1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3:
4: \textheight 650pt \textwidth 16.5cm \hoffset -1.8cm \voffset
5: -1.9cm
6: \parskip=4pt plus 1pt
7:
8: \newcommand{\Frac}[2]{\frac{\displaystyle #1}{\displaystyle #2}}
9: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
12: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\beqns}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
14: \newcommand{\eeqns}{\end{eqnarray*}}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17: \begin{titlepage}
18: \begin{center}
19:
20: \hfill USTC-ICTS-06-13\\
21: \hfill September 2006\\
22:
23: \vspace{2.5cm}
24:
25: {\Large {\bf Strong phases, asymmetries, and SU(3) symmetry
26: breaking in $D\to
27: K \pi$ decays}} \vspace*{1.0cm}\\
28: { Dao-Neng Gao$^\dagger$} \vspace*{0.3cm} \\
29: {\it\small Arnold Sommerfeld Center, Department f\"ur Physik,
30: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at M\"unchen, Theresienstr. 37,
31: D-80333, Munich, Germany} \\{\it\small and} \\{\it\small
32: Interdisciplinary Center for Theoretical Study and Department of
33: Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China,
34: Hefei, Anhui 230026 China}\vspace*{1cm}
35: \end{center}
36: \begin{abstract}
37: \noindent Motivated by some new experimental data, we carry out a
38: phenomenological analysis of $D\to K\pi$ decays including both
39: Cabibbo favored and doubly Cabibbo suppressed modes. Two
40: asymmetries, $R(D^0)$ and $R(D^+)$, which are generated through
41: interference between Cabbibo favored and doubly Cabibbo suppressed
42: $D\to K\pi$ transitions, are predicted. The relative strong phase,
43: $\delta_{K\pi}$, between $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ and $D^0\to K^+\pi^-$
44: decays, is estimated. The theoretical results agree well with the
45: current measurements.
46:
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49: \vfill \noindent
50:
51: $^{\dagger}$ Email address: ~gaodn@ustc.edu.cn
52: \end{titlepage}
53:
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56:
57: Non-leptonic $D\to K\pi$ decays and their strong phases have been
58: of great interest as they are essentially related to the studies
59: of CP violation, $D^0-\bar{D}^0$ mixing, and SU(3) symmetry
60: breaking effects in charm physics \cite{FNP99, GGR01, CR9902,
61: CR02, CLR03}. These decay modes contain both Cabibbo favored (CF)
62: and doubly Cabibbo suppressed (DCS) transitions, and the effective
63: Hamiltonian relevant for them is given by \beqn\label{Hamiltonian}
64: {\cal H}_{\rm eff}&=&\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{ud}V^*_{cs}
65: [C_1(\bar{s}_i c_i)_{V-A}(\bar{u}_j d_j)_{V-A}+C_2 (\bar{s}_i
66: c_j)_{V-A}(\bar{u}_j
67: d_i)_{V-A}]\right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+V_{us}V^*_{cd}[C_1(\bar{d}_i
68: c_i)_{V-A}(\bar{u}_j s_j)_{V-A}+C_2 (\bar{d}_i
69: c_j)_{V-A}(\bar{u}_j s_i)_{V-A}]\right\}\nonumber\\&&+{\rm H.c.},
70: \eeqn where $V-A$ denotes $\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)$. The first line
71: in eq. (\ref{Hamiltonian}) governs CF decays and the second line
72: DCS decays.
73:
74: Theoretically, factorization hypothesis has been widely utilized
75: in the hadronic $D$ decays. Many studies are based on the naive
76: factorization approach, which simply replaces the matrix elements
77: of a four-fermion operator in a heavy-quark decay by the product
78: of the matrix elements of two currents. This approach has long
79: been used in phenomenological applications, although there is an
80: obvious shortcoming that it cannot lead to the scale and scheme
81: independence for the final physical amplitude. Several years ago,
82: the authors of Ref. \cite{BBNS} have formed an interesting QCD
83: factorization formula for the two-body exclusive non-leptonic $B$
84: decays, in which the scale and scheme dependence of the hadronic
85: matrix elements is recovered, and the naive factorization can be
86: obtained as the lowest order approximation. The radiative
87: corrections in the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$, which are
88: dominated by hard gluon exchange, can be calculated systematically
89: using the perturbative QCD in the heavy quark limit. This means
90: the strong final-state interaction phases, which arise from the
91: hard-scattering kernel, are calculable from first principles.
92: Analogously, in the heavy charm quark limit, a similar
93: factorization formula for the matrix elements of the operators
94: $Q_i$'s in the effective weak Hamiltonian (\ref{Hamiltonian}) can
95: be written as \cite{BBNS} \beqn\label{FF}\langle P_1
96: P_2|Q_i|D\rangle =\sum_j F_j^{D\to P_1}(m_2^2)\int^1_0 du
97: T^I_{ij}(u)\phi_{P_2}(u)+(P_1\leftrightarrow P_2)\nonumber\\
98: +\int^1_0 d\xi du dv
99: T_i^{II}(\xi,u,v)\phi_D(\xi)\phi_{P_1}(v)\phi_{P_2}(u), \eeqn
100: where $F_j^{D\to P_{1,2}}(m_{1,2}^2)$ denotes a $D\to P_{1,2}$
101: form factor, $\phi_X(u)$ is the light-cone distribution amplitude
102: of meson $X$. $T^I_{ij}(\xi,u,v)$ and $T^{II}_i(\xi,u,v)$ are
103: hard-scattering functions, which are perturbatively calculable.
104: Then theoretical results for $D$ decays can be obtained
105: straightforwardly. Taking the CF decays $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$, $D^0\to
106: \bar{K}^0 \pi^0$, and $D^+\to \bar{K}^0\pi^+$ as examples, for the
107: leading power contribution, we get \beq{\cal B}(D^0\to
108: K^-\pi^+)=3.97\%,\;\; {\cal B}(D^0\to \bar{K}^0 \pi^0)=0.08\%,\;\;
109: {\cal B}(D^+\to \bar{K}^0\pi^+)=7.66\% \eeq at the scale $\mu=1.5$
110: GeV. (Here we have parameterized $\int^1_0 d\xi~ \phi_D(\xi)/\xi
111: \equiv m_D/\lambda_D$ and set $\lambda_D=0.3$ GeV in the numerical
112: calculations.) The corresponding experimental data from
113: \cite{PDG06} are
114: $$ {\cal B}(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)=(3.80\pm 0.07)\%,\;\; {\cal B}(D^0\to
115: \bar{K}^0 \pi^0)=(2.28\pm 0.24)\%,$$
116: $${\cal B}(D^+\to \bar{K}^0\pi^+)=(2.94\pm 0.12)\%.$$ It is seen
117: that, although the predicted branching ratio for the color-allowed
118: decay $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ is in qualitative agreement with the data,
119: the prediction for the color-suppressed decay $D^0\to \bar{K}^0
120: \pi^0$ is too small, and for the charged mode, the theoretical
121: ${\cal B}(D^+\to \bar{K}^0\pi^+)$ is too large. Similar conclusion
122: will be reached when applying the formula (\ref{FF}) to singly
123: Cabibbo-suppressed (SCS) and DCS decays. This seems to indicate
124: that the charm quark mass is not heavy enough to apply the QCD
125: factorization approach \cite{BBNS} or pQCD \cite{KLS} in $D$
126: decays very reliably. Therefore one generally appeals to the
127: phenomenological analysis of these processes.
128:
129: Experimentally, many new results in $D$ decays are expected soon
130: from the dedicated experiments conducted at CLEO, E791, FOCUS,
131: SELEX, and the $B$ factories BaBar and Belle. In particular, as
132: pointed out in \cite{BY95, BLMPS}, there are interesting
133: asymmetries due to interference between CF and DCS $D\to K\pi$
134: transitions, defined as \beq\label{asy0} R(D)\equiv \frac{{\cal
135: B}(D\to K_S \pi)-{\cal B}(D\to K_L \pi)}{{\cal B}(D\to K_S
136: \pi)+{\cal B}(D\to K_L \pi)},\eeq which have been observed by CLEO
137: Collaboration \cite{CLEO06} very recently,
138: \beq\label{asy1}R(D^0)=0.122\pm 0.024\pm 0.030, \;\;\;
139: R(D^+)=0.030\pm 0.023\pm0.025. \eeq Also a preliminary result on
140: the relative strong phase between $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ and $D^0\to
141: K^+\pi^-$, which is due to SU(3) symmetry breaking and important
142: in the search for $D^0-$ $\bar{D}^0$ mixing \cite{FNP99, Belle06},
143: has been reported by CLEO Collaboration as \beq\label{deltakpiexp}
144: \cos\delta_{ K\pi}=1.09\pm0.66~ \cite{Sun06},\eeq although with
145: very large uncertainty.
146:
147: Motivated by the new measurements mentioned above, we would like
148: to perform a phenomenological analysis of both CF and DCS $D\to
149: K\pi$ decays. As will be shown below, the present data cannot
150: allow us to determine all of the phenomenological parameters
151: appearing in decay amplitudes. Implementing the SU(3) symmetry may
152: constrain the amplitudes, thus largely reduce the number of
153: independent parameters. However, it is known that this symmetry is
154: not well respected in nature, even badly broken in some cases.
155: Therefore, as a conservative way to constrain these amplitudes, in
156: this paper we assume that SU(3) symmetry in $D\to K\pi$ decays is
157: {\it moderately} broken, namely, symmetry breaking effects in
158: decay amplitudes are dominated by decay constants $f_P$ and $D\to
159: P$ ($P=\pi,~K$) form factors, and other SU(3) symmetry breaking
160: sources can be neglected. This is not a general feature of SU(3)
161: symmetry breaking in charmed decays.
162:
163: \section{$D\to K\pi$ decay amplitudes}
164:
165: We begin by considering the $D\to K\pi$ decay amplitudes in terms
166: of the quark-diagram topologies ${\cal T}$ (color-allowed), ${\cal
167: C}$ (color-suppressed), ${\cal E}$ ($W$-exchange), and ${\cal A}$
168: ($W$-annihilation) \cite{CC86}, which are given by
169: \beqn\label{topoamplitude1} A(D^0\to
170: K^-\pi^+)=i\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ud}V^*_{cs}({\cal T}+{\cal
171: E}),\\
172: \sqrt{2} A(D^0\to \bar{K}^0
173: \pi^0)=i\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ud}V^*_{cs}({\cal
174: C}-{\cal E}),\\
175: A(D^+\to \bar{K}^0\pi^+)=i\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ud}V^*_{cs}({\cal
176: T}+{\cal C}),\\
177: A(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)=i\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}V_{cd}^*({\cal
178: T}^\prime+{\cal E}^\prime),\\
179: \sqrt{2}A(D^0\to K^0
180: \pi^0)=i\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}V_{cd}^*({\cal C}^\prime-{\cal
181: E}^{\prime}),\\
182: A(D^+\to K^0\pi^+)=i\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}V_{cd}^*({\cal
183: C}^{\prime}+{\cal A}^\prime),\\
184: \label{topoamplitude7}\sqrt{2}A(D^+\to
185: K^+\pi^0)=i\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}V_{cd}^*({\cal
186: T}^\prime-{\cal A}^\prime),\eeqn and two isospin relations
187: \beq\label{isocf} A(D^0\to K^- \pi^+)+\sqrt{2} A(D^0\to \bar{K}^0
188: \pi^0=A(D^+\to \bar{K}^0\pi^+),\eeq \beq\label{isodcs} A(D^0\to
189: K^+\pi^-)+\sqrt{2} A(D^0\to K^0\pi^0)=A(D^+\to K^0 \pi^+)+\sqrt{2}
190: A(D^+\to K^+\pi^0)\eeq are satisfied explicitly. For our
191: notations, we have extracted the CKM matrix elements and factor
192: $G_F/\sqrt{2}$ from the quark-diagram amplitudes, and the prime is
193: added to DCS amplitudes.
194:
195: The present experimental status of $D\to K\pi$ decays is not very
196: satisfying. Branching ratios of three CF modes and ${\cal
197: B}(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)$ have been reported by Particle data group
198: \cite{PDG06}, however, there are no measurements for ${\cal
199: B}(D^0\to K^0\pi^0)$ and ${\cal B}(D^+\to K^0 \pi^+)$ yet. Only an
200: upper bound on ${\cal B}(D^+\to K^+\pi^0)<4.2\times 10^{-4}$
201: (CL=90\%) is shown in \cite{PDG06}; while, very recently, BaBar
202: Collaboration and CLEO Collaboration have given \beqn\label{Babar}
203: {\cal B}(D^+\to K^+\pi^0)=(2.52\pm
204: 0.47\pm 0.25\pm 0.08)\times 10^{-4} ~~\cite{BABAR06},\nonumber\\
205: \\\nonumber
206: {\cal B}(D^+\to K^+\pi^0)=(2.25\pm 0.36\pm0.15\pm0.07)\times
207: 10^{-4} ~~\cite{CLEO0607},\eeqn respectively. In general the
208: quark-diagram amplitudes in (\ref{topoamplitude1}) --
209: (\ref{topoamplitude7}) could have non-trivial strong phases.
210: Therefore, only using the available experimental data, it is
211: impossible to determine these amplitudes without any theoretical
212: assumptions.
213:
214: On the other hand, with the help of the factorization hypothesis,
215: ${\cal T}$, ${\cal T}^\prime$, ${\cal C}$, and ${\cal C}^\prime$
216: can be expressed
217: as \beqn\label{factorization1}{\cal T}=f_\pi(m_D^2-m_K^2) F^{D\to
218: K}_0(m_\pi^2) a_1^{\rm eff},\nonumber\\ {\cal C}=f_K(m_D^2-m_\pi^2)
219: F^{D\to\pi}_0(m_K^2) a_2^{\rm eff},\nonumber\\
220: {\cal T}^\prime=f_K(m_D^2-m_\pi^2) F^{D\to \pi}_0(m_K^2) a_1^{\rm
221: eff},\nonumber\\{\cal C}^\prime=f_K(m_D^2-m_\pi^2)
222: F^{D\to\pi}_0(m_K^2) a_2^{\rm eff},
223: \eeqn
224: where $a_i^{\rm eff}$'s are regarded as the effective Wilson
225: coefficients fixed from the data (in the naive factorization,
226: $a_{1,2}=C_{1,2}+C_{2,1}/N_c$). Generally in the factorization
227: approach $a_i^{\rm eff}$'s in DCS amplitudes could be different
228: from the ones in CF amplitudes due to SU(3) symmetry breaking
229: effects. Here we do not distinguish them because, as stated above,
230: we assume that the SU(3) symmetry breaking effects in $D\to K \pi$
231: modes have been mostly captured by the decays constants ($f_\pi$
232: and $f_K$) and form factors ($F^{D\to \pi, K}_0(q^2)$) in the
233: amplitudes.
234:
235: \begin{figure}[t]
236: \begin{center}
237: \includegraphics[width=14cm,height=3.0cm]{fig1.eps}
238: \end{center}
239: \caption{Weak annihilation diagrams ($W$-exchange or
240: $W$-annihilation) via gluon emission. The solid square denotes the
241: weak vertex.}
242: \end{figure}
243:
244: A similar analysis of $W$-exchange and $W$-annihilation amplitudes
245: leads to \beqn\label{factorization2}{\cal E}=f_D(m_K^2-m_\pi^2)
246: F_0^{0\to
247: K\pi}(m_D^2) a_2^{\rm eff},\nonumber\\
248: {\cal E}^\prime=f_D(m_\pi^2-m_K^2) F_0^{0\to K\pi}(m_D^2)
249: a_2^{\rm eff},\nonumber\\
250: {\cal A}^\prime=f_D(m_\pi^2-m_K^2) F_0^{0\to K\pi}(m_D^2) a_1^{\rm
251: eff}.\eeqn This will give ${\cal E}=-{\cal E}^\prime$. However,
252: the annihilation form factor $F^{0\to K\pi}_0(m_D^2)$ is expected
253: to be strongly suppressed due to the large $q^2=m_D^2$
254: \cite{LB79}, therefore contributions from eq.
255: (\ref{factorization2}) are believed to be negligible. For $B$
256: mesons, the weak annihilation amplitudes ($W$-exchange or
257: $W$-annihilation) induced by the topologies of gluon emission
258: arising from the quarks of the weak vertex, as shown in Fig. 1,
259: have been analyzed in \cite{BBNS01}, which is thought to be
260: numerically important in $B$ decays. The similar study on $D$
261: mesons have been done in \cite{CZ82,LY05}, and it has been shown
262: that these contributions could also play important roles in $D$
263: decays. The $O(\alpha_s)$ contribution can be read directly from
264: Refs. \cite{BBNS01, LY05}, \beq\label{annihilation1} {\cal E}=f_D
265: f_K f_\pi\frac{C_F}{N_C^2}\pi \alpha_s
266: C_1\left[18\left(X_A-4+\frac{\pi^2}{3}\right)+2 r_\chi^\pi
267: r_\chi^K X_A^2\right], \;\;\;\;\; {\cal E}^\prime={\cal E},\eeq
268: and \beq\label{annihilation2} {\cal A}^\prime=f_D f_K
269: f_\pi\frac{C_F}{N_C^2}\pi \alpha_s
270: C_2\left[18\left(X_A-4+\frac{\pi^2}{3}\right)+2 r_\chi^\pi
271: r_\chi^K X_A^2\right].\eeq
272: where $X_A=\int^1_0 dy/y$ has been
273: used to parameterize the logarithmically divergent integrals due
274: to the end-point singularity, and $C_1$, $C_2$ are the Wilson
275: coefficients in (\ref{Hamiltonian}). Note that the asymptotic form
276: of the light-cone distribution amplitudes for light mesons have
277: been used in the derivation of eq. (\ref{annihilation1}). This is
278: consistent with the assumption on SU(3) symmetry breaking used in
279: deriving eq. (\ref{factorization1}).
280:
281: Meanwhile, comparing eq. (\ref{annihilation2}) with eq.
282: (\ref{annihilation1}), one can get an additional constraint
283: \beq\label{annihilation3} {\cal A}^\prime=\frac{C_2}{C_1}{\cal
284: E}^\prime.\eeq We would like to give some remarks here.
285:
286: \begin{itemize}
287:
288: \item By combining eq. (\ref{annihilation3}) with eqs.
289: (\ref{annihilation1}) and (\ref{factorization1}), we will reduce
290: independent complex phenomenological parameters appearing in decay
291: amplitudes as $a_1^{\rm eff}$, $a_2^{\rm eff}$, and ${\cal E}$.
292: Since only five branching ratios of $D\to K\pi$ decays are
293: measured up to now, this means that including the additional
294: constraint (\ref{annihilation3}) is important to enable us to
295: determine the $D\to K\pi$ amplitudes from the present data. From
296: \cite{BBL}, $C_1$ and $C_2$ have opposite signs, therefore
297: weak-exchange ${\cal E}$ and weak-annihilation ${\cal A}$
298: amplitudes have opposite signs, consistent with the observations
299: in \cite{cheng03}. Also $|C_2|<|C_1|$ \cite{BBL}, we have $|{\cal
300: E}^\prime|>|{\cal A}^\prime|$; while the contrary conclusion will
301: be obtained if we use eq. (\ref{factorization2}).
302:
303: \item Strictly speaking, we have to admit that eq.
304: (\ref{annihilation3}) is not very physical since $C_1$ and $C_2$
305: are both scale and scheme dependent \cite{BBL}. The scale and
306: scheme dependence of $C_2/C_1$ has been shown in Table 1, from
307: which it is found that $C_2/C_1$ is about $-0.5\sim -0.3$ for
308: $\mu$ around $1.0 \sim 1.5$ GeV (Note that the scale in this range
309: is relevant for $D$ decays). Therefore, we will treat in the
310: following numerical calculations $C_2/C_1$ as a negative parameter
311: instead of a ratio of two Wilson coefficients.
312:
313: \item The weak-annihilation contribution is power suppressed in
314: the heavy quark limit. The divergent integral $X_A$ appearing in
315: (\ref{annihilation1}) and (\ref{annihilation2}) signals that
316: factorization breaks down actually. In the present analysis we
317: therefore use relations ${\cal E}={\cal E}^\prime$ and
318: (\ref{annihilation3}) for these three weak-annihilation amplitudes
319: instead of their explicit expressions shown above. Although they
320: are not model independent relations, one will find that
321: phenomenologically they work very well in $D\to K\pi$ decays.
322:
323: \end{itemize}
324:
325: \begin{table}[t]\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{c| c c c}\hline\hline &&&\\
326: & $\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{\rm MS}}=215 ~{\rm
327: MeV}$&$\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{\rm MS}}=325 ~{\rm MeV}$&
328: $\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{\rm MS}}=435 ~{\rm MeV}$\\\\\hline\\
329: $\mu$ [GeV]& NDR ~~~~ HV & NDR ~~~~ HV & NDR ~~~~ HV
330: \\\\ 1.0 & -0.339 ~~ -0.390 & -0.400 ~~ -0.464 & -0.464 ~~ -0.548
331: \\1.5& -0.277 ~~ -0.319 & -0.318 ~~ -0.369& -0.357 ~~ -0.419 \\
332: 2.0 & -0.240 ~~ -0.278 & -0.271 ~~ -0.316 & -0.301 ~~ -0.353\\
333: \hline\hline
334: \end{tabular}\caption{The scale and scheme dependence of $C_2/C_1$ at the next-to-leading order.
335: The values of $C_1$ and $C_2$ are taken directly from
336: \cite{BBL}.}\end{center}\end{table}
337:
338: \section{Phenomenological analysis}
339:
340: From now on we study some possible phenomenological applications
341: based on the above theoretical assumptions.
342:
343: First, the use of eqs. (\ref{factorization1}) and
344: (\ref{annihilation1}) gives ${\cal C}={\cal C}^\prime$ and ${\cal
345: E}={\cal E}^\prime$, hence we have \beq \label{16}{A(D^0\to {K}^0
346: \pi^0)}=\frac{V_{us}V_{cd}^*}{V_{ud} V_{cs}^*} A(D^0\to \bar{K}^0
347: \pi^0)=-\tan^2\theta_C A(D^0\to \bar{K}^0 \pi^0),\eeq which
348: implies that the relative strong phase between these two
349: amplitudes vanishes. Here $\theta_C$ is the Cabibbo angle.
350: Consequently, one gets \beq \label{rd0} R(D^0)=\frac{2
351: \tan^2\theta_C}{1+\tan^4 \theta_C}\simeq 2 \tan^2\theta_C. \eeq
352: Using $\tan\theta_C\simeq 0.23$, $R(D^0)\simeq 0.106$, which is in
353: agreement with the measurement in eq. (\ref{asy1}). The same
354: result has been obtained in Refs. \cite{BY95, JR06}. However, one
355: cannot expect the similar result as (\ref{rd0}) for $R(D^+)$ since
356: there is no similar relation as (\ref{16}) between $A(D^+ \to
357: \bar{K}^0 \pi^+)$ and $A(D^+\to K^0 \pi^+)$, even in the SU(3)
358: symmetry limit. We will discuss this issue later.
359:
360: Second, using the constraint (\ref{annihilation3}) together with
361: (\ref{annihilation2}) and (\ref{factorization1}), one can obtain
362: an interesting relation among the amplitudes of $D^0\to K^\pm
363: \pi^\mp$ and $D^+\to K^+\pi^0$ decays, which is
364: \beq\label{sumrules}\tan^2\theta_C A(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)+ \kappa
365: A(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)=\sqrt{2}\zeta A(D^+\to K^+\pi^0),\eeq where
366: \beqn\label{kappa} \kappa\equiv\frac{1+C_{2}/C_1~
367: x~f_{\pi}/f_{K}}{1+C_{2}/C_1},\;\;\;\zeta\equiv\frac{1-x~
368: f_{\pi}/f_ K}{1+C_{2}/C_1}\nonumber \eeqn with \beqn\label{xx}
369: x\equiv\frac{(m_D^2-m_K^2) F_0^{D\to
370: K}(m_\pi^2)}{(m_D^2-m_\pi^2)F_0^{D\to \pi}(m_K^2)}. \eeqn Thus
371: the relative strong phase $\delta_{K\pi}$ between $A(D^0\to
372: K^+\pi^-)$ and $A(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)$ is given by
373: \beqn\label{deltakpi} \cos\delta_{K\pi}=\frac{\tan^4\theta_C {\cal
374: B}(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)+ \kappa^2 {\cal B}(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)-2
375: \zeta^2\frac{\tau(D^0)}{\tau(D^+)}{\cal B}(D^+\to K^+\pi^0)}{2
376: \tan^2\theta_C \kappa\sqrt{{\cal B}(D^0\to K^-\pi^+) {\cal
377: B}(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)}},\eeqn where $\tau(D)$ is the life time of
378: $D$. Obviously, in the SU(3) symmetry limit, $\kappa=x=1$,
379: $\zeta=0$, eq. (\ref{sumrules}) will be $A(D^0\to
380: K^+\pi^-)=-\tan^2\theta_C A(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)$, and $\delta_{K\pi}$
381: vanishes. Note that the relation (\ref{sumrules}) does not depend
382: on the color-suppressed amplitudes ${\cal C}$ and ${\cal
383: C}^\prime$ because these amplitudes have nothing to do with the
384: above three decay modes.
385:
386: In order to go further into the analysis, we need to have
387: information about the form factors $F_0^{D\to P}(q^2)$. For their
388: $q^2$ dependence, we adopt the Bauer-Stech-Wirbel model
389: \cite{BSW}, in which the form factors are assumed to behave as a
390: monopole, \beq\label{pole}F_0^{D\to P}(q^2)=\frac{F_0^{D\to
391: P}(0)}{1-q^2/m_*^2},\eeq where $m_*$ is the pole mass with
392: $m_*=2.47$ GeV for $P=\pi$ and $m_*=2.60$ GeV for $P=K$.
393: $F_0^{D\to P}(0)$ can be obtained via $F_0^{D\to P}(0)=F_+^{D\to
394: P}(0)$, since the latter can be measured in semi-leptonic $D^0\to
395: \pi^- \ell^+ \nu$ and $D^0\to K^-\ell^+\nu$ decays. The new
396: experimental values from the Belle Collaboration \cite{Belle0604}
397: give \beqn F_+^{D\to K}(0)=0.695\pm 0.023,~ F_+^{D\to
398: \pi}(0)=0.624\pm 0.036,\nonumber\eeqn\beqn\label{ratioformfactor}
399: F_+^{D\to \pi}(0)/F_+^{D\to
400: K}(0)=0.898\pm 0.045,\eeqn which are consistent with very recent
401: results from lattice calculation \cite{lattice} and from the QCD
402: sum rules calculation \cite{Ball06}. In practice, only the ratio
403: of these two form factors in (\ref{ratioformfactor}) is needed for
404: our numerical calculations. By applying it to eq. (\ref{xx}), we
405: get \beq\label{xx2}x=1.002\pm 0.050, \eeq which is very close to
406: its value in the SU(3) symmetry limit [the error in (\ref{xx2}) is
407: due to the uncertainty of $F_+^{D\to \pi}(0)/F_+^{D\to K}(0)$
408: only]. Although this may be just a numerical coincidence, it seems
409: that SU(3) symmetry breaking effects are dominated by decay
410: constants ($f_\pi$ and $f_K$).
411:
412: \begin{table}[t]\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{ c|c c c c c}
413: \hline\hline\\ $C_2/C_1$ &$-0.2$&$-0.3$&$-0.4$&$-0.5$&$-0.6$ \\\\
414: \hline \\$\cos\delta_{K\pi}$ & 0.979$\pm$0.018 &
415: 0.975$\pm 0.021$& 0.969$\pm$0.025 & 0.960$\pm$0.032 & 0.946$\pm0.043$\\
416: $\delta_{K\pi}$ &
417: 11.7$^\circ\pm 4.9^\circ$& 12.9$^\circ\pm5.3^\circ$ &
418: 14.3$^\circ\pm5.8^\circ$ & 16.2$^\circ\pm6.6^\circ$&18.9$^\circ\pm 7.7^\circ$ \\\hline\\
419: $\cos\delta_{K\pi}$ &0.983$\pm$0.015 & 0.980$\pm$0.017 &
420: 0.976$\pm$0.021 & 0.970$\pm$0.026 & 0.960$\pm$0.034
421: \\ $\delta_{K\pi}$& 10.5$^\circ\pm4.6^\circ$ & 11.4$^\circ\pm4.9^\circ$ &
422: 12.6$^\circ\pm5.5^\circ$ & 14.1$^\circ\pm6.1^\circ$&
423: 16.2$^\circ\pm6.9^\circ$
424: \\\hline\hline\end{tabular}\caption{The relative strong phase
425: between $D^0\to K^+\pi^-$ and $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ predicted by eq.
426: (\ref{deltakpi}) for different values of $C_2/C_1$. ${\cal
427: B}(D^+\to K^+\pi^0)$ by BaBar \cite{BABAR06} is used for the
428: results in the second line; ${\cal B}(D^+\to K^+\pi^0)$ by CLEO
429: \cite{CLEO0607} is used for the results in the third line. The
430: sign of $\delta_{K\pi}$ could also be minus.
431: }\end{center}\end{table}
432:
433: The numerical predictions of $\delta_{K\pi}$ for different values
434: of $C_2/C_1$ are displayed in Table 2. As mentioned above,
435: $C_2/C_1$ is regarded as a varying parameter. ${\cal B}(D^0\to
436: K^-\pi^+)$ and ${\cal B}(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)$ are taken from
437: \cite{PDG06}. Since Particle data group has not given the average
438: for ${\cal B}(D^+\to K^+\pi^0)$ yet, both of the measurements
439: listed in eq. (\ref{Babar}) have been used, and the results are
440: shown in the second and third lines of Table 2, respectively. The
441: error is due to the uncertainty of $x$ in eq. (\ref{xx2}) and the
442: uncertainties of experimental branching ratios mentioned above, in
443: which the contribution from ${\cal B}(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)$ and ${\cal
444: B}(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)$ is actually very small and can be neglected.
445: From Table 1, for the relevant scale of $D$ decays, i.e. $\mu$ in
446: the range of 1.0 $\sim$1.5 GeV, $C_2/C_1$ is about $-0.5\sim
447: -0.3$. Therefore, a not large but nonzero $\delta_{K\pi}$, whose
448: magnitude is $10^\circ$ or above, i.e. $\sin\delta\sim \pm 0.2$,
449: might be expected from the present analysis. The authors of Ref.
450: \cite{FNP99}, by assuming the existence of nearby resonances for
451: the $D$ meson, have obtained $\sin\delta_{K\pi}=\pm0.31$, namely,
452: $\cos\delta_{K\pi}=0.951$ and $\delta_{K\pi}$ is about
453: $\pm18^\circ$. The other existing hadronic models which
454: incorporate SU(3) symmetry breaking effects seem to prefer a small
455: value of this phase, $\sin\delta\leq 0.2$, with most models giving
456: $\sin\delta\leq 0.1$ \cite{CC94,BP96} (see Table I in Ref.
457: \cite{BP96} for details). Unfortunately, the current measurement
458: of $\delta_{K\pi}$ is very rough \cite{Sun06}, as shown in eq.
459: (\ref{deltakpiexp}). Employing the asymmetry $R(D)$ measurements
460: with some theoretical assumptions, another experimental result
461: $\delta_{K\pi}\approx (3\pm 6\pm 7)^\circ$ with relative small
462: uncertainty is induced in Ref. \cite{CLEO06}. Both of them are
463: still consistent with zero.
464:
465: Finally, we estimate $D\to K\pi$ decay amplitudes from the
466: currently available data. The three independent complex
467: phenomenological parameters are chosen as ${\cal T}$, ${\cal C}$,
468: and ${\cal E}$, not as $a_1^{\rm eff}$, $a_2^{\rm eff}$, and
469: ${\cal E}$, because we will only use the ratio of the form factors
470: [in eq(\ref{ratioformfactor})] instead of their absolute values in
471: the analysis. Without loss of generality, ${\cal T}$ is set to be
472: real. $\delta_C$ ($\delta_E$) is the relative strong phase of
473: ${\cal C}$ (${\cal E}$) to ${\cal T}$. Here we take ${\cal
474: B}(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)$, ${\cal B}(D^0\to \bar{K}^0\pi^0)$, ${\cal
475: B}(D^+\to \bar{K}^0\pi^+)$, and ${\cal B}(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)$ given
476: by Particle data group \cite{PDG06}, together with ${\cal
477: B}(D^+\to K^+\pi^0)$ by BaBar Collaboration \cite{BABAR06} to
478: illustrate our numerical calculation. The results of ${\cal T}$,
479: ${\cal C}$, ${\cal E}$, and $|a_2^{\rm eff}/a_1^{\rm eff}|$ are
480: summarized in Table 3, and other amplitudes ${\cal T}^\prime$,
481: ${\cal C}^\prime$, ${\cal E}^\prime$, and ${\cal A}^\prime$ can be
482: easily derived using eqs. (\ref{factorization1}),
483: (\ref{annihilation1}) and (\ref{annihilation3}). Several
484: observations and remarks are given as follows.
485:
486: \begin{itemize}
487:
488: \item The color-suppressed amplitude has a phase $\sim 160^\circ$
489: relative to the color-allowed amplitude ${\cal T}$, and $|{\cal
490: C}|$ is effectively enhanced. This means that there could exist
491: the strongly destructive interference between ${\cal T}$ and
492: ${\cal C}$. We get $a_2^{\rm eff}/a_1^{\rm eff}\simeq 0.56 e^{\pm
493: i 160^\circ}$, which is insensitive to the value of $C_2/C_1$.
494: $a_2^{\rm eff}/a_1^{\rm eff}=0.62 e^{-i 152^\circ}$ is obtained in
495: \cite{cheng03}.
496:
497: \item The ${\cal E}$ amplitude has a relative phase $\sim
498: 130^\circ$ to ${\cal T}$, $\sim 70^\circ$ to ${\cal C}$. Its
499: magnitude is relatively large, and $|{\cal E}|>|{\cal C}|$. This
500: is contrary to the results in Ref. \cite{cheng03, CR9902}. As
501: pointed out in \cite{BBNS01}, in general, the weak annihilation
502: parameter $X_A$ in eq. (\ref{annihilation2}) should be of order
503: $\ln(m_D/\Lambda$) and $\Lambda$ is a soft scale. By taking
504: $\alpha_s\approx 0.5$, $C_1\approx 1.2$, and ${\cal E}=0.325
505: e^{\pm i 131^\circ}$ for $C_2/C_1=-0.3$, we can roughly estimate
506: $X_A=4.09 e^{\pm i 122^\circ}$ or $3.66 e^{\pm i 71^\circ}$, which
507: indicates $|X_A|\sim 2 \ln(m_D/\Lambda)$ with $\Lambda\simeq 0.3$
508: GeV. $|X_A|=3.84$ has been obtained in \cite{LY05}.
509:
510: \item Some of our results are not in agreement with the ones in
511: Refs. \cite{cheng03, CR9902}, since we do not work in the SU(3)
512: symmetry limit, and we mainly concentrate on $D\to K\pi$ decay
513: modes in this paper.
514:
515: \end{itemize}
516:
517: \begin{table}[t]\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
518: \hline\hline\\ $C_2/C_1$~~&~~${\cal T}$ [GeV$^3$]~&~${\cal C}$
519: [GeV$^3$]~&~${\cal E}$ [GeV$^3$]~&~
520: $|a_2^{\rm eff}/a_1^{\rm eff}|$\\
521: \\$-0.3$~~&~~0.417~&~0.289 $e^{\pm i 160^\circ}$~&~0.325 $e^{\mp i 131^\circ}$~&~0.568 \\\\
522: $-0.4$~~&~~0.445~&~0.306 $e^{\pm i 163^\circ}$~&~0.368 $e^{\mp i
523: 135^\circ}$~&~0.563 \\\\
524: $-0.5$~~&~~0.485~&~0.334 $e^{\pm i 167^\circ}$~&~0.425 $e^{\mp i
525: 139^\circ}$~&~0.564
526: \\\hline\hline\end{tabular}\caption{Numerical results of quark-diagram amplitudes
527: ${\cal T}$, ${\cal C}$, ${\cal E}$, and of $|a_2^{\rm
528: eff}/a_1^{\rm eff}|$ estimated by using the present data with
529: different $C_2/C_1$. Only the central values of the magnitude and
530: the phase are quoted.}\end{center}\end{table}
531:
532: We return to discuss the asymmetry $R(D^+)$. As pointed out
533: before, the charged case is not as simple as the neutral case.
534: Because of \beq\label{rr1}\frac{A(D^+\to K^0 \pi^+)}{A(D^+\to
535: \bar{K}^0 \pi^+)}=-\tan^2\theta_C \frac{{\cal C}^\prime+{\cal
536: A}^\prime}{{\cal C}+{\cal T}}=-\tan^2\theta_C\frac{{\cal
537: C}+C_2/C_1 {\cal E}}{{\cal C}+{\cal T}}, \eeq one cannot simplify
538: it as a similar analytic relation (\ref{16}) for neutral modes
539: under ${\cal C}={\cal C}^\prime$ and ${\cal E}={\cal E}^\prime$,
540: even if including the additional constraint (\ref{annihilation3})
541: already. However, using the values of amplitudes listed in Table
542: 3, numerically, we will get
543: \beqn\label{rr2} \frac{A(D^+\to K^0
544: \pi^+)}{A(D^+\to \bar{K}^0
545: \pi^+)}=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}-\tan^2\theta_C~1.538
546: e^{\pm i 106^\circ}, & C_2/C_1=-0.3,\\\\
547: -\tan^2\theta_C~1.532 e^{\pm i 105^\circ}, & C_2/C_1=-0.4,\\\\
548: -\tan^2\theta_C~1.521 e^{\pm i 103^\circ}, & C_2/C_1=-0.5,
549: \end{array}\right. \eeqn
550: which lead to \beqn\label{rdplus}
551: R(D^+)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}0.044, & C_2/C_1=-0.3,\\\\0.040,&
552: C_2/C_1=-0.4,\\\\0.035,& C_2/C_1=-0.5.\end{array} \right.\eeqn
553: The present observed value by CLEO Collaboration \cite{CLEO06}
554: is $R(D^+)=0.030\pm 0.023\pm 0.025$. Also, the suppression
555: of $R(D^+)$ comparing with $R(D^0)$ can be understood. From the
556: definition of $R(D)$ in eq. (\ref{asy0}), one will find it is
557: proportional to $2 \tan^2\theta_C \cos\delta$, and $\delta$ is the
558: relative strong phase between the corresponding DCS amplitude and
559: the CF amplitude. Now it is found that, $\delta$ vanishes in the
560: $D^0$ case, as shown in eq. (\ref{16}); while $\delta$ is about
561: $100^\circ$ in the $D^+$ case [see eq. (\ref{rr2})]. Therefore
562: $R(D^+)$ is suppressed by small $\cos\delta$.
563:
564: Furthermore, we discuss the possible generalization to the
565: analysis of SCS $D\to \pi\pi, ~KK$ decays. Consider the ratio
566: \beq\label{R10}R_1=2\left|\frac{V_{cs}}{V_{cd}}\right|^2
567: \frac{\Gamma(D^+\to\pi^0\pi^+)}{\Gamma(D^+\to
568: \bar{K}^0\pi^+)}.\eeq The recent measurement gives $R_1=1.54\pm
569: 0.27$ \cite{BABAR06,PDG06} and $R_1$ should be unity in the SU(3)
570: symmetry limit. Note that these two modes have only ${\cal T}$ and
571: ${\cal C}$ amplitudes. From our analysis, one can get
572: \beq\label{R11}
573: R_1=1.073\left|\frac{F^{D\to\pi}_0(m_\pi^2)}{F^{D\to\pi}_0(m_K^2)}\right|^2\times\left|\frac{1+a_2^{\rm
574: eff}/a_1^{\rm eff}}{1/x+(f_K/f_\pi) a_2^{\rm eff}/a_1^{\rm
575: eff}}\right|^2, \eeq where the factor 1.073 is from the
576: phase-space differences for the $\pi\pi$ and $K\pi$ final states.
577: Taking $a_2^{\rm eff}/a_1^{\rm eff}\simeq 0.56 e^{\pm i
578: 160^\circ}$ from Table 3, we obtain $R_1\simeq1.44$, in accord
579: with the recent measurement. Likewise, the ratio \beq\label{R2}
580: R_2=\frac{\Gamma(D^0\to K^+K^-)}{\Gamma(D^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)}\simeq
581: 1.50 \eeq can also be estimated using Table 3. Unfortunately, this
582: result is far from the experimental value $\Gamma(D^0\to
583: K^+K^-)/\Gamma(D^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)=2.82\pm 0.10$ \cite{PDG06},
584: implying that SU(3) symmetry breaking is still not fully accounted
585: for. Since now there exist weak-annihilation contributions, in
586: deriving eq. (\ref{R2}), we have assumed ${\cal
587: E}_{K^+K^-}=f_K/f_\pi {\cal E}$ and ${\cal E}_{\pi\pi}=f_\pi/f_K
588: {\cal E}$. This is actually not true because, under this
589: assumption, the amplitude for the pure weak-annihilation $D^0\to
590: K^0\bar{K}^0$ decay will vanish, whereas ${\cal B}(D^0\to
591: K^0\bar{K}^0)=(7.4\pm 1.4)\times 10^{-4}$ experimentally
592: \cite{PDG06}. Therefore the failure of reproducing the
593: experimental value in eq. (\ref{R2}) may be unavoidable in the
594: present framework. In the case of $R_1$, the weak-annihilation
595: contribution is fortunately absent. This implies that the above
596: relations for ${\cal E}_{K^+K^-}$ and ${\cal E}_{\pi\pi}$ need
597: some corrections, and the weak-annihilation amplitudes should be
598: carefully investigated when one would like to generalize the
599: present work to the case of the SCS $D\to \pi\pi, ~K K$ decays
600: including the pure weak-annihilation mode $D^0\to K^0\bar{K}^0$.
601:
602:
603: \section{Summary}
604:
605: We have presented a phenomenological analysis of $D\to K\pi$
606: decays including both CF and DCS modes. In order to determine all
607: decay amplitudes for these processes using the present data, a
608: moderate SU(3) symmetry breaking formalism has been assumed. Our
609: analysis indicates this assumption works well in $D\to K\pi$
610: decays. The color-suppressed amplitude is enhanced, and it has a
611: phase $\sim 160^\circ$ relative to the color-allowed amplitude. A
612: large weak annihilation amplitude is obtained. Both of the
613: asymmetries $R(D^0)$ and $R(D^+)$ have been predicted, which are
614: in good agreement with the experimental data. Our analysis also
615: shows that a not large but nonzero $\delta_{K\pi}$, which is about
616: $10^\circ$ or above, might be expected. This means that there is
617: no good reason to take $\sin\delta_{K\pi}=0$ in the experimental
618: analysis of $D^0\to K^\pm\pi^\mp$ decays. A precise measurement of
619: $\delta_{K\pi}$ will be welcome both theoretically and
620: experimentally.
621:
622: We would like to point out that, the relation
623: (\ref{annihilation3}) between ${\cal E}^\prime$ and ${\cal
624: A}^\prime$ amplitudes, which is important to enable us to
625: calculate $\delta_{K\pi}$ and estimate the $D\to K\pi$ amplitudes
626: in this analysis, is a model dependent assumption. Further tests
627: for this relation will be very useful. But such tests cannot be
628: performed at present because of the lack of suitable data. On the
629: other hand, a similar relation between $W$-exchange and
630: $W$-annihilation amplitudes could occur in SCS $D^0\to K^+K^-$ and
631: $D^+\to K^+\bar{K}^0$ decays, which might provide an interesting
632: test. As mentioned above, the present analysis however cannot be
633: generalized to SCS decays straightforwardly when these transitions
634: receive contributions from the weak-annihilation amplitudes.
635: Therefore it would be useful to extend the present framework
636: assuming (\ref{annihilation3}) to include also SCS decays $D\to
637: \pi\pi, KK$.
638: Since here our main analysis concerns $D\to K\pi$
639: decays, a further discussion of these issues will be left for
640: future work.
641:
642: Very recently, the similar study for $R(D^0)$ has been obtained in
643: Ref. \cite{JR06}. Since in our framework, we can employ the
644: currently available data to determine all quark-diagram amplitudes
645: ${\cal T} ({\cal T}^\prime)$, ${\cal C}({\cal C}^\prime)$, ${\cal
646: E}({\cal E}^\prime)$, and ${\cal A}({\cal A}^\prime)$ including
647: their relative strong phases, $R(D^+)$ and $\delta_{K\pi}$ are
648: also estimated.
649:
650: \section*{Acknowledgements}
651: The author is indebted to Gerhard Buchalla for reading the
652: manuscript and many stimulating discussions and comments. This
653: work is supported in part by the Alexander von Humboldt
654: Foundation.
655:
656: \begin{thebibliography}{40}
657: \bibitem{FNP99}A.F. Falk, Y. Nir, and A.A. Petrov, J. High Energy Phys. {\bf 9912}
658: (1999) 019.
659: \bibitem{GGR01}M. Gronau, Y. Grossman, and J.L. Rosner,
660: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 508} (2001) 37.
661: \bibitem{CR9902}J.R. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60} (1999) 114026.
662: \bibitem{CR02}M. Gronau and J.L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 500} (2001) 247;
663: C.W. Chiang and J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65} (2002) 054007.
664: \bibitem{CLR03}C.W. Chiang, Z. Luo, and J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D
665: {\bf 67} (2003) 014001.
666: \bibitem{BBNS}M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C.T. Sachrajda,
667: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} (1999) 1914; Nucl. Phys. {\bf B591}
668: (2000) 313.
669: \bibitem{PDG06}W.M. Yao {\it et al.}, Particle data group,
670: J.Phys. G {\bf 33} (2006) 1.
671: \bibitem{KLS}Y.Y. Keum, H.-n. Li, and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 504} (2001) 6;
672: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63} (2001) 054008; Y.Y. Keum and H.-n. Li, Phys.
673: Rev. D {\bf 63} (2001) 074006.
674: \bibitem{BY95}I.I. Bigi and H. Yamamoto, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 349}
675: (1995) 363.
676: \bibitem{BLMPS}F. Buccella, M. Lusignoli, G. Miele, A. Pugliese,
677: Z. Phys. C {\bf 55} (1992) 243; F. Buccella, M. Lusignoli, G.
678: Miele, A. Pugliese, and P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51}
679: (1995) 3478.
680: \bibitem{CLEO06}Q. He {\it et al.}, CLEO Collaboration,
681: hep-ex/0607068.
682: \bibitem{Belle06}L.M. Zhang {\it et al.}, Belle Collaboration,
683: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96} (2006) 151801; A.J. Schwartz,
684: hep-ex/0605032.
685: \bibitem{Sun06}W.M. Sun, for the CLEO Collaboration,
686: hep-ex/0603031; D. Asner {et al.}, CLEO Collaboration,
687: hep-ex/0607078.
688: \bibitem{CC86}L.L. Chau and H.Y. Cheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}
689: (1986) 1655; Phys. Rev. D {\bf 36} (1987) 137.
690: \bibitem{BABAR06}B. Aubert {\it et al.}, BaBar Collaboration,
691: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74} (2006) 011107.
692: \bibitem{CLEO0607}S. Dytman {\it et al.}, CLEO Collaboration,
693: hep-ex/0607075; hep-ex/0609008.
694: \bibitem{LB79}G.P. Lepage and S.J. Brodsky, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 87}
695: (1979) 359.
696: \bibitem{BBNS01}M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C.T.
697: Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B606} (2001) 245; M. Beneke and M.
698: Neubert, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B675} (2003) 333.
699: \bibitem{CZ82}V.L. Chernyak and A.R. Zhitnitsky, Nucl. Phys. {\bf
700: B201} (1982) 492.
701: \bibitem{LY05}J.H. Lai and K.C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72} (2005)
702: 096001.
703: \bibitem{BBL}G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras, and M.E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod.
704: Phys. {\bf 68} (1996) 1125.
705: \bibitem{cheng03}H.-Y. Cheng, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 26} (2003) 551.
706: \bibitem{JR06}J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74} (2006) 057502.
707: \bibitem{BSW}M. Wirbel, B. Stech, and M. Bauer, Z. Phys. C {\bf 29} (1985) 637;
708: M. Bauer, B. Stech, and M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. C {\bf 34} (1987) 103.
709: \bibitem{Belle0604}K. Abe {\it et al.}, Belle Collaboration,
710: hep-ex/0510003; L. Widhalm {\it et al.}, Belle Collaboration,
711: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97} (2006) 061804.
712: \bibitem{lattice}C. Aubin {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}
713: (2005) 011601.
714: \bibitem{Ball06}P. Ball, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 641} (2006) 50.
715: \bibitem{CC94}L.-L. Chau and H.Y. Cheng, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 333}
716: (1994) 514.
717: \bibitem{BP96} T.E. Browder and S. Pakvasa, Phys.
718: Lett. B {\bf 383} (1996) 475.
719:
720: \end{thebibliography}
721: \end{document}
722: