Electroweak B Decays

1. Electroweak B Decays Possibility of Large EW Penguin contribution T. Yoshikawa ( Nagoya ) This talk is based on S. Mishima and T.Y. hep-ph/0408090 and T.Y. Phys.Rev. D68, 054023 (2003) . FPCP2004 Oct. 4 – 9, EXCO, Daegu, Korea

2. Gronau, Hernandez,London, Rosner B decays b Ｔｒｅｅ QCDＰｅｎｇｕｉｎ Color suppressed tree ElectroWeak Penguin (PEW) Annihilation Color suppressed EWPenguin (PCEW) Singlet QCD Penguin

3. B decays Main Contributions T , P Ｔｒｅｅ QCDＰｅｎｇｕｉｎ Color suppressed tree How should we treat PEW, C ? ElectroWeak Penguin (PEW) Color suppressed EWPenguin (PCEW) Anihilation usually Negligible Contributions PCEW , A

4. CP asymmetries : B  K0 (b-s penguin type modes ) vs B  J/ K0 K - Puzzle Large B Branching ratio Discrepancies between TH and EX The direct CPVs are almost zero !! BUT the indirect CPV Ss are How about the differences among these b-s penguin modes ? Fleischer-Mannel, Neubert-Rosner, Lipkin, Buras, … T.Y., Gronau - Rosner, Buras-Fleischer et al , Li, ……. Many works. Relations among the branching ratios Relation among Direct CP asymmetries We discuss what happens in B  and decays .

5. Kp - pp Puzzle Before ICHEP04 Experimental data do not satisfy several relations among the branching ratios. Theory Experimental 0.37 0.16 0.43 0.20 0.83 0.23 There were quite large discrepancies.

6. Before ICHEP04 What changed ? After ICHEP04

7. Kp - pp Puzzle After ICHEP04 1) Experimental data do not satisfy several relations among the branching ratios. 0.21 0.11 0.22 0.14 0.66 0.13 Still remaining the discrepancies !!

8. Kp - pp Puzzle After ICHEP04 2) There seems to be a discrepancy in direct CP asymmetries of B Kp. Theoretically, Exeimental data, Is the relation among the Acp s violated ?

9. We have to know what makes the discrepancies! Do we still need large EW Penguin contribution ?

10. Diagram Decomposition of B  Kp and pp

11. Hierarchy in B  K p Gronau, Hernandez,London, Rosner Large QCDＰｅｎｇｕｉｎ Ｔｒｅｅ b EWPenguin (PEW) Color suppressed EWPenguin (PCEW) Color suppressed tree Annihilation (Exchange) Small

12. They are rewritten as follows: wherer is the ratio of each diagram with QCD Penguin, and dX is the strong phase difference. where ris the ratio of each diagram with Tree contribution, and dX is the strong phase difference. A (Exchange) and PCEW are neglected here.

13. Hierarchy Assumption in B  Kp ＰＱＣＤ O(0.1) O(0.01)

14. Hierarchy Assumption in B  pp O(0.1) negligible

15. Branching ratios under the assumption by neglecting r2terms including rC, rcEW , rA (smaller terms than O(0.01 ). )

16. Fleischer-Mannel bound We can find several relations among them.

17. Some relations among the branching ratios =0 or not ? These relation seems to be proportional to r2 so that they should be O(0.01) quantities .

18. Branching ratios Rough estimation under assumption ~ 1 ?

19. Experimental data - = 0 + = 2 1.04 > 0.1

20. Relations = 0.21 0.11 0.22 0.14 = 0.26 0.16 = Do we need large EW penguin contribution ?

21. From the 1 s bound of Rc-Rn, S, R+ -2 with rT =0.2 1 s 1 s 0.14 We may still need slightly large EW penguin contribution. To discuss more detail, we need the information about strong phases. If flavor SU(3) sym. is good, dT ~ dEW and dT will be constrained by ACP . Consider about direct CP asymmetries !!

22. What can we expect 1) 2) No strong phase difference between tree and EW(Z) penguin 3) under SU(3) symmetry. Because the diagrams are topologically same. z K W b b Neubert-Rosner, Buras and Fleischer u B s B K EW Penguin tree

23. Direct CP asymmetries in B  Kp Relation among the CP asymmetries : Large EW Penguin ? Or Still early ?

24. -0.114 0.020 as a function of dT with rT= 0.2 . dT should be around 20o or 150o dT + Fleischer-Mannel bound Cos dT > 0 is favored. dT should be around 20o.

25. Maximum bound of Rc-Rn under constraints from ACP and R with rT = 0.2 . We still need large EW penguin contribution and large strong phase difference. is disfavored.

26. How about B pp ? where . It seems to be difficult to explain by only EW penguin because it will be sub-leading contribution. To explain the large ratios, we need 1) To suppress the denominator . f1 + f3 > 90o with dT ~ 20o < < 0 0 2) Larger rP

27. Large may be possible if there is SU(3) breaking effect between b-s P and b-d Penguins . BUT the magnitude will be constrainted from B KK (pure b-d penguin ) modes. d K s s K Pure b-d penguin Pure b-s penguin At largest, Pp is 1.5 times larger. We can not take so large .

28. How about B pp ? where . It seems to be difficult to explain by only EW penguin because it will be sub-leading contribution. To explain the large ratios, we need 1) To suppress the denominator . f1 + f3 > 90o with dT ~ 20o 2) Larger rP 3) Larger (color suppressed tree ) Or New Physics ??with new CP phase Before considering about New Physics, review the contribution from rC .

29. An example: f1+ f3 = 110o , dEW - dT =100o ,dC = dT

30. Relaxing the hierarchy assumption= keeping r2C termsin Kp. The lower bound of rC to satisfy Rc-Rn, S, R+ -2 at 1s bound. 1) d s are free parameters 2) dT = dEWcase The usual estimation is 0.02 . If large is allowed, it may explain the discrepancies. Chiang-Gronau-Rosner-Suprum But it seems to be too large though it is color suppressed tree-type contribution. Charnｇ-Li

31. Conclusion • The allowed region of rEW should be larger than about 0.2 . Still remaining the discrepancies ! • Large strong phase differences are needed. SU(3) breaking ? • As a possibility, we need to consider Large rc case also. • Direct CP asymmetries will be more important to understand which is the origin of the discrepancies. • To keep , need new CP phase in Penguin type diagrams. Or Large rc case. If PEW is including New CP Phase, the effect must appear in CP asymmetries, Acp00 and SK0p0 .

32. Kp pp (Kp pp w=0) or + or SU(3) breaking + Large f3 , d Possibility of New Physics ?