1: %\documentclass[preprint,prd,aps,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
6: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: %%%%
11: % Greek Letters
12: %
13:
14: \let\a=\alpha \let\b=\beta \let\c=\chi \let\d=\delta
15: \let\e=\varepsilon \let\f=\varphi \let\g=\gamma \let\h=\eta
16: \let\k=\kappa \let\l=\lambda \let\m=\mu
17: \let\o=\omega \let\r=\varrho \let\s=\sigma
18: \let\t=\tau \let\th=\vartheta \let\y=\upsilon \let\x=\xi
19: \let\z=\zeta \let\io=\iota \let\vp=\varpi \let\ro=\rho
20: \let\ph=\phi \let\ep=\epsilon \let\te=\theta
21: \let\n=\nu
22: % \let\p=\pi
23: \let\D=\Delta \let\F=\Phi \let\G=\Gamma \let\L=\Lambda
24: \let\O=\Omega \let\P=\Pi \let\Ps=\Psi \let\Si=\Sigma
25: \let\Th=\Theta \let\X=\Xi \let\Y=\Upsilon
26:
27: %
28: %%%
29:
30: %%%
31: % Calligraphic letters
32: %
33:
34: \def\cA{{\cal A}} \def\cB{{\cal B}}
35: \def\cC{{\cal C}} \def\cD{{\cal D}}
36: \def\cE{{\cal E}} \def\cF{{\cal F}}
37: \def\cG{{\cal G}} \def\cH{{\cal H}}
38: \def\cI{{\cal I}} \def\cJ{{\cal J}}
39: \def\cK{{\cal K}} \def\cL{{\cal L}}
40: \def\cM{{\cal M}} \def\cN{{\cal N}}
41: \def\cO{{\cal O}} \def\cP{{\cal P}}
42: \def\cQ{{\cal Q}} \def\cR{{\cal R}}
43: \def\cS{{\cal S}} \def\cT{{\cal T}}
44: \def\cU{{\cal U}} \def\cV{{\cal V}}
45: \def\cW{{\cal W}} \def\cX{{\cal X}}
46: \def\cY{{\cal Y}} \def\cZ{{\cal Z}}
47: %
48: %%%%
49:
50: \newcommand{\Ns}{N\hspace{-4.7mm}\not\hspace{2.7mm}}
51: \newcommand{\qs}{q\hspace{-3.7mm}\not\hspace{3.4mm}}
52: \newcommand{\ps}{p\hspace{-3.3mm}\not\hspace{1.2mm}}
53: \newcommand{\ks}{k\hspace{-3.3mm}\not\hspace{1.2mm}}
54: \newcommand{\des}{\partial\hspace{-4.mm}\not\hspace{2.5mm}}
55: \newcommand{\desco}{D\hspace{-4mm}\not\hspace{2mm}}
56:
57:
58: %%%%
59:
60:
61:
62: %\draft command makes pacs numbers print
63: %\draft
64: % repeat the \author\address pair as needed
65:
66: \title{\boldmath %Model-independent Study of
67: $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ Forward-backward Asymmetry and New Physics }
68: \author{Artyom Hovhannisyan$^{a,}$\footnote{On leave from
69: Yerevan Physics Institute,
70: Yerevan, Armenia.}
71: }
72: \author{Wei-Shu Hou$^{b}$}
73: %\email{wshou@phys.ntu.edu.tw}
74: \author{Namit Mahajan$^b$}
75: \affiliation{
76: $^a$Center for Theoretical Sciences, National Taiwan
77: University, Taipei, Taiwan 10617, R.O.C. \\
78: $^b$Department of Physics, National Taiwan
79: University, Taipei, Taiwan 10617, R.O.C.
80: }
81: \date{\today}
82:
83: \begin{abstract}
84: The forward-backward asymmetry ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$ in $B\to
85: K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ decay is a sensitive probe of New Physics.
86: Previous studies have focused on the sensitivity in the position
87: of the zero. However, the short distance effective couplings are
88: in principle complex, as illustrated by $B\to \rho\ell^+\ell^-$
89: decay within the Standard Model. Allowing the effective couplings
90: to be complex, but keeping the $B\to K^*\gamma$ and
91: $K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ rate constraints, we find the landscape for
92: ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}(B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-)$ to be far richer than
93: from entertaining just sign flips, which can be explored by future
94: high statistics experiments.
95: \end{abstract}
96:
97: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
98: \pacs{
99: 13.25.Hw, %B-decays
100: 13.20.-v, %Leptonic/semi-leptonic/radiative decays of mesons
101: 12.60.-i %models beyond SM.
102: }
103: \maketitle
104: %\narrowtext
105:
106:
107: %\section{Introduction}
108:
109: It was pointed out 20 years ago~\cite{HWS} that the loop-induced
110: $bsZ$ coupling is enhanced by large $m_t$, which turns out to
111: dominate $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$ ($\bar B \to X_s\ell^+\ell^-$)
112: decay. The effective $bs\gamma$ coupling gives a low $q^2 \equiv
113: m_{\ell\ell}^2$ peak in the differential rate~\cite{Houmumu},
114: while $Z$ and $\gamma$ induced amplitudes interfere across the
115: $q^2$ spectrum. One such effect is the forward-backward
116: asymmetry~\cite{AFB}, ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$, which is the asymmetry
117: between forward and backward moving $\ell^+$ versus the $B$ meson
118: direction in the $\ell^+\ell^-$ frame.
119:
120: %expt prospect
121:
122: The first measurement of ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$ in exclusive $B\to
123: K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ decay was recently reported~\cite{AFBBelle} by
124: the Belle experiment, with 3.4$\,\sigma$ significance. The results
125: are consistent with the Standard Model (SM), rules out the wrong
126: handed $\ell^+\ell^-$ current, but a sign flip of the $bs\gamma$
127: coupling is still tolerated by the poor statistics of $\sim 100$
128: signal events. However,
129: %it has been pointed out that,
130: taking the measured inclusive $b\to s\gamma$ ($\bar B \to
131: X_s\gamma$) and $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$ rates together~\cite{GHM},
132: the
133: %wrong sign $bs\gamma$-induced amplitude
134: latter possibility is disfavored.
135:
136: The relative insensitivity of ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$ to hadronic
137: effects makes it an attractive probe for New Physics (NP) in the
138: long run. For example, we expect a quantum jump in the number of
139: events with the advent of LHC in 2008. A study by the LHCb
140: experiment shows that $\sim$ 7700 $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ events
141: %(with 30\% uncertainty from current measured rate)
142: are expected with 2~fb$^{-1}$ data~\cite{LHCb2fb}. In this Letter
143: we point out that the sensitivity of ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$ to NP is
144: greater than previously thought. %Namely,
145: The {\it complexity} of the associated effective Wilson
146: coefficients can be probed by $d{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/dq^2$ as early
147: as 2008 at the LHC.
148:
149: %MFV
150:
151: The quark level decay amplitude is~\cite{HWS,ABHH},
152: \begin{eqnarray}
153: {\cal M}_{b\to s\ell^+\ell^-}
154: & = & -\frac{G_F \alpha}{\sqrt{2} \pi} \, V_{cs}^\ast V_{cb} \,
155: \left\{
156: C_9^{\rm eff}\, [\bar{s} \g_\mu L b] \,
157: [\bar\ell\g^\mu\ell] \right. \nonumber \\
158: & & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \;+\; C_{10}\; [\bar{s} \g_\mu L b] \,
159: [\bar\ell\g^\mu\gamma_5\ell] \nonumber \\
160: & &
161: -\; 2 \frac{\hat{m}_b}{\hat s}\, C_7^{\rm eff} \left.
162: [\bar{s}\, i\sigma_{\mu\nu}\hat q^\nu R b] \,
163: [\bar\ell\g^\mu\ell]\right\},
164: \label{eq:Amp}
165: \end{eqnarray}
166: where %$L/R \equiv {(1 \mp \g_5)}/2$,
167: $s = q^2$, and we normalize by $m_B$, e.g. $\hat s=s/m_B^2$. We
168: factor out $V_{cs}^\ast V_{cb}$ instead of the usual $V_{ts}^\ast
169: V_{tb}$. Although trivial
170: %(employing unitarity of the CKM matrix and smallness of $V_{us}^*V_{ub}$)
171: within SM, it has the advantage of being real and in terms of CKM
172: elements that are already measured. Short distance physics,
173: including within SM, are isolated in the Wilson coefficients
174: $C_7^{\rm eff}$, $C_9^{\rm eff}$ and $C_{10}$.
175:
176: Eq.~(1) can be used directly for inclusive $B$ decay. For $B\to
177: K^*\ell^+\ell^-$, hadronic matrix elements of quark bilinears give
178: well defined $B\to K^*$ form factors. Thus, even for exclusive
179: decay, the coefficients $C_9^{\rm eff}$, $C_{10}$ and $C_7^{\rm
180: eff}$ can be viewed as physical measurables, hence scheme and
181: scale independent, up to the definition of form factors.
182: %
183: Indeed, $C_7^{\rm eff}$ and $C_{10}$ in Eq.~(1) are at $m_B$
184: scale, with $C_7$ receiving large additive contributions from
185: other Wilson coefficients through operator mixing~\cite{pNLO},
186: \begin{equation}
187: C_7^{\rm eff} = \xi_7C_7 + \xi_8C_8 + \sum_{i=1}^6\xi_iC_i,
188: \end{equation}
189: where $\xi_i$ are QCD evolution factors.
190: %
191: However,
192: \begin{equation}
193: C_9^{\rm eff}(\hat{s}) = C_9 + {Y} (\hat{s}),
194: \end{equation}
195: is also a function of the dilepton mass through $Y(\hat{s})$, the
196: form of which can be found in Ref.~\cite{ABHH}, and depends on
197: long distance ($c\bar c$) effects.
198:
199: Within SM, because of the near reality of $V_{ts}$ in the standard
200: phase convention, $C_7^{\rm eff}$, $C_9$ and $C_{10}$ are
201: practically real, with $C_9^{\rm eff}(\hat{s})$ receiving slight
202: complexity through $Y(\hat{s})$. A widely invoked~\cite{MFV}
203: ``Minimal Flavor Violation" (MFV) scenario further asserts
204: (usually assuming the operator structure of SM) that there are no
205: further sources of flavor and $CP$ violation, other than what is
206: already present in SM. Indeed, many popular extensions of SM, such
207: as minimal supersymmetric SM \cite{bertolini} or two Higgs doublet
208: models \cite{weinberg}, tend to follow this pattern. With MFV as
209: the prevailing mindset, $C_7$, $C_9$ and $C_{10}$ are oftentimes
210: taken as real~\cite{LLST} tacitly, hence the focus only on
211: possible sign flips from large NP effects. For ${\cal A}_{\rm
212: FB}$, therefore, the main projection for the future has been the
213: sensitivity of the zero to NP~\cite{ABHH,GB}.
214:
215: As a quantum amplitude, however, there is no reason {\it a priori}
216: why $C_7^{\rm eff}$, $C_9^{\rm eff}$ and $C_{10}$ in ${\cal
217: M}_{b\to s\ell^+\ell^-}$ %of Eq.~(1)
218: should be real. Despite the suggested reality from SM and MFV,
219: whether they are real or complex should be {\it measured
220: experimentally}, and we will be able to do so in just a few years!
221: In fact, currently there are hints~\cite{HazBar} for ``anomalies"
222: in time-dependent and direct CP violation (CPV) measurements of
223: $b\to s\bar qq$ transitions. One possible explanation is NP in
224: $b\to s\bar qq$ electroweak penguins~\cite{HNS}, which are the
225: hadronic cousins of $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$, but the latter is
226: clearly much less plagued by hadronic effects.
227:
228: Motivated by possible hints for New Physics CPV in hadronic $b\to
229: s$ transitions, and in anticipation of major experimental progress
230: in near future, we explore how much ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$ can differ
231: from SM by allowing associated effective couplings to be complex.
232: Constraints such as decay rates, of course, should be respected,
233: and one should check whether models exist where $C_7^{\rm eff}$,
234: $C_9^{\rm eff}$ and $C_{10}$ can be complex. We find, even without
235: enlarging the operator basis, from a theoretical standpoint, MFV
236: may be too strong an assumption.
237:
238: Our insight comes as follows. Part of the impetus for MFV is the
239: good agreement between theory and experiment for inclusive $b\to
240: s\gamma$ rate, which provides a stringent constraint on NP.
241: However, while depending on the existence of a third generation
242: top quark, the $b\to s\gamma$ rate depends very little on the
243: precise value of $m_t$ when it is large. For $m_t$ in the range of
244: 150 to 300 GeV, the $b\to s\gamma$ rate changes by only $\sim
245: 30\%$.
246: %
247: In contrast, the $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$ rate depends very
248: sensitively on $m_t$ through the effective $bsZ$ coupling, as we
249: stated from the beginning, changing by a factor of $\sim 4$
250: % as one varies $m_t$
251: in the same $m_t$ range.
252:
253: Suppose there are extra SM-like heavy quarks. These could be the
254: 4th generation, or could be vector-like quarks that mix with the
255: top. Take the 4th generation as an example, the $b\to s\gamma$
256: rate is not sensitive to the existence of the $t'$ quark unless
257: $|V_{t's}^*V_{t'b}|$ is very large~\cite{HSS}. However, ``hard"
258: (sensitive to heavy quark mass) amplitudes such as $b\to
259: s\ell^+\ell^-$, $B_s$ mixing~\cite{HNSBsBsbar} etc. would be
260: easily affected by finite $V_{t's}^*V_{t'b}$, as $m_{t'} > m_t$ by
261: definition. Since $V_{t's}^*V_{t'b}$ should be in general
262: complex~\cite{AHphase}, so would $C_9^{\rm eff}$ and $C_{10}$ (and
263: $C_7^{\rm eff}$).
264: %
265: With this as an existence proof, we note further that the three
266: $[\bar sb]\,[\bar\ell\ell]$ terms in Eq.~(1) are 4-fermion
267: operators. The possible underlying New Physics is precisely what
268: we wish to probe at B factories and at the LHC.
269: %
270: Thus, despite the apparent success of MFV, we find the usual
271: assumption of near reality of $C_7^{\rm eff}$, $C_9^{\rm eff}$ and
272: $C_{10}$ unfounded. When sufficient data comes, the experimenters
273: are well advised to keep these parameters complex in doing their
274: fit.
275:
276: %rhol+l- in SM
277:
278: We remark that, in fact within SM, $B\to \rho\ell^+\ell^-$ decay
279: exhibits partially the physics we talk about. A complex factor
280: $\delta_u \equiv ({V_{ud}^*V_{ub}})/({V_{td}^*V_{tb}})$ arises
281: from the $u$-quark current-current operator, as well as top quark
282: in the loop, making $C_9$ complex \cite{KS}. We will use this case
283: at the end as an illustration within SM.
284:
285: %\section{Model independent approach}
286:
287: %constraints/parametrization
288:
289: In this study we shall keep the operator set as in SM, since
290: enlarging to include e.g. righthanded currents would not be
291: profitably probed in early years of LHC. In the same vein,
292: although inclusive $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$ (and $b\to s\gamma$) is
293: theoretically cleaner, we focus on the experimentally more
294: accessible $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ (and $B\to K^*\gamma$). %In fact,
295: Experimental studies of inclusive processes usually apply cuts
296: that complicate theoretical correspondence.
297:
298: Having allowed $C_7^{\rm eff}$, $C_9^{\rm eff}$ and $C_{10}$ to be
299: complex, we still need to consider the constraints. $C_7^{\rm
300: eff}$ is rather well constrained by $b\to s\gamma$ rate
301: measurement. We take a one sigma experimental range~\cite{PDG} for
302: $B\to K^*\gamma$ for our exclusive study. Likewise, inclusive
303: $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$ measurement (by reconstructing a partial set
304: of $X_s$ states), as well as the exclusive $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$,
305: provide constraints on $C_7^{\rm eff}$, $C_9^{\rm eff}$ and
306: $C_{10}$. At the moment, measurements are not precise enough, so
307: we use only the integrated rate for the exclusive channel, again
308: within one sigma experimental range. In the future, with high
309: statistics, one could use the differential $d{\cal B}/d{\hat s}$
310: rate, which is more powerful. We will plot $d{\cal B}/d{\hat s}$
311: as an illustration.
312:
313: Our main focus is the ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$ in exclusive $B\to
314: K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ decay. Assuming the form factors are real, we
315: have
316: %
317: \begin{eqnarray}
318: \frac{d {\cal A}_{\rm FB}}{d \hat s}
319: &\propto&
320: %\frac{G_F^2 \, \alpha^2 \,m_B^5}{2^{10} \pi^5}\left| V_{ts}^\ast V_{tb} \right|^2
321: % \,\sh \uh(\sh)^2
322: \Bigl\{ {\rm Re}\left(C_9^{\rm eff}C_{10}^*\right) VA_1
323: \nonumber \\
324: &+& \frac{\hat m_b}{\hat s}\,{\rm Re}\left(C_7^{\rm eff}C_{10}^*\right)
325: \bigl[ \left(VT_2\right)_- + \left(A_1T_1\right)_+ \bigr]
326: \Bigr\}, \ \ \
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: where $(VT_2)_- = VT_2\,(1 - \hat m_{K^*})$, $(A_1T_1)_+ =
329: A_1T_1\,(1 + \hat m_{K^*})$, and $V$, $A_1$, $T_i$ are form
330: factors~\cite{ABHH}. We use the light-cone sum rule
331: (LCSR)~\cite{BZ} form factors in our numerical analysis. In
332: Eq.~(4) we have exhibited only the dependence on $C_9^{\rm eff}$,
333: $C_{10}$ and $C_7^{\rm eff}$, since it is customary to plot
334: $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ which is $d{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d
335: \hat s$ normalized by the differential rate $d\Gamma/d\hat s$.
336: This reduces sensitivity to form factor models. The zero of
337: $\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}$ is often considered quite stable against
338: form factor variations~\cite{GB,ABHH}.
339:
340: The Wilson coefficients are parameterized as,
341: \begin{eqnarray}
342: C_7 &\rightarrow& C_{7}\,(1 + \Delta_7\,e^{i\phi_7}), \\ %\nonumber
343: C_9 &\rightarrow& C_{9}\,(1 + \Delta_9\,e^{i\phi_9}), \\ %\nonumber
344: C_{10} &\rightarrow& C_{10}\,(1 + \Delta_{10}\,e^{i\phi_{10}}),
345: \end{eqnarray}
346: with $\Delta_i = 0$ corresponding to SM. These Wilson coefficients
347: are evaluated at the electroweak scale, then evolved down to the
348: $m_B$ scale to be used in Eq.~(4). We do not include any
349: complexity from other Wilson coefficients. The tree level $C_1$
350: and $C_2$ are unchanged by NP, but as a simplifying assumption, we
351: ignore possible NP induced complexities through the gluonic
352: $C_{3{\rm -}6}$ and $C_8$ coefficients, which enter $C_7^{\rm
353: eff}$ and $C_9^{\rm eff}$ through operator mixing and long
354: distance effects (see Eqs. (2) and (3)). In practice, this should
355: not change our point.
356: %We therefore choose to work with the minimal set described above.
357:
358:
359: %\section{B -> K*l+l-: plots and parameter space}
360:
361: Let us start with a SM-like framework, that is, viewing $B\to
362: K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ as induced by effective $bsZ$ and $bs\gamma$
363: couplings (and box diagrams). If such is the case, we expect $C_9$
364: and $C_{10}$ to be approximately the same, i.e.
365: %
366: \begin{equation}
367: \Delta\equiv \Delta_9 \cong \Delta_{10},\ \ \ \ \phi\equiv \phi_9 \cong \phi_{10},
368: \end{equation}
369: in Eqs. (6) and (7), and one effectively has the parameters
370: $\Delta$, $\Delta_{7}$, $\phi$ and $\phi_7$, which covers the
371: usual case of wrong sign $C_7^{\rm eff}$. The 4th generation also
372: belongs to this scenario, with $V_{t's}^*V_{t'b}$ bringing in
373: complexity.
374: %We note that $C_9^{\rm eff}$ also becomes complex.
375:
376: %
377: \begin{figure}[t!]
378: \hbox{\hspace{0.03cm}
379: \hbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.415]{afbc9c10.eps}}
380: \hspace{-0.06cm}\hbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.415]{c9c10br.eps}}}
381: \caption{
382: (a) $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ and (b) $d{\cal B}/d
383: \hat s$ for $B\to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$. The shaded region is
384: allowed by $C_9\cong C_{10}$, and Cases a (solid) and b (dash)
385: are SM and 4th generation model, respectively.}
386: \label{fig1}
387: \end{figure}
388:
389:
390: %examples: MFV; 4th gen.
391:
392: We plot $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ and $d{\cal B}/d{\hat
393: s}$ in Figs.~1(a) and (b), respectively, for SM and 4th generation
394: model (SM4). For SM4, we take the CKM parameters which yield the
395: correct $B_s$-$\bar{B}_s$ mixing~\cite{HNSBsBsbar}, predicts large
396: time-dependent CPV in $B_s$ decay, as well as
397: accommodating~\cite{HNS} the NP hints in CPV in $b\to s\bar qq$
398: decays.
399: %as well as satisfying $b\to s\gamma$ and $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$ rates.
400: We see that the zero of $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ has
401: shifted by a significant amount, with only a small positive value
402: below the zero. These are due to the enrichment of (mostly) the
403: $\phi$ phase. For larger $\hat s$, one has little difference in
404: $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ from SM, as the effect of
405: $C_7^{\rm eff}$ has damped away, while $C_9^{\rm eff}$ and
406: $C_{10}$ carry almost the same phase. The general appearance of
407: $d{\cal B}/d{\hat s}$ for SM and SM4 is very similar.
408:
409: \begin{figure}[t!]
410: \hbox{\hspace{0.03cm}
411: \hbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.415]{afbgeneral.eps}}
412: \hspace{-0.06cm}\hbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.415]{brgeneral.eps}}}
413: \caption{
414: (a) $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ and (b) $d{\cal B}/d \hat s$
415: for $B\to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$ allowing all Wilson coefficients to be
416: complex as in Eqs.~(5)--(7).}
417: \label{fig2}
418: \end{figure}
419:
420: A broader range is allowed by Eq.~(8). Keeping $B\to K^*\gamma$
421: and $K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ rates in $1\,\sigma$ experimental range and
422: exploring $\Delta$, $\Delta_{7}$, $\phi$ and $\phi_7$ parameter
423: space,
424: % (for sake of illustration),
425: the results are plotted in Fig.~1 as the shaded area, which
426: illustrates the range of variation allowed by $C_{9}\simeq
427: C_{10}$.
428: %
429: This is just for illustration purpose and should not be taken as
430: precise boundaries. For instance, we see that below the SM zero
431: $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ could be very small, but the
432: shaded region for $d{\cal B}/d{\hat s}$ basically reflects the
433: $1\sigma$ constraints on $B\to K^*\gamma$ and $K^*\ell^+\ell^-$.
434: %
435: $d{\cal B}/d{\hat s}$ should also
436: be fitted in the future, %(formulas can be found, e.g. in Ref.~\cite{ABHH}),
437: but it depends directly on $B\to K^*$ form factors, especially the
438: overall scale.
439:
440: We illustrate the power of early LHC data with the 2 fb$^{-1}$
441: study of LHCb, where $\sim 7700$ reconstructed $B\to
442: K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ events are expected. We take the simulated
443: errors~\cite{LHCb2fb} (with signal events generated according to
444: SM) for $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ from three bins, one
445: around the SM zero, one below and one above, and plot in Fig.~1(a)
446: to guide the eye. It should be clear that our suggestion can be
447: tested early on in the LHC era
448:
449:
450: %examples: "Zprime"
451:
452: The narrow, long ``tail" at $\hat s \gtrsim 0.3$ for $d\bar{\cal
453: A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ indicates that Eq.~(8) is probably too
454: strong an assumption. Even if we keep the operator basis as in
455: Eq.~(1), treating these as 4-fermion interactions arising from
456: possible NP at short distance (for instance, $Z'$
457: models~\cite{BHI}), one should keep the full generality of
458: Eqs.~(5)--(7). We proceed to explore the parameter space as
459: before, keeping $B\to K^*\gamma$ and $K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ within
460: $1\,\sigma$ constraint. Indeed we find much richer possibilities
461: than Figs.~1(a) and (b). As plotted in Figs.~2(a) and (b), we
462: illustrate with the further cases of c, d and e. The SM and SM4
463: are Cases a and b, respectively, as in Fig.~1. The $\Delta_i$ and
464: $\phi_i$ values are given in Table I.
465: %, with $\Delta_i = 0$ for Case~a, which is the SM.
466:
467:
468: \begin{table}[t!]
469: \begin{center}
470: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccr}
471: \hline\hline
472: \ Case \ & \ $\;\Delta_7$ \ & \ $\;\Delta_9$ \ & \ $\Delta_{10}$ \
473: & $\phi_7$ \ & $\phi_9$ \ & $\phi_{10}$ \
474: \\ \hline
475: b & $-0.2$ \ & $-0.9$ \ & $-0.9$ \
476: & \ $65^{\circ}$ \ & $65^{\circ}$ \ & $65^{\circ}$ \\
477: c & $-0.5$ \ & $1$ \ & $-0.5$ \ & \ $90^{\circ}$ \ & $270^{\circ}\;\,$ \ & $0$ \ \\
478: d & $0$ \ & $-1.5$ \ & $-2.0$ \ & \ $0$ \ & $35^{\circ}$ \ & $0$ \ \\
479: e & $-4.8$ \ & $-1.2$ \ & $-2.2$ \ & \ $0$ \ & $0$ \ & $0$ \ \\
480: \hline\hline
481: \end{tabular}
482: \caption{Parameter values for Cases b--e in Fig.~2, where Cases d
483: and e are already ruled out. The SM (Case~a) has $\Delta_i=0$. In
484: our numerics~\cite{pNLO}, we use $C_7^{\rm eff} \simeq 0.67\, C_7
485: - 0.18$, with $C_7 \simeq -0.20$, $C_9 \simeq 4.1$ and $C_{10}
486: \simeq -4.4$ at $M_W$ scale.}
487: \label{tab1}
488: \end{center}
489: \end{table}
490:
491:
492: Case d has wrong sign $C_{10}$, while Case e has sign flip in both
493: $C_7^{\rm eff}$ and $C_{10}$ (equivalent to wrong sign $C_9$).
494: Both are already ruled out~\cite{AFBBelle} by Belle data. The
495: possibility of flipping only the sign of $C_7^{\rm eff}$ is ruled
496: out by rate constraints~\cite{GHM}, hence not plotted. Similar
497: scenarios have been considered in the literature, and we give
498: these cases to illustrate the versatility of Eqs.~(5)--(7). Though
499: ruled out, Case e is illuminating. From Table I, $\Delta_7 \sim
500: -4.8$ overwhelms the SM effect, flipping the sign of $C_7^{\rm
501: eff}$ (Eq.~(2)). At the same time, $C_{10}$ also flips sign, with
502: a much diminished $C_9$. However, even with no complex phases, the
503: large effects from Case e survives rate constraints, giving a more
504: pronounced low $q^2$ peak for differential rate, as seen in
505: Fig.~2(a), which lies outside of the boundary of the shaded region
506: in Fig.~1(a). This is because Eq.~(8) no longer holds. Similar
507: cases may exist that remain to be probed.
508:
509: An interesting new scenario is illustrated by Case c, where
510: $d{\cal B}/d \hat s$ and the zero of $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d
511: \hat s$ are hard to distinguish from SM, but $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm
512: FB}/d \hat s$ above the zero reaches only half the SM value.
513: %This is a counter example for the claim that
514: Thus, a measurement of the zero does {\it not} pin down $C_9$.
515: %, which is actually a consequence of reality.
516: The scenario can be tested
517: already with 1 ab$^{-1}$ data at B factories expected by 2008. If
518: such phenomena are discovered with, e.g. LHCb data, it would imply
519: NP that feed the $(\bar{s} \g_\mu L b)\,(\bar\ell\g^\mu\ell)$ and
520: $(\bar{s} \g_\mu L b)\,(\bar\ell\g^\mu\gamma_5\ell)$ operators
521: differently.
522:
523: %%%
524: \begin{figure}[t!]
525: \begin{center}
526: \vskip 0.4cm \hskip 0.45cm
527: \hbox{
528: \hbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{afbsm.eps}}}
529: \caption{
530: $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ for $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$
531: and $\rho\ell^+\ell^-$ within SM.}
532: \label{fig3}
533: \end{center}
534: \end{figure}
535: %
536:
537:
538: We mark the simulated errors from the 2 fb$^{-1}$ study at LHCb as
539: before on Fig.~2(a), illustrating its power.
540: %
541: %The values of $\Delta_i$ and $\phi_i$ for Scenarios b--d
542: %($\Delta_i = 0$ for Case a, which is the SM) are given in Table I.
543: %
544: The actual possibilities are far richer. The shaded area of
545: Fig.~1(a) illustrates that, even with Eq.~(8) imposed, a broad
546: range is allowed for $\hat s < 0.2$. With the full freedom of
547: Eqs.~(5)--(7), the region allowed by rate constraint would likely
548: cover a large part of Fig.~2(a), which is up to experiment to
549: explore. One should keep the effective Wilson coefficients of
550: Eq.~(1) complex and use the general parametrization of
551: Eqs.~(5)--(7) to fit for $\Delta_i$ and $\phi_i$.
552: %
553: {\it Finite $\phi_i$ implies violation of MFV.}
554:
555: %B -> rhol+l- in SM (and 4th gen)
556:
557: Our suggestion of keeping the Wilson coefficients complex is not
558: just for NP. Even within SM, for the CKM suppressed decay $B\to
559: \rho\ell^+\ell^-$, one already expects~\cite{KS} complexity in
560: effective couplings, arising from both the $u$-quark and top
561: contributions. We plot $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ in Fig.~3
562: for $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ and $\rho\ell^+\ell^-$ in SM. Although
563: the difference is not so great, especially since with 2 fb$^{-1}$
564: data at LHCb one expects less than 200 $B\to\rho\ell^+\ell^-$
565: events with larger background, the different behavior in
566: $d\bar{\cal A}_{\rm FB}/d \hat s$ can be tested with a larger
567: dataset.
568:
569: %\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
570:
571: %TH/exp prospects
572:
573: We offer some remarks before closing. We have focused on ${\cal
574: A}_{\rm FB}$ for exclusive $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$, mostly because
575: of ease of experimental access, and with upgrade of statistics
576: imminent. Second, it is usually stressed that the zero of ${\cal
577: A}_{\rm FB}$ is insensitive to form factors. With NP sensitivities
578: now going beyond the zero, form factor issues would have to be
579: considered. One would have to combine the progress from form
580: factor models, lattice, as well as experimental studies of $B\to
581: \rho\ell\nu$.
582: %
583: One can of course try to measure ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$ in inclusive
584: mode, and our discussion, starting with Eq.~(1), can be easily
585: employed and followed.
586: %
587: Third, while the 4th generation model provides a good example, our
588: approach is fully general and aimed at the experimental study, and
589: does not depend on specific models. In fact, the 4th generation
590: provides a good example against the prevailing MFV prejudice that
591: limits the perspective for flavor and $CP$ violation expectations
592: in $b\to s$ transitions. It is our opinion that the study of $b\to
593: s$ transitions is still in its infancy, and is the least
594: constrained. Imposing MFV may be overstretching our experience
595: from other areas of flavor violation. It is up to experiment to
596: reveal what may be in store for us in the excellent probe of
597: ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$.
598: %
599: %Further measurables such as $K^*$ polarization have been discussed
600: %in the literature. We have checked that the longitudinal
601: %polarization of $K^*$ is less sensitive to complexity of Wilson
602: %coefficients than ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$.
603: %
604: Finally, the 1~ab$^{-1}$ final data at B factories would only give
605: limited improvement on the existing result. The next round of
606: major improvement would come from LHC. The Super B factory upgrade
607: in the future could bring back competitiveness of $e^+e^-$
608: machines, especially for inclusive studies.
609:
610:
611: In summary, we have explored the $CP$ conserving consequences of
612: complex Wilson coefficients on the forward-backward asymmetry
613: ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$ in $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ decay. The
614: possibilities are much broader than the usual consideration of
615: sign flips under minimal flavor violation framework. In view of
616: hints of CP violation anomalies in $b\to sq\bar q$ decays, the
617: large increase in statistics with the advent of LHC would make
618: ${\cal A}_{\rm FB}$ one of the cleanest probes for New Physics in
619: the near future.
620:
621:
622:
623: \vskip 0.3cm \noindent %{\bf Acknowledgement}.\
624: We thank A.~Buras, B.~Grinstein, P.~Koppenburg, Z.~Ligeti, and I.~Stewart
625: for discussions.
626: This work is supported in part by NSC 95-2119-M-002-037, NSC 95-2811-M-002-031,
627: and NCTS of Taiwan.
628:
629:
630: %
631: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
632: %%GR
633: % The bibliography was re-sorted...
634: %%
635: % PRD: Phys. Rev. D {\bf nn}, ppppp (yyyy)
636: % PLB: Phys. Lett. B {\bf nn}, ppp (yyyy)
637: % PRL: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf nn}, ppp (yyyy)
638: % ZPC: Z. Phys. C {\bf nn}, ppp (yyyy)
639: % JHEP: J. High Energy Phys. 01, ppp (yyyy)
640: % EPJ: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf nn}, ppp (yyyy)
641: % NPB: Nucl. Phys. {\bf Bnnn}, ppp (yyyy)
642: % {\it et al.}
643: %
644: %
645: \bibitem{HWS}
646: W.S.~Hou, R.S.~Willey and A.~Soni,
647: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 58}, 1608 (1987).
648: %
649: \bibitem{Houmumu}
650: G.W.S.~Hou,
651: %``b $\to$ s mu+ mu- AS A TOP MASS METER AT THE SSC,''
652: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 2}, 1245 (1987).
653: %
654: \bibitem{AFB}
655: A.~Ali, T.~Mannel and T.~Morozumi,
656: %"Forward backward asymmetry of dilepton angular distribution in the decay b ---> s l+ l-,"
657: Phys.\ Lett. \ B {\bf 273}, 505 (1991).
658: %
659: \bibitem{AFBBelle}
660: A.~Ishikawa {\it et al.} [Belle Collab.],
661: %``Measurement of forward-backward asymmetry and Wilson coefficients in B -->
662: %K* l+ l-,''
663: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 251801 (2006).
664: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0603018].
665: %
666: %\bibitem{AFBBaBar}
667: % B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collab.],
668: %"Measurements of branching fractions, rate asymmetries, and angular
669: %distributions in the rare decays B ---> K l+ l- and B ---> K* l+ l-,"
670: % Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 092001 (2006).
671: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0604007].
672: %
673: \bibitem{GHM}
674: P.~Gambino, U.~Haisch and M.~Misiak,
675: %``Determining the sign of the b --> s gamma amplitude,''
676: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94}, 061803 (2005).
677: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0410155].
678: %
679: \bibitem{LHCb2fb}
680: J. Dickens [LHCb Collab.], talk
681: %preliminary results presented
682: at CKM 2006 Workshop, Nagoya, Japan, December 2006.
683: %
684: \bibitem{ABHH}
685: A.~Ali, P.~Ball, L.T.~Handoko and G.~Hiller,
686: %``A comparative study of the decays B --> (K,K*) l+ l- in standard model and
687: %supersymmetric theories,''
688: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 074024 (2000).
689: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9910221].
690: %
691: \bibitem{pNLO}
692: We use partial NLO for our numerics, where some small terms,
693: such as a mild $s$ dependence of $C_7^{\rm eff}$,
694: are dropped. Parameters are as in
695: H.M.~Asatrian, K.~Bieri, C.~Greub, A.~Hovhannisyan,
696: %"NNLL corrections to the angular distribution and to the forward
697: %backward asymmetries in b ---> X(s) l+ l-"
698: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 094013 (2002).
699: %[arXiv: hep-ph/0209006]
700: %
701: \bibitem{MFV} See e.g.
702: A.J.~Buras,
703: %``Minimal flavor violation,''
704: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 34}, 5615 (2003);
705: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0310208].
706: B. Grinstein, talk presented at CKM 2006 Workshop, Nagoya,
707: Japan, December 2006;
708: and references therein.
709:
710: % M.~Ciuchini, G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino, G.F.~Giudice,
711: %"Next-to-leading QCD corrections to B ---> X(s) gamma in supersymmetry,"
712: %Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 534}, 3 (1998);
713: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9806308];
714: %G.~D'Ambrosio, G.F.~Giudice ,G.~Isidori, A.~Strumia,
715: %"Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach,"
716: %{\it ibid.}\ B {\bf 645}, 155 (2002).
717: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0207036].
718: %
719: \bibitem{bertolini}
720: See e.g. S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati, A.~Masiero and G.~Ridolfi,
721: %"Effects of supergravity induced electroweak breaking on rare B decays and mixings,"
722: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 353}, 591 (1991).
723: %
724: \bibitem{weinberg}
725: S.L.~Glashow and S.~Weinberg,
726: %"Natural Conservation Laws For Neutral Currents,"
727: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15}, 1958 (1977),
728: using the term ``Natural Flavor Conservation".
729: %
730: \bibitem{LLST}
731: See e.g.
732: K.S.M.~Lee, Z.~Ligeti, I.W.~Stewart and F.J.~Tackmann,
733: %``Extracting short distance information from b --> s l+ l- effectively,'' arXiv:
734: hep-ph/0612156.
735: These authors emphasize optimized $q^2$ binnings for early test
736: of SM.
737: %
738: \bibitem{GB}
739: G.~Burdman,
740: %"Short distance coefficients and the vanishing of the lepton asymmetry in B ---> V lepton+ lepton-,"
741: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 4254 (1998);
742: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9710550];
743: M.~Beneke and T.~Feldman,
744: %"Systematic approach to exclusive B ---> V l+ l-, V gamma decays,"
745: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 612}, 25 (2001).
746: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0106067].
747: %
748: \bibitem{HazBar}
749: M. Hazumi and R. Barlow, plenary talks at 33rd International Conference
750: on High Energy Physics, Moscow, Russia, July 27 - August 2, 2006.
751: %
752: \bibitem{HNS}
753: W.S. Hou, M. Nagashima and A. Soddu,
754: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 141601 (2005);
755: W.S.~Hou, H.n. Li, S.~Mishima and M.~Nagashima,
756: hep-ph/0611107.
757: %
758: \bibitem{HSS}
759: W.S.~Hou, A.~Soni and H. Steger,
760: %``Effects Of A Fourth Family On B $\to$ S Gamma And A Useful Parametrization
761: %Of Quark Mixing For Rare B Decays,''
762: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 192}, 441 (1987).
763: %
764: \bibitem{HNSBsBsbar}
765: W.S.~Hou, M.~Nagashima and A.~Soddu,
766: %"Large CP Violation in B(s) mixing and Implications for D Mixing,"
767: %[arXiv:
768: hep-ph/0610385.
769: %
770: \bibitem{AHphase}
771: A. Arhrib and W.S. Hou,
772: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 27}, 555 (2003).
773: %
774: \bibitem{KS}
775: F.~Kr\"uger and L.M.~Sehgal,
776: %"CP violation in the exclusive decays B ---> pi e+ e- and B ---> rho e+ e-,"
777: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 5452 (1997).
778: %%[arXiv:hep-ph/9706247].
779:
780:
781: \bibitem{PDG}
782: W.M. Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group], J. Phys. G {\bf 33},
783: 1 (2006).
784: %, http://pdg.lbl.gov/.
785: %
786: \bibitem{BZ}
787: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
788: %"B(D,S) ---> rho, omega, K*, phi decay form-factors from light-cone sum rules revisited,"
789: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 014029 (2005).
790: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0412079].
791: %
792: \bibitem{BHI}
793: G.~Buchalla, G.~Hiller and G.~Isidori,
794: %``Phenomenology of non-standard Z couplings in exclusive semileptonic b -->
795: %s transitions,''
796: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 014015 (2001).
797: Starting with a framework similar to ours, these authors
798: quickly focus on real Wilson coefficients.
799: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0006136].
800:
801: \end{thebibliography}
802: \end{document}
803: