1: \documentclass[aps,prl,superscriptaddress,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3:
4: %%ALIAS=pinguinibs=hep-ph/9612269,hep-ph/9704274,hep-ph/9704277%%
5: %%ALIAS=phikssm=hep-ph/9708305%%
6: %%ALIAS=burassilv=hep-ph/9812392%%
7: %%ALIAS=babarphiks=hep-ex/0607112%%
8: %%ALIAS=bellephiks=hep-ex/0608039%%
9: %%ALIAS=deltaSphiksfact=hep-ph/0503151,hep-ph/0505075,hep-ph/0506268%%
10: %%ALIAS=deltaSphikssu3=hep-ph/0303171,hep-ph/0307395%%
11: %%ALIAS=benekeVV=hep-ph/0612290%%
12: %%ALIAS=nuoviexp=hep-ph/0503261,LHCBTP,Hashimoto:2004sm%%
13: %%ALIAS=utfit=hep-ph/0606167%%
14: %%ALIAS=cpsbeta=hep-ph/0507290%%
15: %%ALIAS=dunietz=Aleksan:1990ts%%
16: %%ALIAS=lhcb=NUIMA.A446.213%%
17: %%ALIAS=superb=physics/0512235%%
18: %%ALIAS=charmingpenguins=hep-ph/9703353,hep-ph/0104126,inprep%%
19: %%ALIAS=k0pi0exp=hep-ex/0403001%%
20: %%ALIAS=matias=hep-ph/0603239%%
21: %%ALIAS=altreref=hep-ex/0408095,hep-ex/0507016,hep-ex/0508017,hep-ex/0607096,hep-ex/0607101,hep-ex/0607108,hep-ex/0608051,hep-ex/0609006,hep-ex/0609052%%
22:
23:
24: \begin{document}
25: \title{$B_s \to K^{(*)0} \bar K^{(*)0}$ DECAYS:\\ THE GOLDEN CHANNELS FOR NEW
26: PHYSICS SEARCHES}
27:
28: \author{M.~Ciuchini}
29: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Roma Tre
30: and INFN, Sezione di Roma Tre, Via della Vasca Navale 84, I-00146
31: Roma, Italy}
32: \author{M.~Pierini}
33: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
34: WI 53706, USA}
35: \author{L.~Silvestrini}
36: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Roma ``La
37: Sapienza'' and INFN,
38: Sezione di Roma, P.le A. Moro 2, I-00185 Rome, Italy}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We point out that time-dependent CP asymmetries in $B_s \to
42: K^{*0}\bar K^{*0}$ decays probe the presence of new physics in $b
43: \to s$ transitions with an unprecedented theoretical accuracy. We
44: show that, contrary to the case of $B_d \to \phi K_S$, it is
45: possible to obtain a model-independent prediction for the
46: coefficient $S(B_s \to K^{*0}\bar K^{*0})$ in the Standard Model. We
47: give an estimate of the experimental precision achievable with the
48: next generation of $B$ physics experiments. We also discuss how this
49: approach can be extended to the case of $B_s \to \bar K^{*0} K^0$, $B_s
50: \to K^{*0} \bar K^0$ and $B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0$ decays and the different
51: experimental challenges for these channels.
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \maketitle
55:
56:
57: The measurement of CP asymmetries in flavour changing neutral current
58: processes represents a crucial test of the Standard Model (SM). In
59: particular, time-dependent CP asymmetries in $b \to s$
60: penguin-dominated modes are considered among the most sensitive probes
61: of New Physics (NP)~\cite{pinguinibs}. Measuring these asymmetries is one of the
62: highlights of the B-factory physics
63: program~\cite{altreref,babarphiks,bellephiks}. In this context, the study of
64: $B_d
65: \to \phi K_S$ has been considered for a long time the {\em golden
66: mode} for NP searches in nonleptonic $B$ decays, since it is a pure
67: penguin~\cite{phikssm}. Indeed, writing the amplitude in terms of
68: renormalization group invariant (RGI) parameters, defined in ref.~\cite{burassilv}, one obtains:
69: \begin{equation}
70: A(B_d \to \phi K^0) = V^*_{tb}V_{ts}\,P - V^*_{ub}V_{us}\,P^\mathrm{GIM}\,,
71: \label{eq:phiKamp}
72: \end{equation}
73: where $P$ contains penguin contractions of charmed current-current
74: operators together with the matrix elements of $b \to s$ penguin
75: operators, while $P^\mathrm{GIM}$ represents the GIM-suppressed
76: difference of penguin contractions of current-current operators
77: containing charm and up quarks respectively.
78:
79: Neglecting the contribution of $P^\mathrm{GIM}$ on the basis of
80: plausible dynamical arguments, the $B_d \to \phi K_S$ decay is
81: mediated by a single amplitude, so that under this assumption no
82: direct CP violation can be produced and the time-dependent CP
83: asymmetry probes the phase $2\beta$ of $B_d-\bar B_d$ mixing. In
84: terms of the coefficients $S$ and $C$ of sine and cosine terms in the
85: time-dependent CP asymmetry, this means that in the SM one expects
86: $S(B_d \to \phi K^0) = \sin 2\beta$ and $C(B_d \to \phi K^0) = 0$. The
87: theoretical error associated to this prediction is related to the
88: ratio of $P^\mathrm{GIM}/P$.
89:
90: The average of currently available experimental measurements by
91: BaBar~\cite{babarphiks} and Belle~\cite{bellephiks} gives $S(B_d \to
92: \phi K^0) = 0.39 \pm 0.18$ and $C(B_d \to \phi K^0) = 0.01 \pm
93: 0.13$~\cite{hfag}. Even though the experimental errors are still
94: large, it is interesting to observe that the value of $S(B_d \to \phi
95: K^0)$ deviates from the world average $\sin 2\beta = 0.675 \pm
96: 0.026$~\cite{hfag}. If confirmed in the future with a smaller error,
97: this measurement might provide a hint of NP in $B$ decays. On the
98: other hand, this interpretation should consider the theoretical
99: uncertanty introduced by neglecting $P^\mathrm{GIM}$. Even though
100: several model-dependent approaches, based on factorization
101: or on flavour symmetries, have been proposed in
102: literature~\cite{deltaSphiksfact,deltaSphikssu3}, a model-independent
103: evaluation of the error is not available yet. Considering that the
104: next generation of $B$ physics experiments~\cite{nuoviexp} is expected
105: to reduce the error on $S(B_d \to \phi K_S)$ down to a few percent,
106: the lack of a model independent evaluation of the theoretical error is
107: a strong limitation for a complete and meaningful test of the SM.
108:
109: In this letter, we propose to overcome this problem by using $B_d \to
110: K^{(*)0} \bar K^{(*)0}$ decays to predict $S(B_s \to K^{*0} \bar
111: K^{*0})$ within the SM, including the theoretical error associated to
112: hadronic uncertanties, in particular to the GIM-suppressed penguin
113: contractions. Considering the experimental precision that is expected
114: at LHCb~\cite{lhcb} and at a future super B-factory~\cite{superb}, we
115: give a theoretical estimate of the deviation from zero of $S(B_s \to
116: K^{*0} \bar K^{*0})$ within the SM. This is a crucial ingredient to
117: search for NP effects in this decay mode: a deviation from zero much
118: larger than the estimated SM error would be a strong signal of NP.
119:
120: For a given polarization of the final state~\footnote{Our formulae
121: and results apply to any given polarization of the final state. For
122: simplicity, we omit the corresponding label. We comment on the
123: experimental aspects of measuring vector final states and of
124: extracting polarized amplitudes after presenting our method for
125: a single polarization.}, we can write the decay amplitude of $B_s \to
126: K^{*0}\bar K^{*0}$ decays as
127: \begin{equation}
128: A(B_s \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}) = -V^*_{tb}V_{ts}\, P_s -
129: V^*_{ub}V_{us}\, P_s^\mathrm{GIM}\,,
130: \label{eq:KKamp}
131: \end{equation}
132: in the same notation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:phiKamp}). Comparing
133: Eq.~(\ref{eq:KKamp}) to Eq.~(\ref{eq:phiKamp}), it is clear that
134: the same NP in $b \to s$ penguins enters both this channel and the
135: {\it golden mode} $B_d \to \phi K_S$.
136:
137: From an experimental point of view, the $K^{*0}$ mesons can be
138: reconstructed as $K^{*0} \to K^+ \pi^-$ and $\bar K^{*0} \to K^-
139: \pi^+$. Since the final state is a CP eigenstate, it is possible to
140: measure the CP asymmetry parameters $S$ and $C$ from the
141: time-dependent study of the tagged decay rates. The information on the
142: flavour of the decaying $B_s$ is provided by the usual tagging
143: techniques. Since in this case the $B_s$ meson decays only to charged
144: tracks directly originating from the vertex, the reconstruction and
145: vertexing of the $B_s$ mesons should be possible at LHCb, allowing to
146: measure the parameters of the time-dependent CP asymmetry.
147:
148: With the same approximation of $B_d \to \phi K_S$, {\it i.e.}\/
149: neglecting the CKM suppressed contribution of $P_{s,d}^\mathrm{GIM}$,
150: the SM expectation values for the coefficients of the CP asymmetry are
151: simply given by $S(B_s \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}) = 0$ and $C(B_s \to
152: K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}) = 0$, as
153: $$
154: \lambda_{CP}(B_s \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0})=e^{2i\beta_s} \frac{A(\bar B_s \to
155: K^{*0} \bar K^{*0})}{A(B_s \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0})}=1\,.
156: $$
157: This is a null test of the SM, but an estimate of the error
158: induced by neglecting $P_s^\mathrm{GIM}$ is needed.
159:
160: The advantage of this mode, with respect to the case of $B_d \to \phi
161: K^0$, is represented by the possibility of calculating the theoretical
162: error in a model independent way, using the measurement of $BR(B_s \to
163: K^{*0} \bar K^{*0})$ and $C(B_s \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0})$,
164: together with the information on the order of magnitude of
165: $P_s^\mathrm{GIM}$ provided by the time-dependent study of $B_d \to K^{*0}
166: \bar K^{*0}$ decays.
167:
168: The idea follows the calculation of the error on $\sin 2\beta$ in $B_d
169: \to J/\psi K^0$ presented in ref.~\cite{cpsbeta}. The expression
170: for the decay amplitude of $B_d \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}$ in the same
171: notation of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:phiKamp}) and (\ref{eq:KKamp}) is given by
172: \begin{equation}
173: A(B_d \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}) = -V^*_{tb}V_{td}P_d -
174: V^*_{ub}V_{ud}P_d^\mathrm{GIM},
175: \label{eq:BdKKamp}
176: \end{equation}
177: which is equivalent to Eq.~(\ref{eq:KKamp}), except that
178: in this case the two combinations of CKM matrix elements have the same
179: order of magnitude. As a consequence, the sensitivity to
180: $P_d^\mathrm{GIM}$ is maximal in this case. From the measurement of
181: the $BR$ and the CP parameters $S$ and $C$, fixing the CKM elements to
182: their SM values obtained by the UT fit~\cite{utfit}, one can determine
183: $|P_d|$, $|P_d^\mathrm{GIM}|$, and the relative strong phase
184: $\delta_{d}$. In the SU(3)-symmetric limit,
185: $P_d^{\mathrm{(GIM)}}=P_s^{\mathrm{(GIM)}}$ and $\delta_d = \delta_s$.
186: Imposing these relations, as done in ref.~\cite{hep-ph/9903540}, would
187: introduce a (difficult to estimate) error associated to SU(3)
188: breaking~\footnote{In ref.~\cite{matias}, SU(3) was used in
189: conjunction with QCD factorization to relate CP violation in $B_s$
190: and $B_d$ decays to two kaons. This is another interesting example
191: of model-dependent predictions for CP violation in $b \to s$
192: penguins.}. To be conservative, we instead allow for a SU(3) breaking
193: up to 100\%, much larger than any known breaking effect.
194:
195: Starting from these considerations, the estimate of the theoretical
196: expectation for the deviation of $S(B_s \to K^{*0}\bar K^{*0})$ from
197: zero proceeds through three steps, in analogy to
198: ref.~\cite{cpsbeta}: i) a fit to determine $P_s$ from $BR(B_s \to
199: K^{*0} \bar K^{*0})$; ii) a fit of $|P_d|$, $|P_d^\mathrm{GIM}|$, and
200: $\delta_{d}$ from the experimental values of $BR$, $S$, and $C$ of
201: $B_d \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}$. In the fit, only the solution that gives
202: $|P_d|$ compatible with $|P_s|$ is considered; iii) a fit of the $B_s
203: \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}$ decay amplitude from the experimental values
204: of $BR$ and $C$, performed forcing the absolute value $|P_s^\mathrm{GIM}|$ in
205: the range obtained allowing $100\%$ SU(3) breaking effects around the central
206: value of $|P_d^\mathrm{GIM}|$. To be conservative, no information from $B_d \to
207: K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}$ is used for constraining $|P_s|$ and $\delta_{s}$.
208:
209: Let us first discuss the experimental prospects. Based on these, we
210: then present an example of how our method might work once the relevant
211: modes will be measured. An estimate of the level of precision
212: reachable at LHCb is difficult to give at this stage and goes beyond
213: the purpose of this work, since details on the reconstruction of the
214: LHCb detector are needed. In addition, the lack of measurements of
215: $B_d \to K^{*0}\bar K^{*0}$ makes any prediction harder.
216: Nevertheless, few educated assumptions might help us to understand the
217: order of magnitude of the experimental error on $S(B_s \to K^{*0} \bar
218: K^{*0})$. We assume that i) LHCb will provide a measurement of the $S$
219: and $C$ parameters with an error of $\sim 0.02$ (comparable to what is
220: expected for $B_s \to K^+K^-$); ii) a $5\%$ precision on the decay
221: rate will be obtained at LHCb or at a super B-factory running at the
222: $\Upsilon(5S)$ resonance~\cite{Baracchini:2007ei}; iii) a similar
223: precision will be available for $B_d \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}$ rates and
224: CP asymmetries. Concerning this last point, it is important to stress
225: that $B_d \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}$ decays are CKM suppressed
226: with respect to $B_s \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}$. Nevertheless, with LHCb
227: integrating more than two years of data and/or a super B-factory
228: integrating $> 30$ ab$^{-1}$, there should be no limitation given by
229: the available statistics. For the central values, we assume that they
230: lie in the ballpark of the calculation of ref.~\cite{benekeVV}, but we
231: have checked that larger values of the BR's give similar results. The
232: values we assume are summarized in
233: Tab.~\ref{tab:assumedvalues}~\footnote{During the review process of
234: our manuscript, the BaBar collaboration published a first
235: measurement of $BR(B_d \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0})=(4.9^{+1.6}_{-1.3}\pm
236: 0.5)\cdot 10^{-7}$, in agreement with the value we assumed, altough
237: with a large uncertainty~\cite{arXiv:0708.2248}.}.
238:
239: We now give an example of the precision we might expect on the
240: theoretical prediction of $S(B_s \to K^{*0}\bar K^{*0})$ using the
241: numbers given above. Using our method we obtain the distribution of
242: $S(B_s \to K^{*0}\bar K^{*0})$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:d2b}, with an
243: RMS of $0.015$. This corresponds to a theoretical error on
244: $\arg(\lambda_{CP}(B_s \to K^{*0}\bar K^{*0}))$ of
245: $0.8^\circ$. Clearly this estimate is only illustrative as it is based
246: on the values in Tab.~\ref{tab:assumedvalues} inspired by
247: factorization models. Once data will be available, however, the method
248: will provide an estimate independent of any theoretical model.
249:
250: \begin{table}[!tb]
251: \begin{center}
252: \begin{tabular}{@{}cccc}
253: \hline\hline
254: channel & BR & S & C \\
255: \hline
256: $B_s \to K^{*0}\bar K^{*0}$ &
257: $(11.8 \pm 0.6)10^{-6}$ & $-0.07 \pm 0.02$ & $0.01
258: \pm 0.02$\\
259: \hline
260: $B_d \to K^{*0}\bar K^{*0}$ &
261: $(5.00 \pm 0.25)10^{-7}$ & $-0.12 \pm 0.02$ & $0.13 \pm
262: 0.02$ \\
263: \hline\hline
264: \end{tabular}
265: \end{center}
266: \caption{Input values used to estimate the precision on the
267: determination of $\arg(\lambda_{CP})$.}
268: \label{tab:assumedvalues}
269: \end{table}
270:
271: \begin{figure}[htb!]
272: \begin{center}
273: \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{S_KsKs.eps}
274: \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{arglam_KsKs.eps}
275: \caption{%
276: Probability density function for $S$ (top)
277: and $\arg(\lambda_{CP})$ (bottom) for the decay
278: $B_s \to K^{*0}\bar K^{*0}$
279: obtained with the procedure detailed in the
280: text, using the input values given in
281: Tab.~\protect\ref{tab:assumedvalues}.}
282: \label{fig:d2b}
283: \end{center}
284: \end{figure}
285:
286: The presence of multiple polarizations in the $K^* \bar K^*$ final state
287: does not change the idea we propose here, but it has a practical
288: impact on the analysis strategy. Our procedure can be followed for each
289: polarization (longitudinal or transverse), taking into account the relative
290: minus sign in the CP eigenvalue. Experimentally, using an angular
291: analysis it is possible to separate the different contributions and
292: independently determine rates and CP parameters~\footnote{In case
293: large correlations are observed among the three rates and the three sets
294: of CP parameters, the theoretical analysis will have to take them
295: into account.}.
296:
297: In terms of the experimental fit, the separation of the three
298: polarizations requires to add the angular distribution of the
299: final state particles to the maximum likelihood fit, as it was done
300: for example in the $B_d\to \rho^+\rho^-$ time-dependent analyses of
301: BaBar~\cite{arXiv:0705.2157}.
302:
303: From a practical point of view, the presence of three polarizations
304: helps to increase the experimental precision, with respect to the case
305: of a single polarization.
306: In fact, the measurement is also sensitive to interference terms
307: among the different polarizations, as for $B_d\to J/\psi K^*$ time-dependent
308: analyses performed at the B-factories~\cite{hep-ex/0411016,hep-ex/0504030}.
309: One can define eleven parameters describing the
310: complex $B_d$ decay amplitudes for the three polarization states
311: and their CP conjugates, up to an arbitrary global phase. In terms of
312: these eleven parameters one can compute three sets of rates, $S$ and $C$
313: coefficients (one for each polarization). Since the number of unknowns
314: is smaller than the number of observables, the presence of three
315: polarizations in the final state will improve the precision of the analysis.
316: The same procedure can be used for $B_s$ decays.
317:
318: In principle, the same approach can also be applied to $B_s \to K^{*0}
319: \bar K^{0}$, $B_s \to \bar K^{*0} K^{0}$ and $B_s \to K^{0} \bar K^{0}$ decays,
320: with the caveat that the strategy
321: has to change in order to face the different experimental challenges.
322:
323: For $B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0$, the measurement of the BR should be
324: possible at LHCb or at a super B-factory. On the other hand, the
325: time-dependent CP parameters $S$ and $C$ cannot be measured, since the
326: extrapolation of the $B_s$ vertex from the flight direction of two
327: $K_S$ does not seem possible at LHCb, while a B-factory has not enough
328: vertex resolution to follow the fast oscillations of $B_s$
329: mesons~\cite{Baracchini:2007ei}. Nevertheless, it is still possible
330: to obtain a determination of $\lambda_{CP}$, measuring the tagged
331: decay rates for $\Delta t>0$ and $\Delta t<0$. The sign of $\Delta t$
332: can be measured at a super B-factory, using the $K_S$ flight direction
333: to determine the $B$ vertex~\cite{k0pi0exp}. Using a full Monte Carlo
334: simulation, it was shown that it is possible to measure
335: $\arg(\lambda_{CP}(B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0))$ with an experimental error
336: less than $20^\circ$~\cite{Baracchini:2007ei}. The actual error could
337: be even smaller, if the improvement of the vertexing detector (due to
338: the use of a layer zero of the silicon detector close to the beam
339: pipe) will allow to separate primary and secondary vertices on $B \to
340: D X$ decays~\cite{Bona:2007qt}, strongly reducing the background
341: contamination~\footnote{Concerning the tagging at
342: the $\Upsilon(5S)$, the training of a tagging algorithm for the
343: $B_s$ will face new challenges, as both $K$ and $\bar K$ can be
344: produced in a $B_s$ decay. One could cope with this problem using, for
345: instance, the difference in the momentum of the kaons coming from
346: the $b$ quark decay and of the kaons coming from the cascade of
347: $D_s$ mesons produced by the $B_s$. A detailed estimation of the
348: change in performances goes beyond the purpose of this paper. We use
349: the current $B$-factory performance as a crude estimate of the
350: tagging efficiency.}. At the same time, the RMS for
351: $\arg(\lambda_{CP})$ expected in the SM, taking into account
352: $P^\mathrm{GIM}_s$ with our method, should be at the level of
353: $4^\circ$~\cite{Baracchini:2007ei}.
354:
355: The case of $B_s \to K^{*0} \bar K^{0}$ and $B_s \to \bar K^{*0} K^{0}$
356: is more similar to $B_s \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}$. The
357: main difference in this case is that there are two
358: different particles in the final state. As a consequence, the number
359: of hadronic parameters to determine is twice the number of hadronic
360: parameters for a single polarization in $B_s \to K^{*0} \bar K^{*0}$ modes. On
361: the other hand, the number of experimental observables is larger.
362: Reconstructing $B_s \to K^{*0} \bar K^0$ and $\bar B_s \to K^{*0} \bar
363: K^0$ ($B_s \to K^{0}\bar K^{*0}$ and $\bar B_s \to K^{0}\bar K^{*0}$)
364: from $K^+ \pi^- K_S$ ($K^- \pi^+ K_S$) final states it is possible to
365: measure CP violating effects~\cite{dunietz}, which provide four
366: observables ($S$, $C$, $\bar S$, and $\bar C$) in addition to two
367: decay rates. It will be possible to use $B_s \to K^{*0} \bar K^0$ and
368: $B_s \to K^{0}\bar K^{*0}$ to obtain two null tests of the SM,
369: using the upper values on the two $P^\mathrm{GIM}_s$ contributions
370: obtained from $B_d \to K^{*0} \bar K^0$ and $B_d \to K^{0}\bar K^{*0}$
371: respectively.
372:
373: To summarize, we have proposed a new strategy to look for NP in $b \to
374: s$ penguins without relying on model-dependent estimates of the
375: hadronic uncertainties. The new \emph{golden channel} we suggest is
376: $B_s \to K^{(*)0} \bar K^{(*)0}$. We claim that the SM pollution in
377: the null tests of the SM from time-dependent CP asymmetries in this
378: \emph{golden channel} can be controlled with a high accuracy in a
379: model-independent way. The key
380: observation is that, even allowing for SU(3) breaking effects of
381: $\mathcal{O}(1)$, using the experimental information on the
382: SU(3)-related channel $B_d \to K^{(*)0} \bar K^{(*)0}$ it is possible
383: to put a strong constraint on the polluting CKM-suppressed penguin
384: amplitude. The most promising channel seems to be $B_s \to K^{*0} \bar
385: K^{*0}$, which can be reconstructed from four charged tracks in the final
386: state and should be easily accessible at LHCb, together with the $B_d$ decay to
387: the same final state (which can already be studied with the full dataset
388: collected by BaBar and Belle).
389: Pseudoscalar-vector and pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar final states imply the
390: presence of $K_S$ mesons, making the analysis harder in the environment of a
391: hadron collider. In this respect, a super B-factory would play a very
392: important role.
393: \\
394:
395: We warmly thank Y.~Xie for pointing out to us an embarassing error in
396: the previous version of this paper. Fortunately correcting this error
397: further strengthens our proposal.
398: \\
399:
400: We aknowledge partial support from RTN European contracts
401: MRTN-CT-2004-503369 ``The Quest for Unification'', MRTN-CT-2006-035482
402: ``FLAVIAnet'' and MRTN-CT-2006-035505 ``Heptools''.
403:
404: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
405:
406: % Save this file and include it in your paper as the bibliography
407: % or cut and paste directly into your LaTeX
408:
409: \bibitem{pinguinibs}
410: Y.~Grossman and M.~P.~Worah,
411: %``CP asymmetries in B decays with new physics in decay amplitudes,''
412: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 395}, 241 (1997)
413: [arXiv:hep-ph/9612269];
414: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B395,241;%%
415: M.~Ciuchini \textit{et al.},
416: %``CP violating B decays in the standard model and supersymmetry,''
417: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 79}, 978 (1997)
418: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704274];
419: %%CITATION = PRLTA,79,978;%%
420: D.~London and A.~Soni,
421: %``Measuring the CP angle beta in hadronic b --> s penguin decays,''
422: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 407}, 61 (1997)
423: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704277].
424: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B407,61;%%
425:
426: \bibitem{altreref}
427: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
428: %``A measurement of CP violating asymmetries in B0 --> f0(980) K0(S)
429: %decays,''
430: arXiv:hep-ex/0408095;
431: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0408095;%%
432: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
433: %``Measurement of time-dependent CP-violating asymmetries in B0 --> K+ K-
434: %K0(L) decays,''
435: arXiv:hep-ex/0507016;
436: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0507016;%%
437: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
438: %``Measurement of CP asymmetries in B0 --> K0(S) pi0 pi0 decays,''
439: arXiv:hep-ex/0508017;
440: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0508017;%%
441: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
442: %``Measurement of the CP-violating asymmetries in B0 --> K0(S) pi0 and of the
443: %branching fraction of B0 --> K0 pi0,''
444: arXiv:hep-ex/0607096;
445: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0607096;%%
446: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
447: %``Measurements of CP-violating asymmetries in B decays to omega K0(S),''
448: arXiv:hep-ex/0607101;
449: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0607101;%%
450: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
451: %``Measurement of time-dependent CP asymmetries in B0 --> K0(S) K0(S) K0(S)
452: %decay,''
453: arXiv:hep-ex/0607108;
454: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0607108;%%
455: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
456: %``Measurement of the CP asymmetry and branching fraction of B0 --> rho0
457: %K0,''
458: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 051803 (2007)
459: [arXiv:hep-ex/0608051];
460: %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,051803;%%
461: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
462: %``Measurements of time-dependent CP violation in B0 --> omega K0(S), f0(980)
463: %K0(S), K0(S) pi0 and K+ K- K0(S) decays,''
464: arXiv:hep-ex/0609006;
465: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0609006;%%
466: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
467: %``Observation of CP violation in B0 --> eta' K0 decays,''
468: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 031801 (2007)
469: [arXiv:hep-ex/0609052].
470: %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,031801;%%
471:
472: \bibitem{babarphiks}
473: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
474: %``Measurement of CP-violating asymmetries in the B0 --> K+ K- K0 Dalitz
475: %plot,''
476: arXiv:hep-ex/0607112.
477: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0607112;%%
478:
479: \bibitem{bellephiks}
480: K.~F.~Chen {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
481: %``Observation of time-dependent CP violation in B0 --> eta' K0 decays and
482: %improved measurements of CP asymmetries in B0 --> Phi K0, K0(S) K0(S) K0(S)
483: %and B0 --> J/psi K0 decays,''
484: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 031802 (2007)
485: [arXiv:hep-ex/0608039].
486: %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,031802;%%
487:
488: \bibitem{phikssm}
489: Y.~Grossman, G.~Isidori and M.~P.~Worah,
490: %``CP asymmetry in B/d --> Phi K(S): Standard model pollution,''
491: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 057504 (1998)
492: [arXiv:hep-ph/9708305].
493: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,057504;%%
494:
495: \bibitem{burassilv}
496: A.~J.~Buras and L.~Silvestrini,
497: %``Non-leptonic two-body B decays beyond factorization,''
498: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 569}, 3 (2000)
499: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812392].
500: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B569,3;%%
501:
502: % No SPIRES record found for cite request hfag
503: \bibitem{hfag}
504: E.~Barberio {\it et al.} [Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG)],
505: %``Averages of b-hadron properties at the end of 2005,''
506: arXiv:hep-ex/0603003. Updates are available at the URL
507: {\tt http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag}
508: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0603003;%%
509:
510: \bibitem{deltaSphiksfact}
511: G.~Buchalla \textit{et al.},
512: %``The pattern of CP asymmetries in b --> s transitions,''
513: JHEP {\bf 0509}, 074 (2005)
514: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503151];
515: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0509,074;%%
516: M.~Beneke,
517: %``Corrections to sin(2beta) from CP asymmetries in B0 --> (pi0, rho0, eta,
518: %eta', omega, Phi) K(S) decays,''
519: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 620}, 143 (2005)
520: [arXiv:hep-ph/0505075];
521: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B620,143;%%
522: H.~Y.~Cheng, C.~K.~Chua and A.~Soni,
523: %``CP-violating asymmetries in B0 decays to K+ K- K0(S)(L) and K0(S) K0(S)
524: %K0(S)(L),''
525: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 094003 (2005)
526: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506268].
527: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,094003;%%
528:
529: \bibitem{deltaSphikssu3}
530: Y.~Grossman \textit{et al.},
531: %``SU(3) relations and the CP asymmetries in B decays to eta' K(S), Phi K(S)
532: %and K+ K- K(S),''
533: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 015004 (2003)
534: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303171];
535: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D68,015004;%%
536: C.~W.~Chiang \textit{et al.},
537: %``Charmless B --> V P decays using flavor SU(3) symmetry,''
538: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 034001 (2004)
539: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307395].
540: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D69,034001;%%
541:
542: \bibitem{nuoviexp}
543: J.~L.~.~Hewett {\it et al.},
544: %``The discovery potential of a Super B Factory. Proceedings, SLAC Workshops,
545: %Stanford, USA, 2003,''
546: arXiv:hep-ph/0503261.
547: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0503261;%%
548: S.~Amato {\it et al.} [LHCb Collaboration], CERN-LHCC-98-4;
549: S.~Hashimoto {\it et al.},
550: ``Letter of intent for KEK Super B Factory,'', KEK-REPORT-2004-4.
551: %%CITATION = KEK-REPORT-2004-4;%%
552:
553: \bibitem{lhcb}
554: O.~Schneider [LHCb Collaboration],
555: %``Overview of the LHCb experiment,''
556: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 446}, 213 (2000).
557: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A446,213;%%
558:
559: \bibitem{superb}
560: J.~Albert {\it et al.},
561: %``SuperB: A linear high-luminosity B factory,''
562: arXiv:physics/0512235.
563: %%CITATION = PHYSICS/0512235;%%
564:
565: \bibitem{cpsbeta}
566: M.~Ciuchini, M.~Pierini and L.~Silvestrini,
567: %``The effect of penguins in the B/d --> J/psi K0 CP asymmetry,''
568: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 221804 (2005)
569: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507290].
570: %%CITATION = PRLTA,95,221804;%%
571:
572: \bibitem{utfit}
573: M.~Bona {\it et al.} [UTfit Collaboration],
574: %``The unitarity triangle fit in the standard model and hadronic parameters
575: %from lattice QCD: A reappraisal after the measurements of Delta(m(s)) and
576: %BR(B --> tau nu/tau),''
577: JHEP {\bf 0610}, 081 (2006)
578: [arXiv:hep-ph/0606167].
579: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0610,081;%%
580:
581: \bibitem{hep-ph/9903540}
582: R.~Fleischer,
583: %``Extracting CKM phases from angular distributions of B/d,s decays into
584: %admixtures of CP eigenstates,''
585: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 073008 (1999)
586: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903540].
587: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D60,073008;%%
588:
589: \bibitem{matias}
590: S.~Descotes-Genon, J.~Matias and J.~Virto,
591: %``Exploring B/d,s --> K K decays through flavour symmetries and
592: %QCD-factorisation,''
593: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 061801 (2006)
594: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603239].
595: %%CITATION = PRLTA,97,061801;%%
596:
597: \bibitem{Baracchini:2007ei}
598: E.~Baracchini {\it et al.},
599: %``Investigating the physics case of running a B-factory at the Upsilon(5S)
600: %resonance,''
601: JHEP {\bf 0708}, 005 (2007)
602: [arXiv:hep-ph/0703258].
603: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0708,005;%%
604:
605: \bibitem{benekeVV}
606: M.~Beneke, J.~Rohrer and D.~Yang,
607: %``Branching fractions, polarisation and asymmetries of B -> VV decays,''
608: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 774}, 64 (2007)
609: [arXiv:hep-ph/0612290].
610: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B774,64;%%
611:
612: \bibitem{arXiv:0708.2248}
613: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
614: %``Observation of B0 -> K*0 K*0bar and search for B0 -> K*0 K*0,''
615: arXiv:0708.2248 [hep-ex].
616: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0708.2248;%%
617:
618: \bibitem{arXiv:0705.2157}
619: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [Babar Collaboration],
620: %``A Study of B0 to rho+rho- Decays and Constraints on the CKM Angle alpha,''
621: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 052007 (2007)
622: [arXiv:0705.2157 [hep-ex]].
623: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,052007;%%
624:
625: \bibitem{hep-ex/0411016}
626: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
627: %``Ambiguity-free measurement of $\cos(2\beta)$: Time-integrated and
628: %time-dependent angular analyses of $B \to J/\psi K \pi$,''
629: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 032005 (2005)
630: [arXiv:hep-ex/0411016].
631: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,032005;%%
632:
633: \bibitem{hep-ex/0504030}
634: R.~Itoh {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
635: %``Studies of CP violation in B --> J/psi K* decays,''
636: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 091601 (2005)
637: [arXiv:hep-ex/0504030].
638: %%CITATION = PRLTA,95,091601;%%
639:
640: \bibitem{k0pi0exp}
641: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
642: %``Measurements of CP violating asymmetries in $B0 \to K0_S \pi0$ decays,''
643: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 131805 (2004)
644: [arXiv:hep-ex/0403001].
645: %%CITATION = PRLTA,93,131805;%%
646:
647: \bibitem{Bona:2007qt}
648: M.~Bona {\it et al.},
649: %``SuperB: A High-Luminosity Asymmetric e+ e- Super Flavor Factory. Conceptual
650: %Design Report,''
651: arXiv:0709.0451 [hep-ex].
652: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0709.0451;%%
653:
654: \bibitem{dunietz}
655: R.~Aleksan \textit{et al.},
656: %``CP Violation Using Noncp Eigenstate Decays Of Neutral B Mesons,''
657: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 361}, 141 (1991).
658: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B361,141;%%
659:
660: \end{thebibliography}
661:
662: \end{document}
663:
664: