text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Anyons are particles with any statistics that interpolate between bosons and fermions . They exist only in two dimension because the configuration space of collection of identical particles has some special topological properties allowing arbitrary statistics. On the other hand supersymmetry (underlining $`Z_2`$-graded superalgebras) provided us with an elegant symmetry between fermions and bosons . Due to his success, there have been many variances to generalize its structures to incorporate other kinds of statistics. The first attempt in this sens was proposed by Rubakov and Spiridonov by combining bosonic and parafermionic degrees of freedom leading to the so-called parasupersymmetric quantum mechanics of order 3 .The 3-fractional Rubakov-Spiridonov superalgebra has been extended to an arbitrary order $`k`$ by Khare  generalizing the $`Z_2`$ by a $`Z_k`$-grading.The formalism of parasupersymmetry involves a bosonic degree of freedom (described by a complex variable) and a parafermionic degree of freedom (described by a generalized Grassmman variable of order $`k`$ ). In other words, to pass from a $`Z_2`$-graded theory to a $`Z_k`$-graded one, we retain the bosonic variable and replace the fermionic variable by a parafermionic one. We note that the $`k`$-fermionic variables  have been also used to extend the Rubakov-Spiridonov algebra . Fractional supersymmetry was also developed without any explicit introduction of parafermionic or $`k`$-fermionic degrees of freedom. In this respect, fractional supersymmetry was worked by Quesne and Vansteenkiste  owing to the introduction of the extended Weyl-Heisenberg algebra ( called also extended oscillator algebra).

The connection between anyons and fractional supersymmetry seems apparently two very distinct subjects and have not been considered previously in the literature. However, as we will see the statistical parameter of anyons and the order of the fractional supersymmetry are deeply related.This connection is based on the anyonization of the extended Weyl-Heisenberg algebra. Then, considering the creation and annihilation anyonic operators (called also anyonic oscillators), constructed by Lerda and Sciuto on a two dimensional lattice , we disscus the anyonic realization of the extended Weyl-Heisenberg algebra. The latter realization will be the cornerstone to provide an anyonic realization of the fractional Rubakov-Spiridonov superalgebra.

The present letter is organized as follows. First, we recall basis notions connected with the Lerda-Sciuto anyonic oscillators on a two dimensional Lattice. In section 3, we show the usefulness of the anyonic creation and annihilation operators to provide a new realization of the extended Weyl-Heisenberg algebra involving objects with fractional spin. Section 4 is devoted to derivation of the fractional Rubakov-Spiridonov superalgebra using the generators of the Weyl-Heisenberg algebra. In section 5, we show that the anyons can be also used to realize the superalgebra $`sl(1/1)`$ which is undeformed in the quantum superalgebra context  and not fractionnal in the Rubakov-Spiridonov language.

## 2 Basics tools: Lerda-Sciuto anyonic oscillators

In this section, we recall necessary minimum of details concerning anyonic oscillators (see the reference ) on $`2d`$ square lattice $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with spacing $`a=1`$. We give a two-component fermionic spinor field by

$$S^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}s_1^{}(x)\\ s_2^{}(x)\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
and its conjugate hermitian by

$$S^+=(s_1^+(x),s_2^+(x)),$$
(2)
such that the components of these fields satisfy the following standard anticommutation relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \{s_i^{}(x),s_j^{}(y)\}& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill \{s_i^+(x),s_j^+(y)\}& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill \{s_i^{}(x),s_j^+(y)\}& =& \delta _{ij}\delta (x,y),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
for $`i,j\{1,2\}`$ and $`x,y\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Here, $`\delta (x,y)`$ is the conventional lattice $`\delta `$-function: $`\delta (x,y)=1`$ if $`x=y`$ and vanishes if $`xy`$. We use the definition of the lattice angle functions $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_x}(x,y)`$ as recited in ; where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ is the curve associated to each site $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the signs $`\pm `$ indicate the two kinds of rotation direction on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This definition can be identified to that is discussed in  by Lerda and Sciuto.

The expression of anyonic oscillators are given in term of fermionic spinors and angle functions as follows

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_i^{}(x_\pm )& =& e^{i\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_i(x_\pm )}s_i^{}(x)\hfill \\ \hfill a_i^+(x_\pm )& =& s_i^+(x)e^{i\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_i(x_\pm )}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
The number $`\nu `$ appearing in this equation is usually called statistics parameter. The elements $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i(x_\pm )`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i(x_\pm )=\underset{y\mathrm{\Omega }}{}s_i^+(x)\mathrm{\Theta }_{\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_x}(x,y)s_i^{}(y),$$
(5)
which satisfy the following commutation relations

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }_i(x_\pm ),s_j^{}(y)]=\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_x}(x,y)s_i^{}(y)$$

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }_i(x_\pm ),s_j^+(y)]=\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_x}(x,y)s_{}^+(y)$$

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }_i(x_\pm ),\mathrm{\Delta }_j(y_\pm )]=0$$

Now, we can show that the anyonic oscillators satisfy the following algebraic relations

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}[a_i^{}(x_\pm ),a_i^{}(y_\pm )]_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=0,\hfill & x>y\hfill & & & & & & & & \\ [a_i^{}(x_\pm ),a_i^+(y_\pm )]_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pm }=0,\hfill & x>y\hfill & & & & & & & & \\ [a_i^+(x_\pm ),a_i^{}(y_\pm )]_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pm }=0,\hfill & x>y\hfill & & & & & & & & \\ [a_i^+(x_\pm ),a_i^+(y_\pm )]_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=0,\hfill & x>y\hfill & & & & & & & & \\ [a_i^{}(x_\pm ),a_i^+(x_\pm )]=1,\hfill & & & & & & & & & \\ [a_i^{}(x_\pm ),a_j^+(y_\pm )]=0,\hfill & ij\hfill & & & & & & & & \\ [a_i^+(x_\pm ),a_j^{}(y_\pm )]=0,\hfill & ij\hfill & & & & & & & & \\ [a_i^+(x_\pm ),a_j^+(y_\pm )]=0,\hfill & ij\hfill & & & & & & & & \\ [a_i^\pm (x_{}),a_j^\pm (y_+)]=0,\hfill & i,j\hfill & & & & & & & & \\ [a_i^{}(x_{}),a_j^+(y_+)]=\delta _{ij}\delta (x,y)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{+[\underset{z<x}{}\underset{z>x}{}]s_j^+(z)s_j^{}(z)},\hfill & & & & & & & & & \\ [a_i^{}(x_{}),a_j^+(y_+)]=\delta _{ij}\delta (x,y)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{[\underset{z<x}{}\underset{z>x}{}]s_j^+(z)s_j^{}(z)}.\hfill & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pm =e^{\pm i\nu \pi }`$, $`[X,Y]_\mathrm{\Lambda }=XY+\mathrm{\Lambda }YX`$ and

$$x>y\{\begin{array}{c}x_+>y_+\{\begin{array}{c}x_2>y_2\hfill \\ x_1>y_1,x_2=x_1\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ x_{}<y_{}\{\begin{array}{c}x_2<y_2\hfill \\ x_1<y_1,x_1=x_2\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

One obtains also

$$(a_i^\pm (x_\pm ))^2=0,$$
(7)
which is known as the hard core condition.

We would like to stress that despite the many formal analogies, the anyonic oscillators does not have anything to do with the $`k`$-fermions, $`q`$-deformed bosons with $`q=e^{2\pi i/k}`$, for several reasons: $`(i)`$ the $`k`$-fermions can be defined in any dimensions whereas the anyons are strictly two-dimensional objects, $`(ii)`$ the anyons are non-local contrarly to the $`k`$-fermions. The latter objects constitute a mathematical tool, introduced in the context of quantum algebras, which was used to go beyond the conventional statistics in any dimension and taking into account some perturbation (deformation) responsible of small deviations from the FD and BE usual statistics .

## 3 Anyonic realization of the extended Weyl-Heisenberg algebra

For fixed $`\nu [0,1]`$, the extended Weyl-Heisenberg algebra is defined as an algebra generated by the operators $`a_+`$, $`a_{}=(a_+)^+`$, $`N`$ and $`K=(K^+)^1`$ satisfying the following relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[a_{},a_+]=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\frac{2}{\nu }1}{}}f_sP_s,\hfill & [N,a_\pm ]=\pm a^\pm \hfill & \\ & & \\ Ka_+=e^{i\pi \nu }a_+K,\hfill & Ka_{}=e^{i\pi \nu }a_{}K\hfill & \\ & & \\ [K,N]=0,\hfill & K^{\frac{2}{\nu }}=1.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(8)
Here, $`f_s`$ are some real parameters and the admissible values of the statistical parameter is restricted by the condition $`\frac{2}{\nu }\{2,3,4\mathrm{}\}`$. The operators $`P_s`$ are polynomials in the grading operator $`K`$ defined by

$$P_s=\frac{\nu }{2}\underset{t=0}{\overset{\frac{2}{\nu }1}{}}e^{i\pi \nu st}K^t,$$
(9)
for $`s=0,1,2,\mathrm{},\frac{2}{\nu }1`$. One can see that the $`P_s`$’s operators satisfy the folowing relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \underset{t=0}{\overset{\frac{2}{\nu }1}{}}P_s=1,& P_sP_t=\delta (s,t)P_s& \end{array}$$
(10)
where $`\delta `$ is the Kronecker symbol. Furthermore, these operators satisfy

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill P_sa^+=a^+P_{s1},& a^{}P_s=P_{s1}a^{}.& \end{array}$$
(11)
Note that the equation (9) can be conversed in the form

$$K^t=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\frac{2}{\nu }1}{}}e^{i\pi \nu st}P_s,$$
(12)
with $`t=0,1,\mathrm{},\frac{2}{\nu }1`$. It is clear that the commutation relation between $`a_{}`$ and $`a_+`$ (equations (8)) can be written as

$$[a_{},a_+]=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\frac{2}{\nu }1}{}}c_sK^s$$
(13)
where the $`c_s`$ are related to parameters $`f_t`$ by

$$f_t=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\frac{2}{\nu }1}{}}e^{i\pi \nu st}c_s$$
(14)
or conversely by

$$c_s=\frac{\nu }{2}\underset{t=0}{\overset{\frac{2}{\nu }1}{}}f_te^{i\pi \nu st}.$$
(15)
To show that the extended Weyl-Heisenberg algebra can be realized by means of anyonic oscillators of statistics $`\nu `$ in a quite direct though non-trivial way, we start by introducing the local operators

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_+(x)& =& a_1^+(x_+)a_2^{}(x_+)\hfill \\ \hfill a_{}(x)& =& a_2^+(x_{})a_1^{}(x_{})\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
and

$$N(x)=a_1^+(x_+)a_1^{}(x_+)a_2^+(x_+)a_2^{}(x_+).$$
(17)
It is not difficult to verify, from the commutation relations (6), that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_+(y)a_+(x)& =& e^{i2\pi \nu }a_+(x)a_+(y)\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill a_{}(y)a_{}(x)& =& e^{i2\pi \nu }a_{}(x)a_{}(y)\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
for $`x>y`$. The latter equation show that the local operators defined by (16) have braiding properties and one have to specify the ordering of the points $`x`$ and $`y`$ if we change the braiding orientation. In the same way, with a straighfoward application of equations (6), we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}[N(x),a_\pm (y)]=\pm a_\pm (x)\delta (x,y),\hfill & \\ & \\ [a_+(x),a_{}(y)]=0,\hfill & xy\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
The commutation relation of $`a_+(x)`$ and $`a_{}(x)`$ (i. e. at the same point) is slightly more complicated. However, by an adequate using of the commutation relations of the anyonic oscillators, it is not hard to show that

$$[a_+(x),a_{}(x)]=\underset{y<x}{}e^{i\nu \pi N(y)}N(x)\underset{z>x}{}e^{i\nu \pi N(z)}.$$
(20)
Now, we introduce the global creation, annihilation and number anyonic operators of spin $`s=\frac{\nu }{2}`$ on the lattice in terms of the local anyonic ones. They are defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_+& =& \underset{x\mathrm{\Omega }}{}a_1^+(x_+)a_2^{}(x_+)\hfill \\ \hfill a_{}& =& \underset{x\mathrm{\Omega }}{}a_2^+(x_{})a_1^{}(x_{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
and

$$N=\underset{x\mathrm{\Omega }}{}(a_1^+(x_\pm )a_1^{}(x_\pm )a_2^+(x_\pm )a_2^{}(x_\pm ))$$
(22)
The grading operator (known also as Klein operator) is defined by

$$K=e^{[i\pi \nu \underset{x\mathrm{\Omega }}{}(a_1^+(x_\pm )a_1^{}(x_\pm )a_2^+(x_\pm )a_2^{}(x_\pm ))]}$$
(23)
It is clear that the operator $`K`$ satisfy

$$K^{\frac{2}{\nu }}=1$$
(24)
and we have also

$$(a_+)^+=a_{}.$$
(25)
The operators $`N`$ and $`K`$ are commutating. Furthermore using the structure relations of the anyonic oscillators on the lattice $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we have the following commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}[a_+,a_{}]=\underset{x\mathrm{\Omega }}{}(\underset{y<x}{}e^{[i\pi \nu N(y)]})N(x)(\underset{z>x}{}e^{[i\pi \nu N(z)]}),\hfill & \\ & \\ [N,a_\pm ]=\pm a_\pm ,\hfill & Ka_\pm =e^{\pm i\nu \pi }a_\pm K.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
To write the commutation relation involving $`a_{}`$ and $`a_+`$ (Eqs (26)), in a form similar to the one given in equations (8), we show that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \underset{x\mathrm{\Omega }}{}(\underset{y<x}{}e^{[i\pi \nu N(y)]})N(x)(\underset{z>x}{}e^{[i\pi \nu N(z)]})& =& \underset{t=0}{\overset{\frac{2}{\nu }1}{}}f_tP_t\hfill \\ & =& \underset{t=0}{\overset{\frac{2}{\nu }1}{}}c_sK^s\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
where the parameters $`f_t`$ and $`c_t`$ are given by

$$f_t=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \nu t)}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )}$$
(28)
and

$$c_s=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0,\hfill & s2,\frac{2}{\nu }2\hfill & \\ \frac{1}{2\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )},\hfill & s=2\hfill & \\ \frac{1}{2\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )},\hfill & s=\frac{2}{\nu }2\hfill & \end{array}$$
(29)
To obtain this result, we followed a similar method that one established by Lerda and Sciuto in . The first step of this method is based on the fact that the local operator $`N(x)`$ admits only the eigenvalues $`0`$ and $`+1`$ for any $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ according to the Pauli exclusion principle for anyon operators (hard core condition). Then, one have the identity

$$N(x)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu N(x))}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )}$$
(30)
for any site $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Reducing the lattice $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to only one site, $`x_0`$ for instance, we have $`N=N(x_0)`$ and thus the equality (27) hold thanks to equation (30).

Assuming that the equation (27) is valid for a lattice of $`n`$ sites $`\{x_i,i=1,\mathrm{}n\}`$, we add an extra point $`x_{n+1}`$. For the lattice with $`(n+1)`$ sites, the equation (27) becomes

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\underset{j<i}{}e^{i\pi \nu N(x_j)}N(x_i)\underset{k>i}{}e^{i\pi \nu N(x_k)})e^{N(x_{n+1})}+e^{i\pi \nu N(x_{n+1})}N(x_{n+1})=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu N)}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )}$$
(31)
where $`N=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}N(x_i)`$. The last equation is easily designed using the equation (26) and (30). In view of the relations (24), (26) and (27), we conclude that the operators $`a_+`$, $`a_{}`$, $`N`$ and $`K`$ close the extended Weyl-Heisenberg algeba.

The operators $`a_{}^{\frac{2}{\nu }}`$, $`a_+^{\frac{2}{\nu }}`$ and $`K^{\frac{2}{\nu }}`$ belong the centre of the extended Weyl-Heisenberg algebra. It is straightforward to prove also that the operator

$$C=a_{}a_++\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu (2N+1))}{2\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi \nu )}$$
(32)
is an invariant of the WH algebra. Then, the extended WH algebra admits finite-dimensional representations of dimension $`\frac{2}{\nu }`$ such that

$$a_{}^{\frac{2}{\nu }}=\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}_{\frac{2}{\nu }\times \frac{2}{\nu }}$$
(33)
and

$$a_+^{\frac{2}{\nu }}=\beta \mathrm{𝟏}_{\frac{2}{\nu }\times \frac{2}{\nu }}$$
(34)
where $`(\alpha ,\beta )𝐂^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Three types of representation can be considered: $`(i)`$ $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ (nilpotent representation), $`(ii)`$ $`\alpha =\beta =1`$ (cyclic or periodic representations) and $`(iii)`$ $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\beta 0`$ or $`\alpha 0`$ and $`\beta =0`$ (semi-periodic representations). In a representation of type $`(i)`$, the creation $`a_+`$ and annihilation $`a_{}`$ seems to be similar to ones of ($`k=\frac{2}{\nu }`$)-fermions  which satisfies the generalized exclusion principle according to which no more than $`(k1)`$ particles can live in the same quantum state .

## 4 Fractional RS superalgebra through fermionic anyons

In view of the fact that supersymmetry (Models and symmetries with $`Z_2`$ -grading) provide symmetry between bosons and fermions, it is natural to enquire if one could generalize these structures by including the exotic statistics. More than ten years back , Rubakov and Spiridonov discussed such generalizations. In particular, they constructed a superalgebra defined by the following structure relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(E_{})^3=0\hfill & & \\ & & \\ [E_{},H]=0\hfill & & \\ & & \\ (E_{})^2E_++E_{}E_+E_{}+E_+(E_{})^2=2E_{}H\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(35)
and the hermitian conjugated relations. The RS superalgebra generated by $`\{E_+,E_{},H\}`$ was realized as $`Z_3`$graded symmetry between one boson and one parafermion of order 2. The generalization of RS superalgebra (37) for an arbitrary order $`k`$ is given by .

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(E_{})^k=0\hfill & & \\ & & \\ [E_{},H]=0\hfill & & \\ & & \\ (E_{})^{k1}E_++(E_{})^{k2}E_+E_{}+E_+(E_{})^{k1}=(k1)(E_{})^{k2}H\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(36)
together with their hermitian conjugates. The realization of the RS superalgebra (36) involve one boson and $`(k1)`$ parafermions. Note that for $`k=2`$, the relations (36) reduces to ones defining the superalgebra $`sl(1/1)`$. Then the RS superalgebra seems to be a $`k`$-fractional extension of the superalgebra $`sl(1/1)`$.

In this part of our work, we will discuss how using the generators of extended Weyl-Heisenberg algebra (remember that the operators of this algebra are defined in terms of anyonic oscillators living on two-dimensional lattice) one can give an anyonic realization of the so-called Rubakov-Spiridonov superalgebra. Indeed, By means of the operators $`P_i`$’s (polynomials in the grading operator $`K`$) and the creation and annihilation operators $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$ (that are defined by coupling two 2d-lattice anyons), we are thus in position to define the operators

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E_{}=a_{}(1P_{k1}),& E_+=a_+(1P_0)& \end{array}$$
(37)
among $`k`$ possible definitions. The $`(k1)`$ other definitions can be obtained by a simple permutation of indices $`0,1,2,3\mathrm{},k1.`$ Note that the operators $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$ are defined such that satisfy also

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E_+=(E_{})^+& & \end{array}$$
(38)
As a first result, one can show, using the structure relations of the extended Weyl-Heisenberg algebra introduced in the previous section, that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (E_{})^m& =& (a_{})^m[1P_{km}+P_{km+1}+\mathrm{}+P_{k1}]\hfill \\ \hfill (E_+)^m& =& (a_+)^m[1P_0+P_1+\mathrm{}+P_{m1}]\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
for $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},k1`$. For the particular case $`m=k`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (E_{})^k=0,& (E_+)^k=0.& \end{array}$$
(40)
Let us note that for $`k=2`$, we have the nilpotency condition of the $`sl(1/1)`$ generators $`E_{}`$ and $`E_+`$. We continue with the construction of the fractional Rubakov-Spiridonov superalgebra. So, one can obtain also, by some manipulations more or less complicated, the following identity

$$(E_{})^mE_+=(a_{})^ma_+(P_1+P_2+\mathrm{}+P_{km})$$
(41)
which leads to the relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (E_{})^mE_+(E_{})^l=(a_{})^ma_+(a_{})^l,& m+l=k1,& \end{array}$$
(42)
with $`m0`$; $`lk1`$ and $`mk1`$; $`l0`$,

$$E_+(E_{})^{k1}=a_+(a_{})^{k1}P_0$$
(43)
$$(E_{})^{k1}E_+=(a_{})^{k1}a_+P_1.$$
(44)
The equations (42),(43) and (44) are the basic ones to get the multilinear relation which should be satisfied by the the generators $`E_{}`$ and $`E_+`$ of the Rubakov-Spiridonov superalgebra. Indeed, introducing an even operator $`H`$, we show that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}(E_{})^{k1i}E_+(E_{})^i=(k1)(E_{})^{k2}H,& & \end{array}$$
(45)
where $`H`$ is defined by

$$H=\underset{s=0}{\overset{k1}{}}H_{ks}P_s$$
(46)
where

$$H_k=a_+a_{}\frac{1}{k1}\underset{s=2}{\overset{k1}{}}\underset{t=1}{\overset{s1}{}}h(Nt)$$
(47)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_{ks}=H_k+\frac{1}{k1}\underset{t=0}{\overset{k2}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}h(N+i1t),& s0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
The function $`h`$ is given by

$$h(Nl)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\nu \pi (Nl))}{\mathrm{sin}(\nu \pi )}$$
(49)
The operator $`H`$ commute with the generators $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$

$$[H,E_\pm ]=0.$$
(50)
The nilpotency relations (40) toghether with the multilinear relation (45) and the commutation relation (50) close the fractional Rubakov-Spiridonov superalgebra. Let us note that this superalgebra is different from one obtained in the context of quantum superalgebra which is characterized by the following structure relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{E_+,E_{}\}=\frac{q^Hq^H}{qq^1},\hfill & & \\ [E_\pm ,H]=0,\hfill & & \\ (E_+)^2=0,\hfill & (E_{})^2=0.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(51)
Two limiting cases $`\nu =1`$ and $`\nu =0`$ are interesting. In the case where $`\nu =1`$, it is easy to see the Rubakov-Spiridonov superalgebra gives the well known superalgebra $`sl(1/1)`$. In the case $`\nu =0`$, the operator $`K`$ is equal to unit operator and the projection operators $`P_i`$’s vanishes. Then, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E_+=a_+,& E_{}=a_{}& \end{array}$$
(52)
where the operator $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$ are defined in terms of two bosonic oscillators (because in the limiting case $`\nu =0`$, the anyons becomes bosons). As consequence, $`E_+`$, $`E_{}`$ and $`H`$ generate the $`sl(2)`$ algebra. Then, in the limit $`\nu =1`$, the RS superalgebra reduces to $`Z_2`$-graded $`sl(1/1)`$ superalgebra and for $`\nu =0`$, we have $`sl(2)`$ (no graduation).

We note finally that the structure relations defining the RS superalgebra are analogous to those defining the so-called fractional supersymmetric quantum mechanics . So, one can ask about the physical meaning of the even operator $`H`$ and if one can interpret it as an hamiltonian describing a system of two anyons constrained to evolve in a two dimensional lattice. We believe that this point merit more investigation and can help us to learn more about the physics in low dimensions.

## 5 Anyonic realization of the $`sl(1/1)`$ superalgebra

In this last section, we would draw the attention that the superalgebra $`sl(1/1)`$ (undeformed in the quantum superalgebra context and no fractional in the Rubakov-Spiridonov sens) can be realized using two anyons living on two dimentional lattice. In this order define the operators

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill q_{i,+}& =& a_+P_{ki}\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill q_{i,}& =& P_{ki}a_{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(53)
and

$$h_i=a_{}a_+P_{ki}+a_+a_{}P_{ki+1}$$
(54)
(for $`i=2,3,\mathrm{},k`$) where the operators $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$ are defined by (21) in terms of the Lerda-Sciuto anyonic oscillators. A direct computation show that operators $`q_{i,+}`$, $`q_{i,}`$ and $`h_i`$ satisfy the structure relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}[q_{i,\pm },h_i]=0,\hfill & \{q_{i,},q_{i,+}\}=h_i\hfill \\ & \\ (q_{i,+})^2=0,\hfill & (q_{i,})^2=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
that are ones defining the $`sl(1/1)`$ superalgebra. This result show how one can realize the (undeformed) superalgebra $`sl(1/1)`$ using the anyonic oscillators. Furthermore, our realization is new in the sens that not has been considered previously in the literature and should not be confused with Frappat et al  (see also the references therein) realizations which concerns the anyonic representations of the quantum (deformed) superalgebras. One can think that the realization obtained here of $`sl(1/1)`$ superalgebra, which is essentially a coupling the 2d lattice anyons, suggests some probable manifestation of the supersymmetry in low dimensional physics.

It is important to note that the odd operators $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$ (see Eqs (37)) can be expressed as sums of the odd operators $`q_{i,+}`$ and $`q_{i,}`$, generating (with $`h_i`$) the superalgebra $`sl(1/1)`$, as follows

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill E_+=\underset{i=2}{\overset{k}{}}q_{i,+},& E_{}=\underset{i=2}{\overset{k}{}}q_{i,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(56)
which are Ladder operators of the fractional Rubakov-Spiridonov superalgebra (see the previous section).

## 6 Conclusion

In the present letter, we introduced the anyonic realization of the extended Weyl-Heisenberg algebra by means of Lerda-Sciuto anyonic oscillators of statistics $`\nu `$ on two dimensional lattice. We discussed how the $`Z_\nu `$-grading of this algebra leads to the realization of the fractional Rubakov-Spiridonov superalgebra. We then proved the connection between the fractional spin of anyons and the order of the RS superalgebra. We showed also that the superalgebra $`sl(1/1)`$ can be constructed following an anyonic scheme.

It is clear that remain many open problems for future study. One of them would be a better understanding of the physical meaning of the operator H(Eq(46)) and if can it be related to the hamiltonian describing planar systems evolving under topological Chern-Simon’s interaction. Another would concerns the anyonic realizations of the fractional analogous of the other superalgebras (undeformed in the quantum groups language) than $`sl(1/1)`$.These problems are under study and we hope to report on them in the near future.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), Trieste, for its warm hospitality. The author M. D would like to express his sincere thanks to Prof. Yu Lu (head of Condensed Matter in ICTP) for his kind invitation. The author J. D would acknowledges the Max-Planck-Institut für Physik Komplexer Systeme for link hospitality during the stage in which one part of this paper was done, and She particularly would like to thank the associateship Sckeme in the Abdus Salam ICTP for its facilities.


format: text

text:
# Protoplanetary disks around Herbig Ae/Be stars: Indications from ISO spectroscopy

## 1. Introduction

Herbig Ae/Be stars are young intermediate-mass (2–10 M) stars which are still surrounded by gas and dust from their natal cloud. Many possess circumstellar disks which are believed to be the site of on-going planet formation. The dust in these circumstellar disks, heated by the central star and possibly by viscous heating of material that is being accreted, shows up as excess emission above photospheric levels at infrared to sub-mm wavelengths. The circumstellar gas can be traced in spectral lines, of which H$`\alpha `$ is most prominent. Large-amplitude ($`>`$ 1m) variations in optical brightness are seen in some Herbig Ae stars, and are commonly ascribed to circumstellar dust clouds moving in and out of our line of sight towards the central star. Although the optical to sub-mm energy distribution of Herbig Ae/Be stars has been well explored by previous authors (e.g. Hillenbrand et al. 1992), the chemical and mineralogical composition of the dust remained poorly studied until the 1995 launch of the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO; Kessler et al. 1996). This first possibility to study the complete infrared spectrum of these objects in detail revealed a large variety in dust properties, from small aromatic hydrocarbons to silicate dust. Moreover, some sources were shown to contain partially crystalline dust grains, similar to those found in comets in our own solar system (Malfait et al. 1998, 1999; van den Ancker et al. 1999; Meeus et al., these proceedings). Here, the first inventory of solid-state features in all Herbig stars observed by the Infrared Space Observatory is presented and we investigate their correlation with more traditional tracers of circumstellar material.

## 2. Data Analysis

An inspection of the ISO data archive revealed the presence of spectroscopic data on 46 Herbig Ae/Be stars, obtained with the short-wavelength spectrometer (SWS) and the spectroscopic mode of the photometer (ISOPHOT). Spectra were retrieved and reduced, after which they were inspected for the following features: (a) the emission bands at 3.3, 3.4, 6.2, 7.6, 7.8, 8.6, 11.3 and 12.7 $`\mu `$m, often attributed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), (b) the broad band around 10 $`\mu `$m due to amorphous silicates, and (c) sharper emission bands at 10.2, 11.4, 16.5, 19.8, 23.8, 27.9 and 33.7 $`\mu `$m due to crystalline silicates. Using these data, we investigated the correlation of infrared spectral features with parameters of the systems from literature ($`T_{}`$, $`L_{}`$, level of optical variability, H$`\alpha `$ profile, and dust masses as traced by sub-mm fluxes).

## 3. Discussion and conclusions

The strongest correlation found is between spectral type of the central star and silicate emission: Herbig stars of spectral type earlier than B9 show silicate absorption, whereas a large majority ($``$70%) of the Herbig Ae stars of later type show silicate emission. Since strong optical variability due to variable circumstellar extinction is also only found in Herbig stars with spectral type of B9 or later (van den Ancker et al. 1998), both phenomena may be related. However, no correlation between the level of optical variability and silicate emission could be found, perhaps due to our limited sample size.

In most sources with absorption due to amorphous silicates, we also observe the absorption bands due to H2O and CO2 ice, with a relative strength comparable to that in the interstellar medium. However, two sources (Z CMa and V645 Cyg) show strong silicate absorption, but no evidence for water or CO2 ice bands, demonstrating the chemical evolution that has taken place in the circumstellar environment of these objects.

No strong correlation between spectral type and PAH emission could be found. This is surprising, since the excitation of PAH molecules is thought to require intense ultraviolet radiation fields. This means that on average the particles responsible for the PAH emission must be closer to the central star, and hence suffer less geometric dilution of the stellar radiation field, in Herbig Ae stars than in Herbig Be stars.

Both the differences in silicate and in PAH behaviour can be explained by assuming that the infrared spectrum of Herbig Be stars is in general dominated by their circumstellar envelope rather than a disk. In contrast, the more slowly evolving Herbig Ae stars have time to disrupt their envelope and their spectrum may be dominated by thermal emission from the protoplanetary disk.

Crystalline silicates, as are also found in comets in our own solar system, are visible in 15% of the late-type Herbig stars, all of systems that are relatively isolated and appear to be relatively old (a few million years). Therefore also in young stars longevity appears to be a prerequisite for the annealing process. These systems form a close analog to the young solar system and may provide the strongest clue to date that the same processes that have led to rocky planets in our own solar system are also taking place around other stars.

## References

Bernasconi, P.A. 1996, A&AS 120, 57

Hillenbrand, L.A., Strom, S.E., Vrba, F.J., Keene, J. 1992, ApJ 397, 613

Kessler, M.F., Steinz, J.A., Anderegg, M.E., et al., 1996, A&A 315, L27

Malfait, K., Waelkens, C., Waters, L.B.F.M., Vandenbussche, B., Huygen, E., de Graauw, M.S. 1998, A&A 332, L25

Malfait, K., Waelkens, C., Bouwman, J., de Koter, A., Waters, L.B.F.M. 1999, A&A 345, 181

van den Ancker, M.E., de Winter, D., Tjin A Djie, H.R.E. 1998, A&A 330, 145

van den Ancker, M.E., Bouwman, J., Wesselius, P.R., Waters, L.B.F.M., Dougherty, S.M., van Dishoeck, E.F. 1999, A&A 357, 325


text:
# A Variational Approach in the Dissipative Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation

## Abstract

The properties of pulse propagation in a nonlinear fiber including linear damped term added in the usual nonlinear Schrödinger equation is analyzed analytically. We apply variational modified approach based on the lagrangian that describe the dynamic of system and with a trial function we obtain a solution which is more accuracy when compared with a pertubative solution. As a result, the problem of pulse propagation in a fiber with loss can be described in good agreement with exact results.

In recent years the propagation of optical pulses in fibers has obtained a great attention not only from the theoretical as well as from the experimental point of view. The nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLSE) has been employed to explain a variety of effects in the propagation of optical pulses. As is well known the balance between the self-phase modulation (SPM) and group velocity dispersion (GVD) leads to the so called solitons solutions for the NLSE. Solitary wave solutions have been known to exist in a variety of nonlinear and dispersive media for many years. In the context of optical communications, Hasegawa and Tappent  first made the important observation that a pulse propagating in an optical fiber with Kerr-law nonlinearity can form an envelope soliton. This offered the potential for undistorted pulse transmission over very long distances. Just as a balance between self-phase-modulation and group-velocity dispersion can lead to the formation of temporal solitons in single-mode fibers, it is also possible to have the analogous spatial soliton, where diffraction and self-focusing can compensate for each other . The importance of studying optical solitons is from the fact that their have potential applications in optical transmission and all-optical processing. A soliton is a particular solution of the nonlinear-wave equation. Since analytical solution are known for only a few cases, investigations into the properties solutions are normally performed numerically using such approaches. However, it is often desirable to have an analytical model describing the dynamics of pulse propagation in a fiber.

In the theoretical treatment of these problems, considerable attention has been given to the variational approach . A variational approach was employed in  deriving information about the various parameters that characterize the beam, which are qualitatively as well as quantitatively, in good agreement with numerical results. This result invalidates the possibility of pulse compression without external gratings which is erroneous and is only an artifact of the paraxial approximation. In the same sense Anderson  described the main characteristics of the temporal soliton as determined by NLSE. The discussion above does not consider the presence of the loss in the medium. It is well known that in real materials, the medium will not be purely transparent and the nonlinearity will not be of pure Kerr-law form, but will saturate. The problem of describing the physical properties of dissipative systems has been the subject of lengthily discussions . These results were recently applied to the problem of propagation of cw (continuous wave) Gaussian beams in a saturable medium with loss . In that work  the diffraction is limited to one transverse solution. After that this problem was analyzed using a variational modified approach .

In this paper, we will analyses the dynamics interplay between nonlinearity and dispersion through optical medium with loss using a variational modified approach . Exact analytical expressions for the behavior of the pulse are determined.

The starting point of our analysis is the Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation that describe the propagation of a pulse envelope in a nonlinear loss medium,

$$i\frac{u}{\xi }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2u}{\tau ^2}+u\left|u\right|^2=i\mathrm{\Gamma }u$$
(1)
where $`u(\zeta ,\tau )`$ is the normalized amplitude of the pulse, $`\xi `$ is the normalized coordinate, $`\tau `$ is the normalized time, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the normalized loss parameter of the medium.

Now we can handle Eq.(1) adequately in the form,

$$\frac{}{\tau }\frac{}{u_\tau ^{}}\left(e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }L\right)+\frac{}{\xi }\frac{}{u_\xi ^{}}\left(e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }L\right)\frac{}{u^{}}\left(e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }L\right)=0$$
(2)
where

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}|^2+i(u{\displaystyle \frac{u^{}}{\xi }}u^{}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\xi }}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|u|^4`$

and $`u^{}`$ is complex conjugate of $`u`$ and subindexes are the differentiation with respect to $`\tau `$ and $`\xi `$ . $`L`$ is the lagrangian of system without loss. The Eq.(2) is the Euler-Lagrange equation in the modified form that describe the propagation of the pulse in the medium with loss, and can be written in the form of the modified Hamilton’s principle ,

$$\delta _0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }L𝑑\xi 𝑑\tau =0$$
(3)
Assuming a trial functional of the form

$$u(\xi ,\tau )=A\left(\xi \right)sech\left(\frac{\tau }{w\left(\xi \right)}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\varphi \left(\xi \right)\right)\text{,}$$
(4)
where $`A`$ is the amplitude of the pulse propagated, $`w`$ is the width and $`\varphi `$ phase term. Using Eq.(4) into the variational formulation, Eq.(3), we can integrate the $`\tau `$ dependence explicit to obtain

$$\delta _0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }L𝑑\xi =0,$$
(5)
where

$$L=\frac{\left|A\right|^2}{3w}+2iw\left(A\frac{dA^{}}{d\xi }A^{}\frac{dA}{d\xi }\right)+4w\left|A\right|^2\frac{d\varphi }{d\xi }2w\frac{\left|A\right|^4}{3}$$
(6)
is the average of $`L`$ in the time. Then, from the standard calculus, deriving $`e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }L`$ with respect to $`A`$, $`A^{}`$, $`w`$ and $`\varphi `$ we obtain the following system of coupled ordinary differential equations

$$\frac{d}{d\xi }\left(w\left|A\right|^2\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }w\left|A\right|^2$$
(7)
$$w^2\left|A\right|^2=1$$
(8)
$$8w\left|A\right|^2\frac{d\varphi }{d\xi }=\frac{8w\left|A\right|^4}{3}\frac{2\left|A\right|^2}{3w}4iw\left(A\frac{dA^{}}{d\xi }A^{}\frac{dA}{d\xi }\right)\text{.}$$
(9)
The equations above describe the characteristics of the pulse and solving these equations we will obtain the full dynamics of the pulse through the medium. It is obvious that once Eq.(7) and Eq.(8) are solved for $`w`$ and $`\left|A\right|^2`$, the phase $`\varphi `$ is easily obtained from Eq.(9). In particular, if the longitudinal phase of the amplitude $`A`$ is introduced by writing $`A=\left|A\right|e^{i\theta \left(\xi \right)}`$ the Eq.(9) can be written as

$$\frac{d}{d\xi }\left(\varphi +\theta \right)=\frac{1}{4w^2}.$$
(10)
from it we obtain

$$\varphi \left(\xi \right)+\theta \left(\xi \right)=\frac{1}{8\mathrm{\Gamma }w\left(0\right)^2}\left(1e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }\right)\text{.}$$
(11)
The equation above describe the regularized phase of the pulse. This system of equation has analytic solution. From Eq.(7) we obtain

$$w\left(\xi \right)\left|A\left(\xi \right)\right|^2=w\left(0\right)\left|A\left(0\right)\right|^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }\text{.}$$
(12)
The compatibility of Eqs.(12) and (8) is possible when

$$\left|A\left(\xi \right)\right|=\left|A\left(0\right)\right|e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }$$
(13)
and

$$w\left(\xi \right)=w\left(0\right)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }\text{,}$$
(14)
where was used the relation $`\left|A\left(0\right)\right|^2=1/w^2\left(0\right)`$, with $`A\left(0\right)`$ and $`\omega \left(0\right)`$ is the initial amplitude and width of pulse, respectively . Now we can write the amplitude

$$A\left(\xi \right)=\left|A\left(0\right)\right|e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }e^{i\theta \left(\xi \right)}\text{.}$$
(15)
Using the result above into the trial functional, Eq.(4), we can write the pulse in form

$$u(\xi ,\tau )=\left|A\left(0\right)\right|e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi }\mathrm{sec}h\left(\frac{\tau }{w\left(\xi \right)}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\varphi \left(\xi \right)+\theta \left(\xi \right)\right)\right]\text{,}$$
(16)
where the regularized phase $`\varphi \left(\xi \right)+\theta \left(\xi \right)`$ is given by Eq.(11) and width $`w\left(\xi \right)`$ by Eq.(14).

As would expect, the fiber loss is detrimental simply because the peak power decreases exponentially with the fiber length. As a result, the pulse width of the fundamental soliton also increase with propagation, as seen in the figure. However, these results are qualitatively better than the results obtained by using the inverse scattering method where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is treated as a weak pertubation. The our results foresee that the amplitude as well as the width of the pulse suffer a smaller effect of the fiber loss that thought, and approximate more of exact numerical solution by a factor of 2 in the exponent of the exponentials.

In conclusion, the propagation of a pulse in a nonlinear loss medium has been analysed using a variational modified approach. This modified approach describes in a more consistent way the behavior of pulse in a dissipative system. The our results are more accuracy when compared with a pertubative solution where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is treated as a weak pertubation.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of us (J.R.O) thanks the financial support by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brazil.


text:
# Untitled Document

hep-ph/0008009 WIS/12/00-Aug-DPP

Implications of a Small CP Asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$

Galit Eyala, Yosef Nirb and Gilad Perezb

aResearch Department, Camelot Information Technologies Ltd., Matam, Haifa 31905, Israel

bDepartment of Particle Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

New measurements of the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$, $`a_{\psi K_S}`$, by the BABAR and BELLE collaborations are consistent with the Standard Model prediction for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. These measurements, however, leave open the possibility that $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ is well below the Standard Model prediction. We identify deviations from the ‘reasonable ranges’ of hadronic parameters that can lead to low values of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. New physics, mainly in $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing and/or $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing, can explain low values of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ in two ways: either by allowing for values of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ below the Standard Model prediction or by modifying the relation between $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$.

8/00

1. Introduction

Recent studies of the time dependent $`B\psi K_S`$ decay rates by the BaBar  and BELLE  collaborations have provided highly interesting results concerning CP violation in $`B`$ decays. When combined with a previous CDF result , the average measured CP asymmetry is

$$a_{\psi K_S}=0.42\pm 0.24,$$

where $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ is defined via

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{B^0}(t)\psi K_S]\mathrm{\Gamma }[B^0(t)\psi K_S]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{B^0}(t)\psi K_S]+\mathrm{\Gamma }[B^0(t)\psi K_S]}=a_{\psi K_S}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_Bt).$$

(For previous measurements, see \[4--6\].) Within the Standard Model, $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ is related to the angle $`\beta `$ of the unitarity triangle,

$$a_{\psi K_S}=\mathrm{sin}2\beta ,\beta \mathrm{arg}\left[\frac{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}\right].$$

Based on the detrmination of the CKM parameters through measurements of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, $`\epsilon _K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$, the Standard Model (SM) prediction is

$$0.59<\mathrm{sin}2\beta <0.82.$$

Thus, the measurement of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ (1.1) is consistent with the SM prediction (1.1). This can be seen in Fig. 1 where the various bounds are given in the plane of the two Wolfenstein parameters, $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$. Yet, the allowed range in (1.1) leaves open the possibility that $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ is actually significantly smaller than the SM prediction. It is this possibility that we investigate in this work. For the sake of concreteness, we will assume that $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ lies indeed within the 1$`\sigma `$ range of the BaBar measurement ,

$$a_{\psi K_S}=0.12\pm 0.38.$$

While negative values of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ are unlikely in view of the other measurements, our main interest will be in the upper bound, $`a_{\psi K_S}<0.5`$.

Figure 1. Present constraints on the apex $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ of the unitarity triangle: $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ (dashed), $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ (dotted), $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ (dash-dotted), $`\epsilon _K`$ (solid), and the average of the CDF, BELLE and BABAR measurements of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ (thick grey lines).

If, indeed, $`a_{\psi K_S}<0.5`$, there are two ways in which the conflict with (1.1) might be resolved:

(i) The SM is valid but one or more of the hadronic parameters which play a role in the analysis that leads to (1.1) are outside their ‘reasonable range’. We discuss this possibility in section 2.

(ii) New physics affects the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ and/or some of the measurements that lead to (1.1). We discuss this possibility in section 3.

We summarize our conclusions in section 4.

2. Hadronic Uncertainties

The computations that relate experimental observables to CKM parameters suffer, in general, from theoretical uncertainties. In very few cases, the calculation is made entirely in the framework of a systematic expansion and it is possible to reliably estimate the error that is induced by truncating the expansion at a finite order. This is the case with the relation between the observable $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ and the CKM parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$: Within the SM, the relation (1.1) holds to an accuracy of better than one percent (for a review, see ). Thus, if we assume that (1.1) holds, we have

$$0.26<\frac{2\overline{\eta }(1\overline{\rho })}{\overline{\eta }^2+(1\overline{\rho })^2}<+0.50.$$

In most cases, however, the calculation involves models, ansatze or, on occasion, educated guesses and there is no easy way to estimate the errors that are involved. This is the case with almost all the observables that are involved in the prediction (1.1). We will follow the treatment of this issue of ref. . We will quote ‘reasonable ranges’ for the parameters that involve uncontrolled theoretical uncertainties, and compare them to the values that are required for consistency with (1.1).

We emphasize that we use rather conservative CKM constraints, similar to those of refs. \[8--15\]. In particular, these ranges arise when the BaBar method \[8--11\] or a flat distribution \[12--15\] are employed for theoretical errors. Studies that assume that theoretical errors have a gaussian distribution obtain stronger constraints. Our input parameters are taken from \[12,,15\] and the resulting constraints were calculated in .

The $`R_u`$ parameter is determined from semileptonic charmless $`B`$ decays:

$$R_u\sqrt{\overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=\frac{1}{\lambda }\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|.$$

Using

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |V_{ub}|=& (3.56\pm 0.56)\times 10^3,\hfill \\ \hfill |V_{cb}|=& (4.0\pm 0.2)\times 10^2,\hfill \end{array}$$

we obtain

$$\sqrt{\overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=0.39\pm 0.07.$$

Most of the uncertainty comes from hadronic modelling and therefore should be viewed as a ‘reasonable range’ rather than a 1$`\sigma `$ error.

The $`R_t`$ parameter is given by

$$R_t\sqrt{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=\frac{1}{\lambda }\left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|,$$

where $`V_{td}`$ is determined from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ ,

$$\frac{|V_{td}|}{8.8\times 10^3}=\frac{0.2GeV}{\sqrt{B_{B_d}}f_{B_d}}\left(\frac{170GeV}{m_t}\right)^{0.76}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_B}{0.5ps^1}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{0.55}{\eta _B}\right)^{1/2},$$

or from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$:

$$\left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|=\xi \left(\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}}\right)^{1/2}.$$

Using

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sqrt{B_{B_d}}f_{B_d}=& 0.20\pm 0.04GeV,\hfill \\ \hfill m_t=& 165\pm 5GeV,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }m_B=& 0.471\pm 0.016ps^1,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}& 14.6ps^1,\hfill \\ \hfill \xi =& 1.14\pm 0.08,\hfill \end{array}$$

we obtain

$$\sqrt{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=0.98_{0.22}^{+0.04}.$$

There are two theoretical parameters in (2.1). The uncertainty in $`\sqrt{B_{B_d}}f_{B_d}`$ comes from systematic errors in lattice calculations and should be viewed as a ‘reasonable range’. On the other hand, the deviation from $`\xi =1`$ is a correction to the SU(3) limit and believed to be under much better control.

The $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint reads:

$$\overline{\eta }\left[(1\overline{\rho })A^2\eta _2F_{tt}+P_c(ϵ)\right]A^2\widehat{B}_K=0.226.$$

Using

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A=& 0.826\pm 0.041,\hfill \\ \hfill \eta _2=& 0.57\pm 0.01,\hfill \\ \hfill F_{tt}=& 2.46(m_t/170GeV)^{1.52},\hfill \\ \hfill P_c(ϵ)=& 0.31\pm 0.05,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{B}_K=& 0.80\pm 0.15,\hfill \end{array}$$

we obtain:

$$\overline{\eta }\left[(1\overline{\rho })(0.91_{0.14}^{+0.16})+(0.31\pm 0.05)\right]=0.41_{0.10}^{+0.15}.$$

The main contribution to the uncertainty on the right hand side of eq. (2.1) comes from the theoretically calculated $`\widehat{B}_K`$ and, again, represents a reasonable range.

Figure 2. Present constraints on the apex $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ of the unitarity triangle: $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ (dashed), $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ (dotted), $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ (dash-dotted), $`\epsilon _K`$ (solid), and the BABAR measurement of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ (thick grey lines).

The four constraints (2.1), (2.1), (2.1) and (2.1) are given in Fig. 2. There is no overlap between the four allowed ranges. The last three together form an allowed range in the $`\overline{\rho }\overline{\eta }`$ plane which can be translated to the constraint on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ given in eq. (1.1). One lesson which should be clear from our discussion here is that there are several hadronic parameters that enter into this constraint. In particular, for $`R_u`$, $`\sqrt{B_{B_d}}f_{B_d}`$ and $`\widehat{B}_K`$ we are only able to quote reasonable ranges. We now ask what values of these parameters will allow $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta <0.5`$, consistently with (1.1).

To answer this question, we study whether the discrepancy between (1.1) and (1.1) can be explained by a single theoretical parameter that is outside of its reasonable range.

(i) Let us assume that the $`R_t`$ constraint (2.1) and the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint (2.1) hold, but allow a failure of the $`R_u`$ constraint (2.1). Indeed, under such assumptions, there is an allowed region around $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })=(0.01,0.26)`$. It requires, however, that

$$R_u<0.27,$$

which is below its reasonable range in (2.1). In other words, if the inconsistency comes from the hadronic modelling of charmless semileptonic $`B`$ decays, the failure of these models should be such that $`|V_{ub}|`$ is about 30% lower than the presently most favorable value.

There is a second allowed region, around $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })=(0.8,0.8)`$. Here, however, $`R_u>1.1`$ is required. This value is about three times larger than the best present estimate. We find such a situation very unlikely.

(ii) Let us assume that the $`R_u`$ constraint (2.1) and the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint (2.1) hold, but allow a failure of the $`R_t`$ constraint (2.1). Under such assumptions, there is an allowed region around $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })=(0.3,0.3)`$. It requires, however, that

$$\xi >1.4,$$

which is well above the $`1\sigma `$ range in (2.1). Note, however, that $`\sqrt{B_{B_d}}f_{B_d}`$ could be within its reasonable range (close to the lower bound).

(iii) Let us assume that the $`R_u`$ constraint (2.1) and the $`R_t`$ constraint (2.1) hold, but allow a failure of the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint (2.1). There is a small viable region around $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })=(0.25,0.20)`$. It requires, however, that

$$\widehat{B}_K>1.3,$$

which is well above its reasonable range in (2.1).

To summarize: assuming that the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ is within the $`1\sigma `$ range of BaBar measurement, the SM could still be valid if some of the hadronic parameters are outside of their ‘reasonable’ ranges. If the apparent discrepancy is related to an error in the theoretical estimate of just one parameter, then it requires either a small value of $`|V_{ub}|`$, or a large value of $`\xi `$ or a large value of $`\widehat{B}_K`$. The first of these, $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|<0.06`$, is perhaps the least unlikely deviation from our ‘reasonable ranges.’

3. New Physics

New physics can explain an inconsistency of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ measurement with the SM predictions. It can do so provided that it contributes significantly either to $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing or to the CP violating part of $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing or to both. In this section we examine each of these possibilities.

It is also possible, in principle, that the discrepancy is explained by a new contribution to $`bu\mathrm{}\nu `$ decays or to $`bc\overline{c}s`$ decays. We find it unlikely, however, that these SM tree level decays are significantly affected by new physics. In particular, we assume that the charmless semileptonic $`B`$ decays provide a valid measurement of $`|V_{ub}|`$ and, consequently, (2.1) holds.

3.1. $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing

The effects of new physics on $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing can be described by a positive dimensionless parameter $`r_d^2`$ and a phase $`2\theta _d`$ \[16--20\]:

$$M_{12}=r_d^2e^{2i\theta _d}M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}.$$

Here $`M_{12}`$ ($`M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$) is the full (SM) $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing amplitude.

If the new physics modifies the phase of the mixing amplitude, $`2\theta _d0`$, then the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ is modified. Instead of eq. (1.1) we now have:

$$a_{\psi K_S}=\mathrm{sin}2(\beta +\theta _d).$$

If the new physics modifies the magnitude of the mixing amplitude, $`r_d^20`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ is modified. In eq. (2.1), we should replace $`|V_{td}|`$ with $`r_d|V_{td}|`$. In addition, if the new physics modifies the $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$ mixing amplitude, and we parametrize this modification with corresponding parameters $`r_s^2`$ and $`2\theta _s`$, then instead of eq. (2.1) we now have:

$$\left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|=\xi \frac{r_s}{r_d}\left(\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}}\right)^{1/2}.$$

If there is no new physics in the $`R_u`$ and $`\epsilon _K`$ constraints, then the following bounds hold:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0.7<R_t& <1.4,\hfill \\ \hfill 12^o<2\beta & <55^o.\hfill \end{array}$$

Furthermore, there are correlations between the allowed ranges. To achieve consistency with the measurements concerning $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing, it is required that either (i) $`r_d/r_s1`$, or (ii) $`2\theta _d0`$ or (iii) both.

(i) Consider models where there is a new contribution to both $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing and $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$, but at least the first of these carries the same phase as the Standard Model contribution. With $`2\theta _d=0`$, we need

$$0.5<r_d<1,r_s/r_d>1.1.$$

(ii) Consider the case where there is a new CP violating contribution to $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing which, however, keeps the magnitude of the mixing amplitude unchanged. We know of no mechanism that would predict such a scenario, which requires a relation between the magnitude and the phase of $`M_{12}^{\mathrm{NP}}`$, the new physics contribution to $`M_{12}`$. We view such a situation as a rather unlikely accident. For completeness, we quote the required $`\theta _d`$ range for $`r_d^2=r_s^2=1`$:

$$2\theta _d\{95^o,160^o\}\mathrm{or}\{290^o,355^o\}.$$

(iii) With generic new contributions to $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ and $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$ mixing, we can accommodate the experimental measurements with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0.5<r_d& <1.7,\hfill \\ \hfill r_s/r_d& >0.7,\hfill \\ \hfill 2\theta _d& \{0^o,18^o\}\mathrm{or}\{95^o,183^o\}\mathrm{or}\{290^o,360^o\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Two points are in order:

1. If the new physics contribution carries no new phase, then it must be flavor violating in the sense that $`r_sr_d`$. In other words, the flavor structure should be different from the CKM one.

2. The contribution of the new physics to the mixing amplitude cannot be much smaller than the Standard Model one. To be more quantitative on this point, it is convenient to replace the $`(r_d^2,2\theta _d)`$ parametrization of eq. (3.1) with a different parametrization defined as follows:

$$M_{12}^{\mathrm{NP}}=he^{i\sigma }M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}},$$

that is, $`r_d^2e^{2i\theta _d}=1+he^{i\sigma }`$. The $`h`$ parameter gives the ratio between the size of the new physics contribution and the SM one. We numerically scanned the allowed region for $`h`$ and $`\sigma `$. (We take in this scan $`r_s=1`$, so that the new physics effects are restricted to $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing.) We find that

$$h|M_{12}^{\mathrm{NP}}/M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}|>0.1.$$

3.2. $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing

A value of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ below the SM prediction can arise even if there is no new physics in $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing and in $`bc\overline{c}s`$ decay, the two processes that are relevant to the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$. The explanation must then be related to processes (other than $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$) that play a role in constraining the $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ range. The prime suspect is CP violation in the neutral kaon system, that is $`\epsilon _K`$.

If $`\epsilon _K`$ is not fully explained by the SM, then the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint, eq. (2.1), does not hold. On the other hand, with no significant new physics contributions to the mixing and the relevant decays of the $`B`$-mesons, the $`R_u`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_q}`$ and $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ constraints hold. As explained in the previous section, in such a case there is a small region around $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })=(0.25,0.20)`$ that is marginally consistent with all of these constraints when the hadronic parameters reside within our ‘reasonable ranges.’ In this region, the new physics has to add up constructively to the SM contribution to $`\epsilon _K`$, with

$$mM_{12}^{\mathrm{NP}}(K)/mM_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}(K)>0.3.$$

The situation that there is no new physics in $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing and $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$ mixing has also interesting implications for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$. Within the SM, it is not easy to explain the measured value of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$, and various hadronic parameters have to assume values outside their reasonable ranges. In the scenario discussed in this section, the puzzle becomes even stronger. The combination of the constraints on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and on $`R_t`$ implies that $`\overline{\eta }`$ is rather small. Even if we allow mild deviations from our range for either $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ or $`\sqrt{B_{B_d}}f_{B_d}`$, the remaining $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ and $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ constraints are enough to give $`\overline{\eta }<0.25`$. Thus, even if the new physics contribution to $`\epsilon _K`$ can be rather small, it should also add up constructively to the SM contribution to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$.

Note that the situation where the $`R_u`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ and $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ constraints are valid but the $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ are not arises in models of new physics where all flavor violation and CP violation are described by the CKM matrix. This class of models was defined and analyzed in ref. . We find that, if (1.1) holds, the new physics should probably play a role in both $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$.

3.3. Neutral meson mixing

In a large class of models, there could be significant contributions to both $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing and $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing. However, $`bu\mathrm{}\nu `$ decays are dominated by the $`W`$-mediated tree level decay. The implications of measurements of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ in such a framework were recenty investigated in refs. \[22,,23\]. In such a framework, only the $`R_u`$ constraint of eq. (2.1) holds. In particular, the upper bound $`R_u<0.46`$ gives the following constraint on $`\beta `$:

$$|\mathrm{sin}2\beta |<0.82,\mathrm{cos}2\beta >0.58.$$

The assumed value of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ can be accommodated with $`0.940<\mathrm{sin}2\theta _d<+0.996`$. (The bounds on $`r_d^2`$ are similar to .)

4. Conclusions

A low value of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$, say $`a_{\psi K_S}<0.5`$, is well within the average of present measurements, $`a_{\psi K_S}=0.42\pm 0.24`$. It is outside however of the indirect constraint on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ that holds within the Standard Model. We discussed two general scenarios in which the intriguing possibility of a low $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ can be accommodated:

1. The Standard Model is valid. The constraints on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ are wrong because one or more of the relevant hadronic parameters are outside of the range that is considered in the literature. The possible explanations are as follows:

(i) $`|V_{ub}|`$ is smaller than its theoretically favored range.

(ii) $`\xi `$ is larger than its theoretically favored range.

(iii) $`\widehat{B}_K`$ is larger than its theoretically favored range.

(iv) At least two of the theoretical parameters are outside of the preferred ranges.

2. Present estimates of all hadronic parameters are correct. There is new flavor violating and/or CP violating physics. The possible scenarios of new physics are as follows:

(i) There are significant new contributions to $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing and to $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$ mixing. They can carry the SM phase but in such a case their flavor violation is different from the CKM one.

(ii) There is a significant new CP violating contribution to $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing.

(iii) There is a new CP violating contribution to $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing and very likely also to $`K\pi \pi `$ decays.

(iv) All of the above effects can simultaneously play a role in modifying both the relation between $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and the SM predictions for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$.

(v) In addition, if there are extra quarks beyond the three generations of the SM, there are more ways in which the CKM constraints can be modified . However, in such models, the dominant effect is always a new contribution to the mixing .

It is possibe now to consider specific models of new physics and examine whether they can lead to small values of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$. For example, within the supersymmetric framework, many models that do not have exact universality can significantly modify both $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing and $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing (for a review, see ), thus allowing for a small $`a_{\psi K_S}`$. On the other hand, in models of exact universality such effects are generically small . Another interesting example is that of models with extra, SU(2)-singlet down quarks. Here, the new contribution to $`\epsilon _K`$ is small \[27,,28\] but the relation between $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ can be significantly modified \[29,,30\], allowing for low $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ values.

Finally, we would like to note that the allowed range for $`a_{\psi K_S}`$, eq. (1.1), is consistent with zero asymmetry at the 1.75$`\sigma `$ level and certainly does not exclude the possibility that the asymmetry is small. This leaves viable a framework that is drastically different from the Standard Model where CP is an approximate symmetry of the full theory, that is, CP violating phases are all small \[31--34\].

Acknowledgments

We thank Joao Silva for useful discussions. Y.N. is supported by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, by the United States $``$ Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) and by the Minerva Foundation (Munich).

References

relax D. Hitlin, BaBar collaboration, plenary talk in ICHEP 2000 (Osaka, Japan, July 31, 2000), SLAC-PUB-8540. relax H. Aihara, Belle collaboration, plenary talk in ICHEP 2000 (Osaka, Japan, July 31, 2000). relax T. Affolder et al., CDF collaboration, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 072005 \[hep-ex/9909003\]. relax K. Ackerstaff et al., OPAL collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C5 (1998) 379 \[hep-ex/9801022\]. relax F. Abe et al., CDF collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 5513 \[hep-ex/9806025\]. relax ALEPH collaboration, ALEPH-99-099 CONF-99-54 (1999). relax Y. Nir, lectures given in the XXVII SLAC Summer Institute on Particle Physics (SLAC, July 7-16, 1999), hep-ph/9911321. relax The BaBar Physics Book, eds. P. Harrison and H.R. Quinn, SLAC-R-504 (1998). relax S. Plaszczynski, invited talk at the XII Recontres de Physique de la Valee d’Aoste (La Thuile, March 1-7, 1998), hep-ph/9804330. relax Y. Grossman, Y. Nir, S. Plaszczynski and M.-H. Schune, Nucl. Phys. B511 (1998) 69 \[hep-ph/9709288\]. relax S. Plaszczynski and M.-H. Schune, talk at 8th International Symposium on Heavy Flavor Physics (Southampton, 25-29 July, 1999), hep-ph/9911280. relax A.J. Buras, lectures given in the 14th Lake Louis Winter Institute (February 14-20, 1999), hep-ph/9905437. relax A. Ali and D. London, invited talk in the 3rd Workshop on Physics and Detectors for Daphne (Frascati, November 16-19, 1999), hep-ph/0002167. relax S. Bergmann and G. Perez, hep-ph/0007170. relax A.J. Buras et al., hep-ph/0007313. relax J.M. Soares and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 1021. relax N.G. Deshpande, B. Dutta and S. Oh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 4499 \[hep-ph/9608231\]. relax J.P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 5331 \[hep-ph/9610208\]. relax A.G. Cohen, D.B. Kaplan, F. Lepeintre and A.E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 2300 \[hep-ph/9610252\]. relax Y. Grossman, Y. Nir and M.P. Worah, Phys. Lett. B407 (1997) 307 \[hep-ph/9704287\]. relax A.J. Buras et al., hep-ph/0007085. relax G. Barenboim, G. Eyal and Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4486 \[hep-ph/9905397\]. relax G. Eyal and Y. Nir, JHEP 09 (1999) 013 \[hep-ph/9908296\]. relax Y. Nir and D. Silverman, Nucl. Phys. B345 (1990) 301. relax Y. Grossman, Y. Nir and R. Rattazzi, in Heavy Flavours II, eds. A.J. Buras and M. Lindner, World Scientific Publishing Co., (Singapore, 1997) \[hep-ph/9701231\]. relax M. Dugan, B. Grinstein and L.J. Hall, Nucl. Phys. B255 (1985) 413. relax A.J. Buras and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B546 (1999) 299 \[hep-ph/9811471\]. relax G. Colangelo and G. Isidori, JHEP 09 (1998) 009 \[hep-ph/9808487\]. relax Y. Nir and D. Silverman, Phys. Rev. D42 (1990) 1477. relax G.C. Branco, T. Morozumi, P.A. Parada and M.N. Rebelo, Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 1167. relax A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 273 \[hep-ph/9208205\]. relax K.S. Babu and S.M. Barr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (1994) 2831 \[hep-ph/9309249\]. relax S.A. Abel and J.M. Frere, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 1623 \[hep-ph/9608251\]. relax G. Eyal and Y. Nir, Nucl. Phys. B528 (1998) 21 \[hep-ph/9801411\].