor. Phys. 65, 297 (1981); 65, 1772(E)
704: (1981).
705:
706: \bibitem{etaofK} S. Herrlich and U. Nierste, Nucl. Phys. B419, 292(1994); Phys. Rev. D52,
707: 6505(1995) ; Nucl. Phys. B476, 27(1996).
708:
709: \bibitem{CP-violation} G. C. Branco, L. Lavoura, J. P. Silva, CP Violation, Claredon
710: Press $\cdot$ Oxford, 1999.
711:
712: \bibitem{KBparameter} C. R. Allton, L. Conti, A. Donini, V. Gimenez, L. Giusti, G.
713: Martinelli, M. Talevi, A. Vladikas, Phys. Lett. B453 (1999) 30-39.
714:
715: \bibitem{latticeB} D. Becirevic \textit{et~al}., Nucl. Phys. B634, 105 (2002); D. Becirevic, V.
716: Gimenez, G. Martinelli, M. Papinutto, and J. Reyes, JHEP. 04, 025
717: (2002); Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 106. 385 (2002).
718:
719: \bibitem{general anomalous dimension}
720: M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, I. Schimemi, L.
721: Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B523 (1998) 501-525.
722:
723: \bibitem{Bparameter} W.-M. Yao, \textit{et~al}, (Paticle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics,
724: J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 33 (2006) 1.
725:
726: \bibitem{piminus2beta} B. Aubert \textit{et~al}., [BABAR
727: colaboration], Phys. Rev. D71, 032005 (2005); R. Itoh
728: \textit{et~al}., [Belle colaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 091601
729: (2005); K Abe \textit{et~al}., [Belle colaboration], hep-ex/0507065;
730: For a comprehensive review, see Robert Fleischer, hep-ph/0608010.
731:
732: \bibitem{LHCb} O. Schneider, talk given at the Workshop on ``Flavour in the era of
733: LHC'' First meeting, CERN, 2005,
734: http://lhcb-doc.web.cern.ch/lhcb-doc/presentations/conferencetalks/
735: postscript/2005presentations/Schneider\_epfl.pdf.
736:
737: \bibitem{RPVnew} S. Nandi, J. P. Saha, hep-ph/0608341
738:
739:
740: \end{thebibliography}
741:
742: \end{document}
743: