Skip to main content

Full text of "Hadronic Two-Body Charmless B Decays"

See other formats


HADRONIC TWO-BODY CHARMLESS B DECAYS 



<3\ 



(J 
Q 



HAI-YANG CHENG 
Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 115, Republic of China 

Implications of recent CLEO measurements of hadronic charmless B decays are 
discussed. 

1 Effective Wilson Coefficients 



In the absence of first-principles calculations for hadronic matrix elements, it is 
customary to evaluate the matrix elements under the factorization hypothesis 
so that (O(fi)) is factorized into the product of two matrix elements of single 
^sO , currents, governed by decay constants and form factors. However, the naive 

factorized amplitude is not renormalization scale- and 75 scheme- independent 
as the scale and scheme dependence of Wilson coefficients are not compensated 
' by that of the factorized hadronic matrix elements. In principle, the scale and 

£Nj , scheme problems with naive factorization will not occur in the full amplitude 

C " ' since (O(p)) involves vertex- type and penguin- type corrections to the hadronic 

matrix elements of the 4-quark operator renormalized at the scale \x. Formally, 
one can write 



(0( M )}= 5 ( M , M/ )(0( M/ )), (1) 



where fif is a factorization scale, and g(p,fif) is an evolution factor running 
O ■ from the scale /x to [if which is calculable because the infrared structure of 

^ the amplitude, if any, is absorbed into (O(jif)). Writing 

<£'■ c eff ( At/ ) = c( At ) 5 ( At , M /), (2) 

the effective Wilson coefficients are formally scheme and /x-scale independent. 
The factorization approximation is then applied to (O(fif)) afterwards. 
■ fn principle, one can work with any quark configuration, on-shell or off- 

shell, to compute the decay amplitude. If the off-shell quark momentum is 
chosen as the infrared cutoff, g(fi,[i,f) will depend on the gauge of the gluon 
field. This is all right as the gauge dependence belongs to the infrared struc- 
ture of the wave function so that the physical amplitude is gauge independent 
El. However, if factorization is applied to (0(fj,f)}, the information of gauge 
dependence characterized by the wave function will be lost. Consequently, c eff 
will depend on the choice of gauge, a difficulty pointed out by Buras and Sil- 
vestrini □. As pointed out in El, within the factorization framework, one must 
work in the on-shell quark scheme to obtain gauge invariant and infrared finite 



bcpS: submitted to World Scientific on February 1, 2008 



c\ and infrared poles, if any, are absorbed into universal bound-state wave 
functions. It should be stressed that the constant matrix ry arising from 
vertex-like corrections is not arbitrary due to the infrared finiteness of vertex- 
like diagrams: The infrared divergences in individual vertex-type diagrams 
cancel in their sum. The gauge-invariant ?y matrices in naive dimension reg= 
ularization and.lt Hooft-Veltman renormalization schemes are first given in a 
and □ (see also a) . 



2 Nonfactorized Effects 



It is known that the effective Wilson coefficients appear in the factorizable 
decay amplitudes in the combinations an — c|f + j^-c|fLi and a-a-i = 
c^^i + ^ c 2i (i = 1, • • - , 5). Phenomenologically, the number of colors N c is 
often treated as a free parameter to model the nonfactorizable contribution 
to hadronic matrix elements and its value can be extracted from the data of 
two-body nonleptonic decays. Nonfactorizable effects in the decay amplitudes 
of B — * PP, VP can be absorbed into the parameters a° ff . This amounts to 
replacing N c in a° s by (N° s )i. Explicitly, 

off _ eff , 1 r cff eff _ eff , 1 r cff (o\ 

a 2i — c 2i T" ^ejf^^t-Ji-l) «2i-l - c 2i-l T" (jY cff ) 2 i_l 

where i = 1 , • • • , 5 and 

(l/JVf), = (l/JV c )+ Xij (4) 

with Xi being the nonfactorizable terms, which receive contributions from 
nonfactorized vertex-type, penguin-type and spectator corrections. In general, 
Xi and {N^ s )i are complex. 

Naive factorization does not work in the presence of nonfactorized con- 
tributions. Nevertheless, if Xi are universal (i.e. channel by channel inde- 
pendent), then we still have generalized factorization, which is likely to be 
justified for hadronic charmless B decays due to their large energy release. 
Since the Fierz transformation of (V — A)(V + A) operators is quite different 
from that of (V— A)(V— A) operators, we shall assume that xlr ^ Xll, where 
Xll = Xi,2,3,4,9,io and xlr = X5,6,7,s, or equivalently, Nf(LR) ^ Nf(LL) 
with Nf(LL) ee (Nf) 12 3A 9 W and Nf(LR) = {Nf) 5 6J s . As shown in 

B, the data analysis and the theoretical study of nonleptonic rare B decays 
all indicate that Nf(LR) > 3 > Nf(LL). In principle, N c eff can vary from 
channel to channel, as in the case of charm decay. However, in the energetic 
two-body B Jecays, N^ s is expected to be process insensitive as supported 
by the data El. 



bcp3: submitted to World Scientific on February 1, 2008 2 



The observation Nf(LL) < 3 < Nf(LR) is theoretically justified by 
a recent perturbative QCD calculation of charmless B decays in the heavy 
quark limit. As pointed out inU, in the heavy quark limit, all nonfactorizable 
diagrams are dominated by hard gluon exchange, while soft gluon effects are 
suppressed by factors of Aqcd/™&- In other words, the nonfactorized term is 
calculable as expansion in a s in the heavy quark limit. Following a, we find 
the nonfactorized terms: 

XLR = - XLL = -^^f + fi) } ( 5 ) 

where the hard scattering function f l corresponds to hard gluon exchange 
between the two outgoing light mesons and / n describes the hard nonfactor- 
ized effect involving the spectator quark of the B meson. Two remarks are in 
order. (i)J3ince / : is complex due to final-state interactions via hard gluon 
exchange u, so are %i 

and Nf(LL) and Nf(LR). Nevertheless, the com- 
plex phases of \i are m general small, (ii) Because Re \ll > 0, it is obvious 
that Nf(LL) < 3 and Nf(LR) > 3. Furthermore, Nf(LL) ~ 2 implies 
Nf{LR) - 6. Therefore, the empirical observation iV c cff (LR) > 3 > Nf(LL) 
shown in cl gets a firm justification from the perturbative QCD calculation. 



3 Tree-Dominated Charmless B Decays 

CLEO has observed several tree-dominated charmless B decays which proceed 
at the tree level through the b quark decay b — > uud and at the loop level via 
the b — > d penguin diagrams: B — > 7r + 7r~, p ^, cj7r ± , r j9 ± 7r =F . The updated 
branching ratios have been reported at this Conference u: 

B(B° 7T+7T-) = (4.3l*-j ± 0.6) x 1CT 6 , 
B(B ± -> pV*) = (10.4^ j ± 2.1) x 1(T 6 , 
B(B ± -> W7r ± ) = (11.3±1;| ± 1.5) x 

B(B° -» p ± irT) = (27.6±fi ± 4.2) x 10^ 6 . (6) 

These decays are sensitive to the form factors Fq^, Aq P , and to the 

value of N° S (LL). We consider two different form- factor models for heavy^ 
to-light transitions: the BSW model El and the light-cone sum rule (LCSR) 13 
and obtain 1.1 < N° S (LL) < 2.6 from p ^ and uitt modes. This is indeed 
what expected since the effective number of colors, N° S (LL), inferred frcum 
the Cabibbo-allowed decays B — > (D, D*){tt, p) is in the vicinity of 2 (see □) 
and since the energy released in the energetic two-body charmless B decays is 



bcp3: submitted to World Scientific on February 1, 2008 3 



in general slightly larger than that in B — > Dir decays, it is thus anticipated 
that 

|x(two — body rare B decay) | < \x(B — > Dtt)\, (7) 

and hence Nf(LL) w N° S (B -> Dtt) - 2. 

Note that the branching ratio of p°7r is sensitive to the change of the 
unitarity angle 7, while ljtt^ is not. For example, we have B(B ± — » p°7r ± ) ~ 
S(S ± -► wtt*) for 7-65°, and S(B ± -> p ^*) > B(B ± -> wtt*) for 
7 > 90°. It appears that a unitarity angle 7 larger than 90°, which is preferred 
by the previous measurement 113 B{B^ — » p ^*) = (15 ± 5 ± 4) x 10~ 6 , is no 
longer strongly favored by the new data of p°ir . 



4 B — » irir and 7rif Decays 

The CLEO measurement of £?° — » 7r + 7r _ mode [see Eq. (||)] puts a very strin- 
gent constraint on the form factor F^*. Neglecting final-state interactions 
and employing 7 = Arg(V^) = 65° and \V u b/V c b\ = 0.09, and the effective 
number of colors Nf(LL) = 2, we find F B7r (0) = 0.20 ±0.04, which is rather 
small compared to the BSW valueQ F^ v (0) = 0.333. This relatively small 
form factor will lead to two difficulties. First, the predicted B — > Kir branch- 
ing ratios will be too small compared to the data as their decay rates are 
governed by the same form factor. Second, the predicted rate of B — > K rf 
is also too small as the form factor Fq K (0) cannot deviate too much from 
F B7r (0), otherwise the SU(3)-symmetry relation F^ K = F S7r will be badly 
broken. 

There exist several possibilities that the Kir rates can be enhanced: (i) 
The CKM matrix element V u b is small, say \V u b/V c b\ ~ 0.06, so that the 
form factor F ( f 7r (0) is not suppressed Ea However this CKM matrix element 
Kb/VjeJ is smaller than the recent LEP average E3 0.104±°;°ig and the CLEO 
result 0.083io'oi6- (^) ^ large nonzero isospin rnr phase shift difference of 
order 70° can yield a substantial suppression of the 7r + 7r~ modea. However, 
a large irir isospin phase difference seems to be very unlikely due to the. large 
energy released in charmless B decays. Indeed, the Regge analysis of Ii3 indi- 
cates i5 W7r = 11°. (iii) Smaller quark masses, say m s (rrib) = 65 MeV, will make 
the (S — P)(S + P) penguin terms contributing sizably to the Kir modes but 
less significantly to ir + ir~ as the penguin effect on the latter is suppressed by 
the quark mixing angles. However, a rather smaller m s is not consistent with 
recent lattice calculations, (iv) The unitarity angle 7 larger than 90° will lead 
to a suppression of B — > ir + ir~ Ou, which in turn implies an enhancement of 



bcp3: submitted to World Scientific on February 1, 2008 4 



Fq and hence Ktt rates. Therefore, the last possibility appears to be more 
plausible. 

We find that the CLEO Ktt and tttt data can be accommodated by 

7 = 105°,R Fo*(°) = °- 28 ' F o K (°) = °- 36 > ^c ff (W) = 2 - Note that 
7 = (114^21)° is obtained by Hou, Smith, Wiirthwein Ii3 under the assump- 
tion of naive factorization. The calculated and experimental values of Ktt 
decays are 

-► K-TT+) = 18.6 x 1(T 6 , (17.2±|;| ± 1.2) x 10~ 6 , 
B(B- -» K°tt-) = 17.0 x 10~ 6 , (18.2±ig ± L6 ) x l0 ~ 6 > 
B(B~ -> K'tt ) = 12.6 x 10~ 6 , (11.6±|;?±i:|) x 10~ 6 , 
B(B° -> aV) = 6.0 x 10~ 6 , (14.6±l;?±i;|) x 10~ 6 . (8) 

It is known that Ktt modes are penguin dominated. As far as the QCD pen- 
guin contributions are concerned, it will be expected that B(B — > K~tt + ) ~ 

B(B~ -> aV) and B(B~ j^K--k°) ~ aV) ~ ±B(B -» Att*). 

However, as pointed out in tafia, the electroweak penguin diagram, which can 
be neglected in A tt~ and A~7r + , does play an essential role in the modes 
Kit . With a moderate electroweak penguin contribution, the constructive 
(destructive) interference between electroweak and QCD penguins in K~ir° 
and K tt° renders the former greater than the latter; that is, B(B~ — » 
K~tt°) > iB(B° -» aV) and -» aV) < iB(B° -» A-7r+) are 

anticipated. We see from Eq. @ that, except for the decay A°7r°, the agree- 
ment of the calculated branching ratios for Ktt modes with experiment is 
good. By contrast, the central value of B(B — > K it ) is much greater than 
the theoretical expectation. Since its experimental error is large, one has to 
await the experimental improvement to clarify the issue. The predicted pat- 
tern K-TT+ > K %~ ~ IK-tt° ~ 3 A 7T° is consistent with experiment for 
the first three decays. 

5 B — > K(j), Kn' and K*t] Decays 

The decay amplitude of the penguin-dominated mode B — ► A</> is governed 
by [03 + 0,4 + as — ^(&7 + ag + a 10)], where 03 and 05 are sensitive to N° S (LL) 
and Nf(LR), respectively. The current limit B(B ± -> 0A" ± ) < 0.59 x 10~ 5 

"Thus far, only the data of B — > 7T7t, i-sT7r imply the possibility that cos 7 < 0. As noted in 
Sec. Ill, 7 > 90° is not strongly favored by the measurements of B — » p°vr ± , uj-k^ . 



bcp3: submitted to World Scientific on February 1, 2008 5 



at 90% C.L. implies that 



with N° S (LL) being fixed at the value of 2. Hence, we can conclude that 
Nf(LR) > 3 > Nf(LL). 

The improved measurements of the decays B — > r/'K by CLEO yield El 

B(B ± -> t/X ±) = (80l^ ± 7) x 10~ 6 , 
/3(B° -» V 'K°) = (89±\l ± 9) x 10- 6 . (10) 

This year CLEO has_also reported the new measurement of B — > if* 77 with 
the branching ratios E3 

S(B ± -> 77JsT* ± ) = (26.4±|J ± 3.3) x 10~ 6 , 
^(S rjK*°) = (13.8±|J ± 1.6) x 10~ 6 . (11) 

Theoretically, the branching ratios of Krj' {K*rj) are anticipated to be much 
greater than Kix (K*rj') modes owing to the presence of constructive interfer- 
ence between two penguin amplitudes arising from non-strange and strange 
quarks of the 77' or 77. In general, the decay rates of Krf increase slowly with 
Nf(LR) if Nf(LL) is treated to be the same as N° S (LR), but fast enough 
with Nf{LR) if Nf(LL) is fixed at the value of 2. Evidently, the data much 
favor the latter case. As stressed in a, the contribution from the 77' charm 
content will make the theoretical prediction even worse at the small values 
of l/iV c cff if Nf(LL) = Nf(LR) I On the contrary, if Nf(LL) « 2, the cc 
admixture in the rj' will always lead to a constructive interference irrespective 
of the value of N° S (LR). The branching ratios of K*r\ in general decrease 
with Nf(LR) when Nf(LL) = Nf(LR) but increase with Nf(LR) when 
N° S (LL) = 2. Again, the latter is preferred by experiment. Hence, the data 
of both Krl and K*r\ provide another strong support for a small N° (LL) 
and for the relation Nf(LR) > Nf(LL). In other words, the nonfactorized 
effects due to (V - A)(V - A) and (V - A)(V + A) operators should be treated 
differently. 

Several new mechanisms have been proposed in the past few years to 
explain the observed enormously large rate of Krj', for example, the large 
charm content of the 77' E3 or the twopgkupn fusion mechanism via the anomaly 
coupling of the 77' with two gluons iBlEi. These mechanisms will in general 
predict a large rate for K*rf comparable to or even greater than ^77' and a 
very small rate for K*rj and Kij. The fact that the K*i] modes are observed 
with sizeable branching ratios indicates that it is the constructive interference 



bcp3: submitted to World Scientific on February 1, 2008 6 



of two comparable penguin amplitudes rather than the mechanism specific to 
the rf that accounts for the bulk of B — > rj'K and rjK* branching ratios. 

Finally, we would like to make a remark. As shown in u, the charged 
r]'K~ mode gets enhanced when cos 7 becomes negative while the neutral 
n' K° mode remains steady. Therefore, it is important to see if the disparity 
between r/'K^ and r/'K is confirmed when experimental errors are improved 
and refined in the future. 



References 



1. H.Y. Cheng, H-n. Li, and K.C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D60, 094005 (1999). 

2. A.J. Buras and L. Silvestrini, JVuci. Phys. B548, 293 (1999). 

3. Y.H. Chen, H.Y. Cheng, B. Tseng, and K.C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D60, 
094014 (1999). 



11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
1G. 
17. 



18. 



19. 



20. 



4. H.Y. Cheng and K.C. Yang, |hcp-ph/9910291 . 

5. M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C.T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. 
Lett. 83, 1914 (1999). 

6. J. Smith, in these Proceedings. 

7. M. Wirbel, B. Stech, and M. Bauer, ibid. C29, 637 (1985); M. Bauer, 
B. Stech, and M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. C34, 103 (1987). 

8. P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D58, 094016 (1998); P. Ball, J. 
High Energy Phys. 9809, 005 (1998). 

9. H.Y. Cheng and K.C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D59, 092004 (1999). 
10. CLEO Collaboration, M. Bishai et al, CLEO CONF 99-13, 



ex/9908018 



hcp- 



K. Agashe and N.G. Deshpandc, |hcp-ph/9909298 
D. Abbaneo et al, LEPVUB-99-01, 1999. 
CLEO Collaboration, B.H. Behrens et al, |hcp-ex/9905056 



X.G. He, W.S. Hou, and K.C. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1100 (1999). 
J.-M. Gerard, J. Pestieau, and J. Weyers, Phys. Lett. B436 , 363 (1998) 
W.S. Hou, J.G. Smith, and F. Wiirthwein, jhcp-ph/9910"oT^ . 
CLEO Collaboration, S.J. Richichi et al, CLEO CONF 99-12, |hcp" 



ex/9908019 



I. Halpcrin and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D56, 7247 (1997); E.V. 

Shuryak and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D57, 2001 (1998). 

M.R. Ahmady, E. Kou, and A. Sugamoto, Phys. Rev. D58, 014015 

(1998). 

D.S. Du, C.S. Kim, and Y.D. Yang, Phys. Lett. B419, 369 (1998); D.S. 
Du, Y.D. Yang and G. Zhu, Phy s. Rev. D59, 014007 (1999); ibid. D60, 
054015 (1999); |hcp-ph/9912"201 . 



bcp3: submitted to World Scientific on February 1, 2008 7