text:
# The CP violating phase 𝛾 from global fit of rare charmless hadronic B decays

## I Introduction

The origin of CP violation is still a mystery although it has been observed in neutral kaon mixing more than 35 years. One of the most promising model for CP violation is the model proposed by Kobayashi and Maskawa in 1973. This is now referred as the Standard Model (SM) for CP violation. In this model CP violation results from a non-removable phase $`\gamma `$ in the charged current mixing matrix, the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix, $`V_{CKM}`$. There are also other mechanisms for CP violation. To understand the origin of CP violation, it is important to study in every detail of a particular mechanism against experimental data. In this paper we carry out a study to constrain the CP violating phase in the SM using available experimental data.

The CKM matrix $`V_{CKM}`$ is a $`3\times 3`$ unitary matrix and is usually written as

$`V_{CKM}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{ud}& V_{us}& V_{ub}\\ V_{cd}& V_{cs}& V_{cb}\\ V_{td}& V_{ts}& V_{tb}\end{array}\right).`$ (4)
In the literature there are several ways to parameterize the CKM matrix. The standard particle data group parameterization is given by

$`V_{CKM}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right).`$ (8)
where $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ are the rotation angles. A non-zero value for $`\mathrm{sin}\delta _{13}`$ violates CP. Another commonly used parameterization is the Wolfenstein parameterization which expands the CKM matrix in terms of $`\lambda =|V_{us}|`$ and is given by

$`V_{CKM}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2& \lambda & A\lambda ^3(\rho i\eta )\\ \lambda & 1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2& A\lambda ^2\\ A\lambda ^3(1\rho i\eta )& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)+𝒪(\lambda ^4).`$ (12)
The parameters A, $`\rho `$, $`\eta `$ are of order unity. When discussing CP violation in kaon system, it is necessary to keep higher order terms in $`\lambda `$, namely, adding $`A^2\lambda ^5(\rho +i\eta )`$ and $`A\lambda ^4(\rho +i\eta )`$ to $`V_{cd}`$ and $`V_{ts}`$, respectively. CP violation in this parameterization is characterized by a non-zero value for $`\eta `$.

Due to the unitarity condition, one has

$`V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}+V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}+V_{tb}^{}V_{td}=0.`$ (13)
In the complex plane the above equation defines a triangle with angles $`\alpha =Arg(V_{td}V_{tb}^{}/V_{ud}V_{ub}^{})`$, $`\beta =Arg(V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}/V_{td}V_{tb}^{})`$ and $`\gamma =Arg(V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}/V_{cd}V_{cb}^{})`$ as shown in Figure 1.

To a very good approximation the phase $`\delta _{13}`$ is equal to $`\gamma `$. In terms of $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$, the angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are given by:

$`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{2\eta (\rho ^2\rho +\eta ^2)}{((1\rho )^2+\eta ^2)(\rho ^2+\eta ^2)}},\mathrm{sin}2\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{2\eta (1\rho )}{(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2}},\gamma =\mathrm{tan}^1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\rho }}.`$ (14)
In this paper we will concentrate on obtaining constraint on the phase $`\gamma `$. Great efforts have been made to constrain or to determine the CP violating phase $`\gamma `$. Previous studies mainly used experimental data on: i) The CP violating parameter $`ϵ_K`$ in the mixing of neutral kaons; ii) The mixing parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ in $`B_{d,s}\overline{B}_{d,s}`$ systems; And iii) $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ which characterizes the strength of the charmless flavor changing and charmed flavor changing semi-leptonic $`B`$ decays. The best fit value for $`\gamma `$ from these considerations is around $`65^{}`$.

During the last few years, several rare charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays have been measured. Some of these decays are sensitive to $`\gamma `$ and therefore can be used to constrain it. Analysis based on naive factorization approximation suggests that $`\gamma `$ tends to be larger than $`90^{}`$ in conflict with the analysis mentioned earlier. If confirmed, it is an indication of new physics beyond the SM. Of course due to uncertainties in the experimental data and theoretical calculations, it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion whether this conflict is real at present. To improve the situation, in this paper we will carry out an analysis replacing the naive factorization assumption by more general SU(3) flavor symmetry for the rare charmless hadronic decays of $`B`$ to two SU(3) octet pseudoscalars $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, that is, $`BPP`$ decays.

SU(3) analyses for $`B`$ decays have been studied by many groups and several interesting results, such as relations between different decay branching ratios, and ways to constrain and/or to determine the phase $`\gamma `$, have been obtained. SU(3) symmetry is expected to be a good approximation for $`B`$ decays. At present experimental data from $`BDK(\pi )`$ support such an expectation. However more tests are needed, especially in rare charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays. Recently it has been shown that such tests can indeed be carried out for rare charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays in an electroweak model independent way in the future. Before this can be done, however, SU(3) symmetry can only be taken as a working hypothesis. In the rest of the paper we will study constraints which can be obtained from rare charmless hadronic $`BPP`$ decays based on SU(3) symmetry. We will also study SU(3) breaking effects using model calculations.

The paper is arranged as follow. In section II, we will review and up date the constraint on $`\gamma `$ using information from $`ϵ_K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{d,s}}`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, and also information from $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ measurement. In section III we will carry out a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of $`\gamma `$ using rare charmless hadronic $`BPP`$ decay data based on SU(3) symmetry. We will also discuss SU(3) breaking effects. In section IV, we will make a combined study using results from sections II and III. And in section V, we will discuss some of the implications of the results obtained and draw our conclusions.

## II Constraint on $`\gamma `$ from $`|ϵ_K|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{d,s}}`$, $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$

In this section we first review and up date the constraint on $`\gamma `$ using experimental and theoretical information on $`ϵ_K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{d,s}}`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$. Such an analysis has been carried out before. The analysis in this section is an up date of the previous analyses which also serves to set up our notations for later use. We then include experimental data from $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ measurement into the analysis to obtain the best fit value and allowed range for $`\gamma `$.

There exist quite a lot of information about the CKM matrix. The value of $`V_{us}`$ is known from $`K_{l3}`$ decay and hyperon decays with good precision:

$`\lambda =0.2196\pm 0.0023.`$
The parameter $`A`$ depends on $`\lambda `$ and on the CKM matrix element $`|V_{cb}|`$. Using experimental data from $`B\overline{D}^{}l^+\nu `$ and $`B\overline{D}l^+\nu `$ and inclusive $`bcl\overline{\nu }`$, analysis from LEP data obtains $`V_{cb}=0.0402\pm 0.0019`$, and data from CLEO obtains $`V_{cb}=0.0404\pm 0.0034`$. The central values of these two measurements are close to each other. In our analysis we will use the averaged value which leads to $`A=0.835\pm 0.034`$.

The value for $`|V_{ub}|`$ has also been studied using data from $`B\pi l\overline{\nu }_l`$, $`B\rho l\overline{\nu }_l`$ and inclusive $`bul\overline{\nu }_l`$ with

$`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=\lambda \sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}=0.090\pm 0.025`$ (15)
To separately determine $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ (or $`\gamma `$), one has to use information from other data. In the rest of this section we will carry out a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis using constraints from the measurements of $`|ϵ_K|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{d,s}}`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ along with other known experimental and theoretical information.

The parameter $`ϵ_K`$ indicates CP violation in neutral kaon mixing. The short and long lived mass eigenstates $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ of the neutral kaons can be expressed as the linear combination of weak interaction eigenstates $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ as $`|K_S=p|K^0+q|\overline{K}^0`$ and $`|K_L=p|K^0q|\overline{K}^0`$. $`p`$ and $`q`$ are related to the CP violating parameter $`ϵ_K`$ in $`K_L`$ decays by:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}={\displaystyle \frac{1+ϵ_K}{1ϵ_K}}.`$ (16)
The precise measurements of the $`K_S\pi \pi `$ and $`K_L\pi \pi `$ decay rates imply :

$`|ϵ_K|=(2.271\pm 0.017)\times 10^3.`$
Evaluating the so called “Box” diagram, one obtains

$`|ϵ_K|={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2f_K^2m_Km_W^2}{6\sqrt{2}\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_K}}B_K(A^2\lambda ^6\eta )\left[y_c(\eta _{ct}f_3(y_c,y_t)\eta _{cc})+\eta _{tt}y_tf_2(y_t)A^2\lambda ^4(1\rho )\right].`$ (17)
where $`\eta _{tt}=0.574\pm 0.004`$, $`\eta _{ct}=0.47\pm 0.04`$ and $`\eta _{cc}=1.38\pm 0.53`$ are the QCD correction factors, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K=m_{K_L}m_{K_S}=(0.5300\pm 0.0012)\times 10^2\text{ps}^1`$, and $`B_K=0.94\pm 0.15`$ is the bag factor. The functions $`f_2`$ and $`f_3`$ of the variables $`y_t=m_t^2/m_W^2`$ and $`y_c=m_c^2/m_W^2`$ are given by:

$`f_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4(1x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2(1x)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3x^2\mathrm{ln}x}{2(1x)^3}},`$ (18)
$`f_3(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{3y}{4(1y)}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{ln}y}{1y}}\right).`$ (19)
Neutral mesons $`B_d^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_d^0`$ show a behavior similar to neutral kaons. The heavy and light mass eigenstates, $`B_L`$ and $`B_H`$, are different from $`B_d^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_d^0`$ and are given by

$`|B_L`$ $`=`$ $`p|B_d^0+q|\overline{B}_d^0,`$ (20)
$`|B_H`$ $`=`$ $`p|B_d^0q|\overline{B}_d^0.`$ (21)
The mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}=m_{B_H}m_{B_L}`$ can be measured by means of the study of the oscillations of one CP eigenstate into the other. The world average value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ is :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}=0.487\pm 0.014\text{ ps}^1.`$ (22)
The contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ is from analogous “Box” diagrams as that for $`ϵ_K`$, but with the dominant contribution from the top quark in the loop. One obtains

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{6\pi ^2}}m_W^2m_{B_d}(f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}})^2\eta _By_tf_2(y_t)A^2\lambda ^6[(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2].`$ (23)
where $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}=0.215\pm 0.040\text{GeV}`$, $`\eta _B=0.55\pm 0.01`$ and the function $`f_2`$ is given by Eq. (19).

$`B_s^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_s^0`$ mesons are believed to undergo a mixing analogous to the $`B_d^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_d^0`$. Their larger mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ is responsible for oscillations that are faster than the $`B_d^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_d^0`$ oscillation, and have thus still eluded direct observation. A lower limit has been set by the LEP, SLD and CDF collaborations, as :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}>14.9\text{ps}^1\text{(95\% C.L.)}.`$ (24)
The expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ in the SM is similar to that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ can be written as:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}}\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2}},`$ (25)
where all the theoretical uncertainties are included in a quantity $`\xi `$, which is given by:

$`\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_s}\sqrt{B_{B_s}}}{f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}}}=1.14\pm 0.06.`$ (26)
The $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ parameters can be determined from a fit to the experimental values of the observables described in the above. In the analysis we will adopt the strategies used in previous analysis in the literature fixing the known parameters, theoretical or experimental, to their central values if their errors were reasonably small reported in the left half of Table I. The quantities affected by large errors will be used as additional parameters of the fit, but including a constraint on their value as shown by the right half of Table I. All errors will be assumed to be Gaussian. This assumption may result in stringent constraints more than actually can be achieved because some of the errors may obey different distributions, for example those errors come from theoretical estimates may obey flat distribution. Nevertheless, the results provide a good indication for the values of the parameters involved.

To obtain the best fit values and certain confidence level allowed ranges for the relevant parameters, we perform a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis using the above information. The procedure for $`\chi ^2`$ analysis here is to minimize the following expression:

$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{A}A)^2}{\sigma _A^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{m_c}m_c)^2}{\sigma _{m_c}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{m_t}m_t)^2}{\sigma _{m_t}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{B_K}B_K)^2}{\sigma _{B_K}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{\eta _{cc}}\eta _{cc})^2}{\sigma _{\eta _{cc}}^2}}`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{\eta _{ct}}\eta _{ct})^2}{\sigma _{\eta _{ct}}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}}f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}})^2}{\sigma _{f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{\xi }\xi )^2}{\sigma _\xi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{\frac{|V_{ub}|}{|V_{cb}|}}\frac{|V_{ub}|}{|V_{cb}|})^2}{\sigma _{\frac{|V_{ub}|}{|V_{cb}|}}^2}}`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{|ϵ_K|}|ϵ_K|)^2}{\sigma _{|ϵ_K|}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d})^2}{\sigma _{\mathrm{}m_{B_d}}^2}}+\chi ^2(A(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}),\sigma _A(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s})).`$ (29)
The symbols with a hat represent the reference values measured or calculated for given physical quantities, as listed in Table I, while the corresponding $`\sigma `$ are their errors. The parameters of the fit are $`\rho `$ , $`\eta `$, A, $`m_c`$, $`m_t`$, $`B_K`$, $`\eta _{ct}`$, $`\eta _{cc}`$, $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}`$ and $`\xi `$.

The inclusion of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ data needs some explanation. The experimental data consists of measured values of $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s})`$ and $`\sigma _𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s})`$ for various values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ plot in Figure 2. To include this data in the fit, for each set of free parameters $`(A,\rho ,\eta ,\xi )`$ we calculate the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ and find the corresponding experimental values of $`𝒜`$ and $`\sigma _𝒜`$ in Figure 2. A nonzero value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ implies that there is $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ mixing, if observed one should have $`𝒜=1`$ and otherwise $`𝒜=0`$. We follow Ref. to add to the total $`\chi ^2`$ in Eq. (16) a $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ for the corresponding set of $`(A,\rho ,\eta ,\xi )`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=\chi ^2(𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}),\sigma _𝒜(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}))=(\frac{𝒜1}{\sigma _𝒜})^2.$$
(30)
$`Exp[\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2/2]`$ is an indication of how likely a mixing with a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ was measured by experiment. The sign of the deviation $`𝒜1`$ should also be carefully treated. Naively the expression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ implies that a lower probability is attirubted to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ values with $`𝒜>1`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ values having $`𝒜=1`$. To avoid this undesired behavior, we follow Ref. to set $`𝒜`$ to unity for the range with $`𝒜`$ larger than one in Fig. 2.

After $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ are determined it is easy to obtain the values of the angles in the unitarity triangle using relations in Eq. (14). The best fit values and the allowed regions in the $`\rho \eta `$ plane are shown in Figure 3. The best fit values and their 68% C.L. errors are

$`\rho =0.18_{0.09}^{+0.11},\eta =0.34_{0.06}^{+0.07},`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha =0.19_{0.42}^{+0.37},\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.70_{0.09}^{+0.14},\gamma =62_{13^{}}^{+12^{}}.`$ (32)
The $`95\%`$ C.L. allowed regions for the above quantities are expressed as:

$`0.03<\rho <0.38,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.23}<\eta <0.50,`$ (33)
$`0.85<\mathrm{sin}2\alpha <0.42,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.49}<\mathrm{sin}2\beta <0.94,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}39}^{}<\gamma <84^{}.`$ (34)
These results agree with previous analyses.

The solid line in Figure 4 is a plot of the minimal $`\chi ^2`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$ for the fit using $`|ϵ_K|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{d,s}}`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$. It is clear that $`\chi ^2`$ changes with $`\gamma `$ dramatically. When going away from the minimal, $`\chi ^2`$ raises rapidly indicating a good determination of $`\gamma `$.

There are also direct measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ by several groups from the time dependent CP asymmetry in $`BJ/\psi K_S`$. In the SM this asymmetry is given by

$`a(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0(t)J/\psi K_S)\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0(t)J/\psi K_S)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0(t)J/\psi K_S)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0(t)J/\psi K_S)}}=\mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}t).`$ (35)
The values measured by different groups are,

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =\{\begin{array}{cc}0.34\pm 0.20\pm 0.05;\hfill & \text{BaBar}\text{[21]}\hfill \\ 0.58_{0.340.10}^{+0.32+0.09};\hfill & \text{Belle}\text{[21]}\hfill \\ 0.79_{0.44}^{+0.41};\hfill & \text{CDF}\text{[22]}\hfill \\ 0.84_{1.04}^{+0.82}\pm 0.16\hfill & \text{ALEPH}\text{[23]}\hfill \end{array}`$ (40)
The averaged value is $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.46\pm 0.16`$.

For a given $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ there are, in general, four solutions for $`\gamma `$ with two of them having negative $`\eta `$ and another two having positive $`\eta `$. To determine which one of them is the right solution, one has to use other information. Using the information from our previous fit, we can rule out some of the solutions. The allowed ranges for $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ from the averaged value for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is shown in the figure on the left in Fig. 3 by the straight ray lines. Since the fit from $`|ϵ_K|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{d,s}}`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ determines $`\eta >0`$, only solutions with $`\eta >0`$ are allowed. It is clear that one of the values for $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ determined from $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ measurement can be consistent with the fitting results in Eqs. (32) and (34).

It is intersting to note that $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ data can eliminate a large allowed range in the $`\rho `$ vs. $`\eta `$ plane at the 95% C.L. level. One can also include the measured $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ into the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis. The results are shown in the figure on the right in Fig.3. The $`\chi ^2`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$ is shown by the dashed line in Fig. 4. The best fit values and their 68% C.L. errors are given by:

$`\rho =0.13_{0.06}^{+0.10},\eta =0.30_{0.05}^{+0.05},`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha =0.19_{0.44}^{+0.35},\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.61_{0.07}^{+0.09},\gamma =66_{14^{}}^{+10^{}}.`$ (42)
And the 95% C.L. allowed regions for the above quantities are:

$`0.01<\rho <0.30,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.21}<\eta <0.41,`$ (43)
$`0.88<\mathrm{sin}2\alpha <0.45,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.40}<\mathrm{sin}2\beta <0.80,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}42}^{}<\gamma <87^{}.`$ (44)
## III Determination of $`\gamma `$ from charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays

In this section we study how the phase $`\gamma `$ can be constrained from experimental data on $`BPP`$ decays, based on flavor SU(3) symmetry consideration.

### A The Quark Level Effective Hamiltonian

The quark level effective Hamiltonian up to one loop level in electroweak interaction for charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays, including QCD corrections to the matrix elements, can be written as

$`H_{eff}^q={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}(c_1O_1+c_2O_2){\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{11}{}}}(V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}c_i^{uc}+V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}c_i^{tc})O_i].`$ (45)
The coefficients $`c_{1,2}`$ and $`c_i^{jk}=c_i^jc_i^k`$, with $`j`$ indicates the internal quark, are the Wilson Coefficients (WC). These WC’s have been evaluated by several groups, with $`|c_{1,2}|>>|c_i^j|`$. In the above the factor $`V_{cb}V_{cq}^{}`$ has been eliminated using the unitarity property of the CKM matrix. The operators $`O_i`$ are defined as,

$`\begin{array}{cc}O_1=(\overline{q}_iu_j)_{VA}(\overline{u}_jb_i)_{VA},\hfill & O_2=(\overline{q}u)_{VA}(\overline{u}b)_{VA},\hfill \\ O_{3,5}=(\overline{q}b)_{VA}_q^{}(\overline{q}^{}q^{})_{VA},\hfill & O_{4,6}=(\overline{q}_ib_j)_{VA}_q^{}(\overline{q}_j^{}q_i^{})_{VA},\hfill \\ O_{7,9}=\frac{3}{2}(\overline{q}b)_{VA}_q^{}e_q^{}(\overline{q}^{}q^{})_{V\pm A},\hfill & O_{8,10}=\frac{3}{2}(\overline{q}_ib_j)_{VA}_q^{}e_q^{}(\overline{q}_j^{}q_i^{})_{V\pm A},\hfill \\ O_{11}=\frac{g_s}{8\pi ^2}\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }(1+\gamma _5)b.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (50)
where $`(\overline{q}_1q_2)_{VA}=\overline{q}_1\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q_2`$, $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strengths of the gluon, respectively. We have neglected the photonic dipole penguin term whose contribution to hadronic charmless $`B`$ decays is small. The usual tree-level W-exchange contribution in the effective Hamiltonian corresponds to $`O_2`$. $`O_1`$ emerges due to the QCD corrections. The operators $`O_{3,4,5,6}`$ are from the QCD-penguin diagrams. The operators $`O_7`$,…, $`O_{10}`$ arise from the electroweak-penguin diagrams. $`O_{11}`$ is the gluonic dipole penguin operator.

The WC’s at $`\mu =5`$ GeV with $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.118`$, in the regularization independent scheme in Ref. are

$`\begin{array}{cc}c_1=0.313,\hfill & c_2=1.150,\hfill \\ c_3^t=0.017,\hfill & c_4^t=0.037,\hfill \\ c_5^t=0.010,\hfill & c_6^t=0.046,\hfill \\ c_7^t=0.001\alpha _{em},\hfill & c_8^t=0.049\alpha _{em},\hfill \\ c_9^t=1.321\alpha _{em},\hfill & c_{10}^t=0.267\alpha _{em}\hfill \\ c_{11}^t=0.143.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (57)
where $`\alpha _{em}=1/128`$. $`c_i^{c,u}`$ are given in Ref.

### B SU(3) Structure of the Effective Hamiltonian

To obtain $`B`$ decay amplitudes, one has to calculate hadronic matrix elements from quark operators. At present there is no reliable methods to calculate these matrix elements although simple factorization calculations provide some reasonable results for some decays, but not all of them. It motivates us to carry out model independent analysis by studying properties of the effective Hamiltonian under SU(3) flavor symmetry and use them to obtain information about related decays.

In general the decay amplitudes for $`BPP`$ can be written as

$`A(BPP)=<PP|H_{eff}^q|B>={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}T(q)+V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}P(q)],`$ (58)
where $`T(q)`$ contains contributions from the $`tree`$ operators $`O_{1,2}`$ as well as $`penguin`$ operators $`O_{311}`$ due to charm and up quark loop corrections to the matrix elements, while $`P(q)`$ contains contributions purely from $`penguin`$ due to top and charm quarks in loops. The amplitude $`T`$ in Eqs. (58) is usually called the “tree” amplitude which will also be referred to later on in the paper. One should, however, keep in mind that it contains the usual tree current-current contributions proportional to $`c_{1,2}`$ and also the u and c penguin contributions proportional to $`c_i^{uc}`$ with $`i=311`$. Also, in general, it contains long distance contributions corresponding to internal u and c generated intermediate hadron states. In our later analysis, we do not distinguish between the tree and the penguin contributions in the amplitude $`T`$.

The relative strength of the amplitudes $`T`$ and $`P`$ is predominantly determined by their corresponding WC’s in the effective Hamiltonian. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ charmless decays, the dominant contributions are due to the tree operators $`O_{1,2}`$ and the penguin operators are suppressed by smaller WC’s. Whereas for $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ decays, because the penguin contributions are enhanced by a factor of $`V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}/V_{ub}V_{us}^{}50`$ compared with the tree contributions, penguin effects dominate the decay amplitudes. In this case the electroweak penguins can also play a very important role.

The operators $`O_{1,2}`$, $`O_{36,11}`$, and $`O_{710}`$ transform under SU(3) symmetry as $`\overline{3}+\overline{3}^{}+6+\overline{15}`$, $`\overline{3}`$, and $`\overline{3}+\overline{3}^{}+6+\overline{15}`$, respectively. We now give details for the decomposition under SU(3) for some operators. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ decays, $`O_2`$ can be written, omitting the Lorentz-Dirac structure, as:

$`O_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\{(\overline{u}u)(\overline{d}b)+(\overline{d}d)(\overline{d}b)+(\overline{s}s)(\overline{d}b)\}_{\overline{3}}`$ (59)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\{(\overline{d}u)(\overline{u}b)+(\overline{d}d)(\overline{d}b)+(\overline{d}s)(\overline{s}b)\}_{\overline{3}^{}}`$ (60)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{(\overline{u}u)(\overline{d}b)(\overline{d}u)(\overline{u}b)+(\overline{d}s)(\overline{s}b)(\overline{s}s)(\overline{d}b)\}_6`$ (61)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\{3(\overline{u}u)(\overline{d}b)+3(\overline{d}u)(\overline{u}b)(\overline{d}s)(\overline{s}b)(\overline{s}s)(\overline{d}b)2(\overline{d}d)(\overline{d}b)\}_{\overline{15}}`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}H(\overline{3})+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}H(\overline{3}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}H(6)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}H(\overline{15})`$ (63)
The $`\overline{3}`$, 6 and $`\overline{15}`$ indicate the SU(3) irreducible representations. The non-zero entries of the matrices H(i) in flavor space are:

$`H(\overline{3})^2=H(\overline{3}^{})^2=1,H(6)_1^{12}=H(6)_3^{23}=1,H(6)_1^{21}=H(6)_3^{32}=1,`$ (64)
$`H(\overline{15})_1^{12}=H(\overline{15})_1^{21}=3,H(\overline{15})_2^{22}=2,H(\overline{15})_3^{32}=H(\overline{15})_3^{23}=1.`$ (65)
Here $`1=u`$, $`2=d`$ and $`3=s`$ with the upper indices indicating anti-quarks and the lower ones indicating quarks.

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ decays, one has

$`O_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\{(\overline{u}u)(\overline{s}b)+(\overline{d}d)(\overline{s}b)+(\overline{s}s)(\overline{s}b)\}_{\overline{3}}`$ (66)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\{(\overline{s}u)(\overline{u}b)+(\overline{s}d)(\overline{d}b)+(\overline{s}s)(\overline{s}b)\}_{\overline{3}^{}}`$ (67)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{(\overline{u}u)(\overline{s}b)(\overline{s}u)(\overline{u}b)+(\overline{s}d)(\overline{d}b)(\overline{d}d)(\overline{s}b)\}_6`$ (68)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\{3(\overline{u}u)(\overline{s}b)+3(\overline{s}u)(\overline{u}b)(\overline{s}s)(\overline{s}b)(\overline{s}d)(\overline{d}b)2(\overline{d}d)(\overline{s}b)\}_{\overline{15}}`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}H(\overline{3})+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}H(\overline{3}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}H(6)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}H(\overline{15})`$ (70)
The non-zero entries are:

$`H(\overline{3})^3=H(\overline{3}^{})^3=1,H(6)_1^{13}=H(6)_2^{32}=1,H(6)_1^{31}=H(6)_2^{23}=1,`$ (71)
$`H(\overline{15})_1^{13}=H(\overline{15})_1^{31}=3,H(\overline{15})_3^{33}=2,H(\overline{15})_2^{32}=H(\overline{15})_2^{23}=1.`$ (72)
For $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$, the operators $`O_{1,2}`$, $`O_{36}`$, and $`O_{710}`$ can be decomposed as

$`O_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}𝒪_{\overline{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}𝒪_{\overline{3}^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒪_6+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}𝒪_{\overline{15}},`$ (73)
$`O_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}𝒪_{\overline{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}𝒪_{\overline{3}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒪_6+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}𝒪_{\overline{15}},`$ (74)
$`O_3`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪_{\overline{3}},O_4=𝒪_{\overline{3}^{}},`$ (75)
$`O_9`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}O_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}O_3,O_{10}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}O_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}O_4.`$ (76)
where

$`𝒪_{\overline{3}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{u}u)_{VA}(\overline{d}b)_{VA}+(\overline{d}d)_{VA}(\overline{d}b)_{VA}+(\overline{s}s)_{VA}(\overline{d}b)_{VA},`$ (77)
$`𝒪_{\overline{3}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}u)_{VA}(\overline{u}b)_{VA}+(\overline{d}d)_{VA}(\overline{d}b)_{VA}+(\overline{d}s)_{VA}(\overline{s}b)_{VA},`$ (78)
$`𝒪_6`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{u}u)_{VA}(\overline{d}b)_{VA}(\overline{d}u)_{VA}(\overline{u}b)_{VA}`$ (79)
$`+`$ $`(\overline{d}s)_{VA}(\overline{s}b)_{VA}(\overline{s}s)_{VA}(\overline{d}b)_{VA},`$ (80)
$`𝒪_{\overline{15}}`$ $`=`$ $`3(\overline{u}u)_{VA}(\overline{d}b)_{VA}+3(\overline{d}u)_{VA}(\overline{u}b)_{VA}(\overline{d}s)_{VA}(\overline{s}b)_{VA}`$ (81)
$``$ $`(\overline{s}s)_{VA}(\overline{d}b)_{VA}2(\overline{d}d)_{VA}(\overline{d}b)_{VA}.`$ (82)
The operators $`O_5`$ and $`O_6`$ have same SU(3) structure as $`O_3`$ and $`O_4`$ but different Lorentz-Dirac structures. $`O_7`$, $`O_8`$ have the same SU(3) structure as $`O_9`$, $`O_{10}`$, but again have different Lorentz-Dirac structures. Similarly one can obtain the decomposition of the operators for $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ case.

Since we are only concerned with flavor structure in SU(3), operators with different Lorentz-Dirac structures and different color structures can be grouped together according to their flavor SU(3) representations without affect the results. As long as flavor structure is concerned, the effective Hamiltonian contains only $`\overline{3}`$, $`6`$ and $`\overline{15}`$. These properties enable us to write the decay amplitudes for $`BPP`$ in only a few SU(3) invariant amplitudes.

### C SU(3) Decay Amplitudes for $`BPP`$ Decays

We will use $`B_i=(B_u,B_d,B_s)=(B^{},\overline{B}^0,\overline{B}_s^0)`$ to indicate the SU(3) triplet for the three $`B`$-mesons, and $`M`$ to indicate the pseudoscalar octet $`M`$ which contains one of the $`P`$ in the final state with

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}& \pi ^+& K^+\\ \pi ^{}& \frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}& K^0\\ K^{}& \overline{K}^0& 2\frac{\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}\end{array}\right).`$ (86)
One can write the $`T`$ amplitude for $`BPP`$ as

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`A_{\overline{3}}^TB_iH(\overline{3})^i(M_l^kM_k^l)+C_{\overline{3}}^TB_iM_k^iM_j^kH(\overline{3})^j`$ (87)
$`+`$ $`A_6^TB_iH(6)_k^{ij}M_j^lM_l^k+C_6^TB_iM_j^iH(6)_l^{jk}M_k^l`$ (88)
$`+`$ $`A_{\overline{15}}^TB_iH(\overline{15})_k^{ij}M_j^lM_l^k+C_{\overline{15}}^TB_iM_j^iH(\overline{15})_l^{jk}M_k^l,`$ (89)
due to the anti-symmetric nature in exchanging the upper two indices of $`H_k^{ij}(6)`$, and the symmetric structure of the two mesons in the final states, $`C_6A_6`$ always appear together. We will just use $`C_6`$ to indicate this combination. There are 5 complex independent SU(3) invariant amplitudes. The results for each individual $`B`$ decay mode are shown in Table II. Similarly one can write down the expressions for the penguin induced decay amplitudes $`P`$.

Since there are both tree and penguin amplitudes $`C_i^T`$, $`A_i^T`$ and $`C_i^P`$, $`A_i^P`$, there in general, 10 complex hadronic parameters (20 real parameters). However simplications can be made by noticing that $`c_{7,8}`$ are very small compared with other Wilson Coefficients, their contributions can be neglected to a very good precision. In that case, from Eq. (76), we obtain

$`C_6^P(A_6^P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_9^{tc}c_{10}^{tc}}{c_1c_23(c_9^{uc}c_{10}^{uc})/2}}C_6^T(A_6^T){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_9^tc_{10}^t}{c_1c_2}}C_6^T(A_6^T),`$ (118)
$`C_{\overline{15}}^P(A_{\overline{15}}^P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_9^{tc}+c_{10}^{tc}}{c_1+c_23(c_9^{uc}+c_{10}^{uc})/2}}C_{\overline{15}}^T(A_{\overline{15}}^T){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_9^t+c_{10}^t}{c_1+c_2}}C_{\overline{15}}^T(A_{\overline{15}}^T).`$ (119)
We have checked that the approximation signs in the above are good to $`10^4`$.

At leading order QCD correction, the above relations are renormalization scale independent, and therefore to this order the coefficients $`C_i`$ and $`A_i`$ are also so. This can be seen from the fact that when keeping terms which mix only between $`O_1(O_9)`$ and $`O_2(O_{10})`$, the dominant QCD correction gives: $`c_{1(9)}(\mu )+c_{2(10)}(\mu )=\eta ^{2/\beta }[c_{1(9)}(m_W)+c_{2(10)}(m_W)]`$ and $`c_{1(9)}(\mu )c_{2(10)(\mu )}=\eta ^{4/\beta }[c_{1(9)}(m_W)c_{2(10)}(m_W)]`$. Here $`c_{1,2,9,10}(m_W)`$ are the initial values for the WC’s at the W mass scale with $`c_{1(10)}(m_W)=0`$, $`\eta =\alpha _s(m_W)/\alpha _s(\mu )`$ and $`\beta =112f/3`$ (f is the number of quark flavors with mass smaller than $`\mu `$). These relations lead to $`(c_9(\mu )\pm c_{10}(\mu ))/(c_1(\mu )\pm c_2(\mu ))=\pm c_9(m_W)/c_2(m_W)`$ independent of $`\mu `$. Mixings with other operators and higher order corrections introduce dependence on renormalization schemes. We have checked with different renormalization schemes and find that numerically the changes are less than 15% for different schemes. Although the changes are not sizable, there are scheme dependence. The total decay amplitudes are not renormalization scheme dependent, therefore the hadronic matrix elements determined depend on the renormalization scheme used to determine the ratios, $`(c_9\pm c_{10})/(c_1\pm c_2)`$. One should consistently use the same scheme.

Using relations in Eq.(119), one finds that there are less independent parameters which we choose them to be, $`C_{\overline{3}}^{T,P}(A_{\overline{3}}^{T,P})`$, $`C_6^T`$, and $`C_{\overline{15}}^T(A_{\overline{15}}^T)`$. Using the fact that an overall phase can be removed without loss of generality, we will set $`C_{\overline{3}}^P`$ to be real. There are in fact only 13 real independent parameters for $`BPP`$ in the SM.

One can further reduce the parameters with some dynamic considerations. To this end we note that the amplitudes $`A_i`$ correspond to annihilation contributions, as can be seen from Eq.(89) where $`B_i`$ mesons are contracted with one of the index in $`H(j)`$, are small compared with the amplitudes $`C_i`$ from model calculations and are often neglected in factorization calculations. Neglecting all annihilation contributions, we then have just 7 independent hadronic parameters in the amplitudes

$`C_{\overline{3}}^P,C_{\overline{3}}^Te^{i\delta _{\overline{3}}},C_6^Te^{i\delta _6},C_{\overline{15}}^Te^{i\delta _{\overline{15}}}.`$ (120)
The phases in the above are defined in such a way that all $`C_i^{T,P}`$ are real positive numbers.

We will make the assumption that annihilation amplitudes are negligiblly small in our later analysis and leave the verification of this assumption for future experimental data. We point out that this assumption can be tested using $`B_dK^{}K^+`$, $`B_s\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ in $`BPP`$ decays, because these decays have only annihilation contributions as can be seen from Table 2.

### D Constraint on $`\gamma `$ from $`BPP`$ Decays

We are now ready to carry out a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis using data from $`B\pi \pi `$ and $`BK\pi `$. The experimental data to be used are shown in Table III.

In general the errors for the experimental data in Table III are correlated. Due to the lack of knowledge of the error correlation from experiments, in our analysis, for simplicity, we take them to be uncorrelated and assume the errors obey Gaussian distribution taking the larger one between $`\sigma _+`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$ to be on the conservative side. When combining from different measurements, we take the weighted average. For the data which only presented as upper bounds, we assume them to obey Gaussian distribution and taking the error $`\sigma `$ accordingly.

The $`\chi ^2`$ analysis in this case is to minimize the $`\chi ^2`$ given in the below

$`\chi ^2={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{B}r(i)Br(i))^2}{\sigma _{Br}^2(i)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{A}_{CP}(i)A_{CP}(i))^2}{\sigma _{CP}^2(i)}}+\chi ^2(A,|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|),`$ (121)
where the summation on $`i`$ is for the available decay branching ratios and CP asymmetries listed in Table III. $`\sigma _{Br,CP}`$ are the corresponding errors. Here $`\chi ^2(A,|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|)`$ is the $`\chi ^2`$ due to uncertainties in $`A`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ as in section II. The branching ratios $`Br(i)`$ and CP asymmetries $`A_{CP}(i)`$ expressed in terms of decay amplitude $`A(i)=(G_F/\sqrt{2})[V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}T(i)+V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}P(i)]`$ for a particular $`BP_1P_2`$ are given by

$`Br(i)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi m_B\mathrm{\Gamma }_B}}(|A(i)|^2+|\overline{A}(i)|^2)\lambda _{P_1P_2},`$ (122)
$`A_{CP}(i)={\displaystyle \frac{|A(i)|^2|\overline{A}(i)|^2}{|A(i)|^2+|\overline{A}(i)|^2}},`$ (123)
where $`\lambda _{ij}=[(1(m_i+m_j)^2/m_B^2)(1(m_im_j)^2/m_B^2)]^{1/2}`$. The amplitudes $`T(i)`$ and $`P(i)`$ for each individual decay can be read off from Table II.

We use $`V_{cb}=0.0402\pm 0.0019`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.090\pm 0.025`$ in the fitting. The results with exact SU(3) symmetry are shown in Figures 5 and 6 by the solid curves. The best fit values for the hadronic parameters are

$`C_{\overline{3}}^P=0.13,C_{\overline{3}}^T=0.34,C_6^T=0.13,C_{\overline{15}}^T=0.16,`$ (124)
$`\delta _{\overline{3}}=27^{},\delta _6=20^{},\delta _{\overline{15}}=35^{}.`$ (125)
And the best fit values for $`\rho `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are

$`\rho =0.02,\eta =0.40,\gamma =87^{}.`$ (126)
The constraint is weak. We have not given the 68% allowed ranges because to that level, the constraints are basically given by $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$. We have to wait more accurate data to obtain more restrictive constraints.

At present the errors on the asymmetries are too large and do not really provide stringent constraints. However, we include them here hoping that they will be measured soon. By then one can easily include them in the fit to obtain more stringent constraint on $`\gamma `$.

In Figure 5, we show the regions allowed by $`\chi ^2\chi _{min}^2=1`$ in the $`\rho \eta `$ plane by the solid curve. As mentioned that at present the constraint is weak which can also be seen from Figure 6 where the minimal $`\chi ^2`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$ is shown by the curve (a) for the case with exact SU(3) symmetry, although the $`\chi _{min}^2`$ per degree of freedom is smaller than 1. The 68% allowed region is actually the same as that from $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ alone. However, when more precision data for rare charmless $`BPP`$ become available, the restriction will become more stringent. For example, if the error bars for all the quantities are reduced by a factor of 2.45, then the regions in Figure 5 correspond to 95% C.L. allowed regions.

SU(3) may not be an exact symmetry for $`BPP`$. We now estimate SU(3) breaking effects. The amplitudes $`C_i`$ for $`B\pi \pi `$ and $`BK\pi `$ will be different if SU(3) is broken. At present it is not possible to calculate the breaking effects. To have some idea about the size of the SU(3) breaking effects, we work with the factorization estimate. To leading order the relation between the amplitudes for $`B\pi \pi `$ decays $`C_i(\pi \pi )`$ and the amplitudes for $`BK\pi `$ decays $`C_i(K\pi )`$ can be parameterized as $`C_i(K\pi )=rC_i(\pi \pi )`$, and $`r`$ is approximately given by

$`r{\displaystyle \frac{f_K}{f_\pi }}=1.22.`$ (127)
Here we have assumed that the SU(3) breaking effects in $`f_i`$ and $`F_0^{Bi}`$ are similar in magnitudes, that is, $`f_K/f_\pi F_0^{BK}/F_0^{B\pi }`$. Using the above to represent SU(3) breaking effect, we can obtain another set of fitting results. They are shown in Figures 5 (dashed curve) and 6 (curve (b)). The best fit values for the amplitudes are

$`C_{\overline{3}}^P=0.11,C_{\overline{3}}^T=0.33,C_6^T=0.22,C_{\overline{15}}^T=0.18,`$ (128)
$`\delta _{\overline{3}}=57^{},\delta _6=200^{},\delta _{\overline{15}}=85^{}.`$ (129)
The best fit values for $`\rho `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are given by

$`\rho =0.39,\eta =0.07,\gamma =170^{}.`$ (130)
In both exact and broken SU(3) cases, there are two local minimal in the $`\chi ^2`$ vs. $`\gamma `$ diagrams. The corresponding values of $`\gamma `$ are very different with one of them around $`87^{}`$ and another $`170^{}`$. These best fit values are dramatically different that those obtained in section II. However the best fit values here can not be taken too seriously because, as can be seen from Fig. 5, that at 39% C.L. level, almost all allowed range by $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ is allowed by $`BPP`$ data. At 68% C.L. level, all allowed region by $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ is allowed by data from $`BPP`$ decays. Inconsistence between $`\gamma `$ obtained in Section II and this section can not be established. We have to wait more precise data on $`BPP`$ to decide.

In the literature it has often been quoted that $`O_{1,2}`$ do not contribute to $`B^{}\overline{K}^0\pi ^{}`$ and therefore $`Br(B^{}\overline{K}^0\pi ^{})=Br(B^+K^0\pi ^+)`$. In the SU(3) language used here, this implies $`C=C_{\overline{3}}^Te^{i\delta _{\overline{3}}}C_6^Te^{i\delta _6}C_{\overline{15}}^Te^{i\delta _{\overline{15}}}=0`$. This result has been used to derive several methods to determine the phase $`\gamma `$. We stress that this is not a result from SU(3) consideration and need to be checked. For this reason we also carried out analyses with the condition $`C=0`$. For this case, the minimal $`\chi ^2`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$ are also shown in Figure 6 (curves (a1) and (b1)) with exact SU(3) and with SU(3) breaking effects, respectively. The best fit values with exact SU(3) symmetry are

$`\rho =0.05,\eta =0.41,\gamma =83^{},`$ (131)
$`C_{\overline{3}}^P=0.13,C_{\overline{3}}^T=0.26,C_6^T=0.17,C_{\overline{15}}^T=0.16,`$ (132)
$`\delta _{\overline{3}}=13^{},\delta _6=49^{},\delta _{15}=27^{}.`$ (133)
And the best fit values with SU(3) breaking effects are

$`\rho =0.12,\eta =0.39,\gamma =73^{},`$ (134)
$`C_{\overline{3}}^P=0.11,C_{\overline{3}}^T=0.24,C_6^T=0.15,C_{\overline{15}}^T=0.16,`$ (135)
$`\delta _{\overline{3}}=15^{},\delta _6=56^{},\delta _{\overline{15}}=23^{}.`$ (136)
The imposition of $`C=0`$ does not force these coefficients to be real. In order to get $`C`$ to be zero, the real and imaginary parts both have to cancel to satisfy the condition. The implications of this analysis will be discussed later.

## IV Combined fit

In this section we carry out a combined fit of the sections II and III. The total $`\chi ^2(total)`$ is the sum of the $`\chi ^2(\text{II})`$ with $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ data included from section II plus the $`\chi ^2(\text{III})`$. Here $`\chi ^2(\text{III})`$ is the $`\chi ^2`$ in Eq. (36) of section III with $`\chi ^2(A,|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|)`$ subtracted. This is because that $`\chi ^2(\text{II})`$ already included information from $`A`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$. The results are shown in Figures 7 and 8. Since $`\chi ^2(\text{II})`$ has a sharper dependence on $`\gamma `$ compared with $`\chi ^2(\text{III})`$, the best fit values and errors are dominantly determined by constraints in section II.

The best combined fit values with exact SU(3) symmetry for the hadronic parameters are

$`C_{\overline{3}}^P=0.13,C_{\overline{3}}^T=0.29,C_6^T=0.16,C_{\overline{15}}^T=0.20,`$ (137)
$`\delta _{\overline{3}}=42^{},\delta _6=20^{},\delta _{\overline{15}}=35^{}.`$ (138)
In the above we have not given errors for the hadronic parameters because the constraints on them are weak.

The best fit values for $`\rho `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\gamma `$ and their 68% C.L. errors are given by

$`\rho =0.12_{0.05}^{+0.09},\eta =0.29_{0.04}^{+0.06},\gamma =67_{13^{}}^{+10^{}},`$ (139)
and the 95% C.L. allowed ranges for $`\rho `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are

$`0.01<\rho <0.29,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.21}<\eta <0.40,`$ (140)
$`0.86<\mathrm{sin}2\alpha <0.45,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.45}<\mathrm{sin}2\beta <0.79,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}43}^{}<\gamma <87^{}.`$ (141)
The best combined fit values with SU(3) breaking effects for the hadronic parameters are

$`C_{\overline{3}}^P=0.11,C_{\overline{3}}^T=0.29,C_6^T=0.16,C_{\overline{15}}^T=0.20,`$ (142)
$`\delta _{\overline{3}}=33^{},\delta _6=40^{},\delta _{\overline{15}}=31^{}.`$ (143)
$`\rho =0.13_{0.06}^{+0.09},\eta =0.29_{0.04}^{+0.06},\gamma =66_{13^{}}^{+10^{}},`$ (144)
and the 95% C.L. allowed ranges for $`\rho `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are

$`0.01<\rho <0.30,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.21}<\eta <0.41,`$ (145)
$`0.87<\mathrm{sin}2\alpha <0.44,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.46}<\mathrm{sin}2\beta <0.80,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}42}^{}<\gamma <87^{}.`$ (146)
## V Discussions and Conclusions

At present the rare charmless hadronic $`B`$ decay data have large error bars. The main contribution to the $`\chi ^2`$ for the analysis in sections III and IV come from the branching ratio for $`\overline{B}^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0`$. In the cases discussed, this mode alone contribute about 2.5 to the $`\chi ^2`$. The best fit value of the branching ratio is only about half of the experimental central value. We suspect that there may be some systematic errors in the measurement of this branching ratio. If the present central value persists, it may be an indication of badly broken SU(3) symmetry or new physics beyond the SM. It is important to improve the precision of experimental data to decide whether new physics is needed.

Because of the large error bars associated with the $`BPP`$ data, the ranges determined for the related parameters have large error bars. Especially the phase $`\gamma `$ has a large range allowed using the $`BPP`$ data alone. However, the fit shows no conflict between the fit from the consideration using $`|ϵ_K|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{d,s}}`$, $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ data. Future experimental data will be able to provide a more accurate determination of the phase $`\gamma `$.

Before closing we would like to make a few comments about our analysis and some other related calculations. Our first comment concerns the general SU(3) analysis and factorization calculations.

Assuming factorization and SU(3) symmetry, that is the decay constants for all octet pseudoscalars $`P`$ are equal, and the form factors for $`BP`$ are also equal, one obtains

$`C_{\overline{3}}^T=\{{\displaystyle \frac{3a_2a_1}{8}}[(a_4^{uc}+a_6^{uc}R)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}(a_7^{uc}a_9^{uc})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(a_{10}^{uc}+a_8^{uc}R)]\}X`$ (147)
$`C_6^T=\{{\displaystyle \frac{a_2a_1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(a_{10}^{uc}a_9^{uc}+a_7^{uc}+a_8^{uc}R)\}X`$ (148)
$`C_{\overline{15}}^T=\{{\displaystyle \frac{a_1+a_2}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}(a_9^{uc}+a_{10}^{uc}a_7^{uc}+a_8^{uc}R)\}X`$ (149)
where $`X=f_\pi F_0^{B\pi }(m_\pi ^2)(m_B^2m_\pi ^2)`$ and $`R=m_K^2/(m_bm_q)(m_s+m_q)`$. These amplitudes are related to the “tree” contributions, $`a_i^{uc}=a_i^ua_i^c`$ with $`a_{2i}=c_{2i}+c_{2i1}/N`$ and $`a_{2i1}=c_{2i1}+c_{2i}/N`$.

The penguin amplitudes are given by

$`C_{\overline{3}}^P=[(a_4^{tc}+a_6^{tc}R)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}(a_7^{tc}a_9^{tc})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(a_{10}^{tc}+a_8^{tc}R)]X,`$ (150)
$`C_6^P={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(a_{10}^{tc}a_9^{tc}+a_7^{tc}+a_8^{tc}R)X,`$ (151)
$`C_{\overline{15}}^P={\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}(a_9^{tc}+a_{10}^{tc}a_7^{tc}+a_8^{tc}R)X.`$ (152)
where $`a_i^{tc}=a_i^ta_i^c`$. When small contributions from $`a_{7,8}^{ij}`$ terms are neglected, one recovers the relations in Eq. (119). Numerically, we have

$`C_{\overline{3}}^P=0.09,C_{\overline{3}}^T=0.42,C_6^T=0.26,C_{\overline{15}}^T=0.15,`$ (153)
$`\delta _{\overline{3}}=15.7^{},\delta _6=14.5^{},\delta _{\overline{15}}=14.5^{}.`$ (154)
In the above we have used the convention with $`C_{\overline{3}}^P`$ to be real.

The amplitudes are in the same order of magnitude as the best fit values in sections III and IV, but the phase can be very different. In the factorization approximation calculation here, phases are only due to short distance interaction, rescattering of quarks. Long distance contributions can change these phases. The results of the best fit values for the phases indicating that there may be large long distance rescattering effects.

Our second comments concerns the combination of the SU(3) invariant decay amplitude $`C=C_{\overline{3}}^Te^{i\delta _{\overline{3}}}C_6^Te^{i\delta _6}C_{\overline{15}}^Te^{\delta _{\overline{15}}}`$. It has been usually assumed that in the literature that $`C=0`$. This leads to $`Br(B^+K^0\pi ^+)=Br(B^{}\overline{K}^0\pi ^{})`$. This result played a crucial role in several methods to constrain and to determine the phase $`\gamma `$, for example, using $`B^{}K^{}\pi ^0,\overline{K}^0\pi ^{},\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$, $`\overline{B}^0(B^{})K^+\pi ^{},\pi ^+\pi ^{}(\overline{K}^0\pi ^{})`$, and $`B^{}K^{}\pi ^0,\overline{K}^0\pi ^{},K^{}\eta `$.

We point out that $`C=0`$ is based on factorization calculation neglecting annihilation contributions and also penguin contributions. In fact, using factorization calculation when penguin contributions are included, $`C`$ does not equal to zero, but $`C=C_{\overline{3}}^T(penguin)`$. $`C_{\overline{3}}^T(penguin)`$ can be obtained from Eq.(149) (the terms proportional to $`c_i^{uc}`$ in $`C_{\overline{3}}^T`$. In the factorization framework, we can easily check whether $`C=0`$ is a good approximation. Using the result in Eq. (149) we find that the $`|C_{\overline{3}}^T(penguin)/C_{\overline{3}}^T|`$ is of order 5%. It is therefore reasonable to assume the penguin contribution to be small and $`C0`$.

One should also be aware that when going beyond factorization approximation and include rescattering effects $`C`$ may deviate from zero. It should be tested. The fitting program proposed in this paper can be easily used to achieve this goal. From the best fit values in the previous sections, we clearly see that $`C`$ can easily deviate from zero. For example, in the case with exact SU(3), the best fit value using rare $`B`$ decay data $`C`$ is, $`C=0.05i0.20`$ and with SU(3) breaking effects $`C`$ is, $`C=0.37+i0.18`$ which are the same order of magnitude as individual $`C_i^T`$. One needs more data to achieve a better test. Until then, the use of the methods based on the above equation have to be treated with caution.

Our final comments concerns the uncertainties in the present analysis. In this paper we have developed a method based on SU(3) flavor symmetry to determine the CP violating phase $`\gamma `$. We find that when annihilation contributions are neglected, there are only seven hadronic parameters in the SM related to $`BPP`$ decays. The annihilation contributions are small is based on factorization approximation. If it turns out that they are not small, as some model calculations indicated that the penguin related annihilation contribution $`A_{\overline{3}}^P`$ may be sizeable, one needs to include it into the analysis. However, from Table II one can see that $`A_{\overline{3}}^P`$ does not show up in $`BK\pi `$ decays, but only to $`B\pi \pi `$ which is suppressed by small Wilson coefficients. One can also carried out an analysis including $`A_{\overline{3}}^P`$ into the fit when more experimental data become available. Future experimental data with better accuracy will provide more information.

In the estimate of SU(3) breaking effects, we have parameterized the SU(3) breaking effects in a simple form with $`C_i(K\pi )=(f_K/f_\pi )C_i(\pi \pi )`$. In general the SU(3) breaking effects may be more complicated. More systematic study of SU(3) breaking effects are needed in order to obtain more accurate determination of the phase $`\gamma `$. But in any rate we hope that the method developed here will help to provide useful information about the hadronic matrix elements and also the CP violating phase $`\gamma `$.

In conclusion, in this paper we have developed a method to determine the CP violating phase $`\gamma `$ based on the flavor SU(3) symmetry. We find that present data can already give some constraint on $`\gamma `$ and it is consistent with the constraint obtained by using $`|ϵ_K|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{d,s}}`$, $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ data. We also carried out an analysis combining data from $`ϵ_K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{d,s}}`$, $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and data from rare charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays. The combined analysis gives $`\gamma =67^{}`$ for the best fit value and $`43^{}87^{}`$ as the 95% C.L. allowed range. Although there are uncertainties in the fit program, the method developed in the present paper can provide useful information about the hadronic matrix elements for rare charmless hadronic B decays and the CP violating phase $`\gamma `$.

XGH would like to thank P. Chang and D. London for useful discussions. XGH, YKH and JQS were supported by the National Science Council of ROC under grant number NSC89-2112-M-002-058 and NCTS of ROC, and, YLW and YFZ were supported by the NSF of China under the grant No. 19625514.


format: text

text:
# Mesoscopic fluctuations of the Coulomb drag at 𝜈=1/2

## Abstract

We consider mesoscopic fluctuations of Coulomb drag transresistivity between two layers at a Landau level filling factor $`\nu =1/2`$ each. We find that at low temperature sample to sample fluctuations exceed both the ensemble average and the corresponding fluctuations at $`B=0`$. At the experimentally relevant temperatures, the variance of the transresistivity is proportional to $`T^{1/2}`$. We find the dependence of this variance on density and magnetic field to reflect the attachment of two flux quanta to each electron.

Draft:

Measurements of Coulomb drag between two parallel electronic systems at close proximity  are a useful tool for studies of electron-electron interactions. In these measurements a current $`I_1`$ is driven in one (”active”) of the systems. As a consequence of inter-layer electron-electron scattering, a momentum $`q`$ is transferred from the active system to the other (”passive”) one with a voltage $`V_2`$ developing in the latter. The ratio $`\rho _D=V_2/I_1`$ is known as the transresistivity or the drag coefficient.

For clean systems at zero magnetic field $`\rho _DT^2`$ (with $`T`$ being the temperature), as follows from Landau’s phase space argument. Recently, Coulomb drag was studied experimentally  in a system of two two-dimensional electron layers in a strong magnetic field $`B`$. When the Landau level filling factor in each layer is $`\nu =1/2`$, the effect is enhanced by several orders of magnitude relative to $`B=0`$, and follows a sub-quadratic temperature dependence. Moreover, at very low temperature it was found to saturate to a non-zero value. Theoretically , $`\rho _DT^{4/3}`$ with a prefactor much larger than at $`B=0`$. In the presence of disorder, both at $`B=0`$ and at $`\nu =1/2`$, $`\rho _DT^2\mathrm{ln}T`$.

Mesoscopic fluctuations of Coulomb drag at $`B=0`$ were recently studied theoretically. When $`k_Fd1`$ ($`k_F`$ is the Fermi momentum and $`d`$ the inter-layer separation), Coulomb drag is proportional to $`\left(\frac{\sigma }{n}\right)^2`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the single layer conductivity and $`n`$ is the electron density. On average, the derivative is $`\sigma /n`$. Its fluctuations for a fully coherent sample are $`e^2/\mathrm{}E_TN(0)`$ with $`E_T\frac{\mathrm{}D}{L^2}`$ being the Thouless energy and $`N(0)`$ being the thermodynamic compressibility of electrons. Hereafter $`D`$ is the diffusion constant of electrons. In the absence of phase breaking, for large enough samples the fluctuations exceed the average: $`\rho _D^2/\rho _D^2(L/l)^4`$, where $`l`$ is the elastic mean free path. As usual, mesoscopic fluctuations of the drag result from quantum interference between different trajectories and thus are suppressed by phase breaking processes, leading to a non-trivial temperature dependence.

In this paper we study fluctuations of Coulomb drag in the $`\nu =1/2`$ case, where each layer is described as a Fermi liquid of composite fermions. Each composite fermion is an electron with two attached flux quanta , that interacts with the others both electrostatically and by means of a Chern-Simons interaction. While most properties of the $`\nu =1/2`$ state can be analyzed in terms of semi-classical dynamics of composite fermions, this study requires a quantum mechanical analysis.

We start with a qualitative discussion, then sketch the calculation whose details are to be published elsewhere, and conclude by suggesting experimental probes to distinguish the effect of mesoscopic fluctuations from other phenomena. All along, we use $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ to denote the measurable electronic conductivity and resistivity. Composite fermion conductivity, resistivity, and diffusion constant are denoted by $`\sigma ^{cf}`$, $`\rho ^{cf}`$, and $`D^{cf}`$. For simplicity we consider only the longitudinal drag conductivity and resistivity, denoted by $`\sigma _D`$ and $`\rho _D`$. We note in passing that the Hall drag resistivity, which vanishes when disorder-averaged, would fluctuate with the same correlation functions as the longitudinal one, $`\rho _D`$.

It is convenient to calculate mesoscopic fluctuations for the drag conductivity, $`\sigma _D`$, rather than for $`\rho _D`$. In fact, at $`\nu =1/2`$, to the lowest non-vanishing order in the screened interlayer interaction ,

$$\rho _D\left(\frac{2h}{e^2}\right)^2\sigma _D,$$
(1)
In the same approximation, $`\sigma _D`$ can be expressed in terms of the non-linear susceptibility of the system $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (to be defined below) and the propagator $`𝒟`$ of the screened interlayer Coulomb interaction:

$$\sigma _D=\frac{1}{4S}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi \mathrm{}}\left(\frac{}{\omega }\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2T}\right)𝒟_{12}^R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^x𝒟_{34}^A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{41}^x,$$
(2)
Here, $`S`$ is the area of the sample, numerical subscripts indicate spatial coordinates, and are implied to be integrated over. The non-linear susceptibility of electrons $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\alpha (\omega )`$ is a response function relating a voltage $`V(r_i)e^{i\omega t}`$ to a $`dc`$ current it induces by the quadratic response:

$$J^\alpha =𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^\alpha (\omega )V(𝐫_1)V(𝐫_2),$$
(3)
with $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ being the induced $`dc`$ current. From gauge invariance $`𝑑𝐫_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^\alpha (\omega )=𝑑𝐫_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^\alpha (\omega )=0`$.

The retarded (advanced) propagators of the screened interlayer interaction $`𝒟^{R(A)}`$ are calculated by means of a standard random phase approximation (see, e.g. Ref. ). In momentum representation,

$$𝒟^{R(A)}=\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Pi }^{R(A)}\right]^1}{1+2\pi e^2d\mathrm{\Pi }^{R(A)}},\mathrm{\Pi }^{R(A)}=\frac{N(0)Dq^2}{i\omega +Dq^2}.$$
(4)
In the diffusive regime the non-linear susceptibility $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be obtained from Ohm law, $`\stackrel{}{j}=\widehat{\sigma }\stackrel{}{E}eD\stackrel{}{}n,`$ where $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is the electric field. Combined with the continuity equation, Ohm law yields for the linear response of the density to an applied field,

$$n(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )=\frac{1}{e}\frac{iq^\alpha \sigma ^{\alpha \beta }E^\beta (\stackrel{}{q},\omega )}{i\omega +Dq^2}.$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ indicate disorder-averaged quantities.

A non-linear response to the electric field results from the density dependence of the conductivity $`J_{dc}=\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{\sigma }{n}\right)n(q,\omega )E(q,\omega )`$, and yields,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\gamma =\frac{1}{e}\frac{\sigma ^{\gamma \delta }}{n}q^\delta \frac{\omega \sigma _{xx}q^2}{\omega ^2+D^2q^4}=e\frac{\sigma ^{\gamma \delta }}{n}q^\delta \mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^R.$$
(6)
The density dependence of the conductivity is a measure of electron-hole assymetry, which is essential for Coulomb drag. The fluctuations in $`\rho _D`$ result from mesoscopic fluctuations in $`\frac{\sigma }{n}`$.

In the absence of a magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\gamma `$ is parallel to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. In contrast, at $`\nu =1/2`$ the large Hall component of the conductivity leads to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\gamma `$ which is approximately perpendicular to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. In both cases the disorder-averaged conductivity is linear in the density, and $`\frac{\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }}{n}\frac{\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }}{n}`$. Substituting this approximation in Eq. (6), and using Eqs. (2) and (4), we arrive at the familiar result,

$$\rho _D=\frac{2\pi h}{3e^2(k_Fd)^4}\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)$$
(7)
with $`T_04\pi \sigma _{xx}/ϵd`$. Note that Eq. (7) holds both at zero magnetic field and at $`\nu =1/2`$. Quantitatively, it yields very different results in the two cases, since the electronic longitudinal conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$ at $`\nu =1/2`$ is about three orders of magnitude smaller than at $`B=0`$.

We now turn to the discussion of mesoscopic fluctuations of $`\rho _D`$. The first step is the estimate of fluctuations in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪,\omega )`$. At $`\nu =1/2`$ the main source of these fluctuations is the derivative $`\frac{\sigma }{n}`$. The rest of the parameters, i.e., the compressibility and diffusion constant, can be approximated by their average values (as in Eq. (6)), since their fluctuations are much smaller than their average. To estimate the fluctuations of $`\frac{\sigma }{n}`$ we express this derivative in terms of response functions for composite fermions, which are the Fermi liquid quasi-particles of the $`\nu =1/2`$ state. The conductivity matrices of electrons and composite fermions are related by

$$(\widehat{\sigma }^{cf})^1=\widehat{\sigma }^1+\frac{2h}{e^2}\widehat{ϵ}$$
(8)
with $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ being the two dimensional anti-symmetric tensor.

On average $`\sigma ^{cf}`$, the composite fermion conductivity matrix at $`\nu =1/2`$, is diagonal with both diagonal elements being $`\frac{e^2}{h}g_{cf}`$ (where $`g_{cf}`$ is the dimensionless conductance of composite fermions). In the limit of $`g_{cf}1`$, the electronic longitudinal conductivity is inversely proportional to $`g_{cf}`$, $`\sigma _{xx}\frac{e^2}{h}\frac{1}{4g_{cf}}`$, and so is also the electronic diffusion constant.

For a particular disorder realization the system is not isotropic, and $`\sigma ^{cf}`$ is not diagonal. In the limit of $`g_{cf}1`$, Eq. (8) leads to

$$\delta \widehat{\sigma }\left(\frac{1}{4g_{cf}^2}\right)\widehat{ϵ}\delta \widehat{\sigma }^{cf}\widehat{ϵ}.$$
(9)
where $`\delta \sigma ,\delta \sigma ^{cf}`$ are the deviations of $`\sigma ,\sigma ^{cf}`$ of a particular sample from their average value. The fluctuations of $`\frac{\sigma }{n}`$ then stem from fluctuations of $`\sigma ^{cf}/n`$. This derivative is taken with the external magnetic field $`B`$ kept constant. At the same time, the magnetic field experienced by the composite fermions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=B2\mathrm{\Phi }_0n`$, is not constant: when the density is varied, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ varies as well. The derivative must then be taken with respect to both $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$,

$$\frac{\widehat{\sigma }^{cf}}{n}|_B=\frac{\widehat{\sigma }^{cf}}{n}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }B}2\mathrm{\Phi }_0\frac{\widehat{\sigma }^{cf}}{\mathrm{\Delta }B}|_n$$
(10)
We now estimate the fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for a phase coherent sample of size $`L`$. The scale for the variance of the conductivity $`\sigma ^{cf}`$ at $`T=0`$ is $`\frac{e^2}{h}`$. The typical magnetic field scale is $`\mathrm{\Delta }B\mathrm{\Phi }_0/L^2`$, therefore the estimate for the fluctuations of $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_0\frac{\sigma ^{cf}}{\mathrm{\Delta }B}|_n`$ is $`\frac{e^2}{h}L^2`$. The fluctuations of $`\frac{\sigma ^{cf}}{n}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }B}`$ are smaller by a factor of $`g_{cf}`$, and can therefore be neglected. Consequently, the variance of both components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }iq\frac{e}{h}\left(\frac{L}{g_{cf}}\right)^2\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^R,$$
(11)
Since on average $`\frac{\sigma _{xy}^{cf}}{n}|_B=\frac{e^2}{2hn}`$, the fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be re-written as $`\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\gamma ^2}\left(\frac{k_FL}{g_{cf}}\right)^4`$, which in the diffusive regime is much larger than unity. This by itself is a measurable conclusion: In the diffusive regime in a fully coherent sample the fluctuations of the acousto-electric current are much larger than its average. Equation (11) holds as long as the thermal length $`L_T^{cf}\sqrt{\mathrm{}D^{cf}/T}`$ and the phase breaking length $`L_\phi ^{cf}`$ are much larger than $`L`$.

Having now an estimate for the fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we estimate the fluctuations of $`\rho _D`$ as:

$$\delta \rho _DT\underset{T}{\overset{T}{}}\frac{d\omega }{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2}\underset{|q|1/\mathrm{min}(L,L_\phi ^{cf})}{}𝑑𝐪\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^2|𝒟(𝐪,\omega )|^2$$
(12)
As commonly happens in mesoscopic fluctuations, the integral over $`𝐪`$ is dominated by its lower limit. We start with the case where the phase breaking length is the largest scale in the problem. We describe the temperature dependence of the transresistance, and denote the r.m.s of the fluctuations by $`\delta \rho _D^0`$.

At extremely low temperatures $`T(\kappa d)\mathrm{}D/L^2`$, all the excitations with energies smaller than $`T`$ contribute and we obtain with the help of Eqs. (12) and (4)

$$\delta \rho _D^0\frac{h}{e^2}\frac{1}{(\kappa d)^2}\left(\frac{T}{E_T^{cf}}\right)^2,T\frac{(\kappa d)E_T^{cf}}{g_{cf}^2},$$
(14)
where $`E_T^{cf}=\mathrm{}D^{cf}/L^2`$ is the Thouless energy for the composite fermions. At higher temperature $`(\kappa d)\mathrm{}D/L^2TE_T^{cf}`$, the processes with the energy transfer $`\omega >(\kappa d)D/L^2`$ are suppressed, leading to

$$\delta \rho _D^0\frac{h}{e^2}\frac{1}{(\kappa d)g_{cf}^2}\frac{T}{E_T^{cf}},\frac{(\kappa d)E_T^{cf}}{g_{cf}^2}TE_T^{cf}.$$
(15)
At yet higher temperature, $`T>E_T^{cf}`$, $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ itself is temperature dependent, and it is suppressed by a factor of $`\sqrt{E_T^{cf}/T}`$ similar to conductance fluctuations, see e.g. . This yields a temperature independent result

$$\delta \rho _D^0\frac{h}{e^2}\frac{1}{(\kappa d)g_{cf}^2},TE_T^{cf}.$$
(16)
Let us now discuss the effect of a finite phase breaking length $`L_\phi ^{cf}`$. As is well known for mesoscopic fluctuations, averaging in a large sample, $`LL_\phi ^{cf}`$, is carried out by summing over the statistically independent contributions of $`(L/L_\phi ^{cf})^2`$ patches of a size $`L_\phi ^{cf}`$ each. The contribution of each patch is given by Eqs. (16), where the Thouless energy $`E_T^{cf}`$ is set to $`\mathrm{}/\tau _\phi ^{cf}\mathrm{}D^{cf}/(L_\phi ^{cf})^2`$. As a result of the averaging $`\delta \rho _D^2=(\delta \rho _D^0)^2(L_\phi ^{cf}/L)^2`$. Using Eqs. (16) we obtain

$`\rho _D^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{e^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{cf}^4(\kappa d)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_\phi ^{cf}}{L}}\right)^2\mathrm{min}[1,\alpha _1\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_{cf}^2T\tau _\phi ^{cf}}{\kappa d\mathrm{}}}\right)^2]`$ (17)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{min}[\alpha _3,\alpha _2\left(T\tau _\phi ^{cf}/\mathrm{}\right)^2],`$ (18)
where the coefficients $`\alpha _{1,2}`$ are of order unity and we were able to calculate $`\alpha _30.2(32/9\pi )=0.23`$.

While the actual magnitude of the mesoscopic fluctuations depends on the precise source of phase breaking, their temperature dependence is robust. All generic models of phase breaking in two dimensions lead to $`1/\tau _\phi T`$, so that the temperature dependence following from Eq. (18) is $`\delta \rho _D^21/T`$.

The dependence of the mesoscopic fluctuations on $`g_{cf}`$ requires further specification of the model. Our preliminary study suggets that the main mechanism for the phase breaking is the quasi-elastic scattering of composite fermions from the thermal quasi-static fluctuations of the Chern-Simons magnetic field, $`(2\mathrm{\Phi }_0)^2B(𝐫)B(𝐫^{})=\delta n(𝐫)\delta n(𝐫^{})\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})\frac{TN(0)}{\kappa d}=\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})\frac{Tϵ}{2\pi e^2d}`$ (with $`ϵ`$ being the bulk dielectric constant). Due to the accumulation of the Aharonov - Bohm phase from such fluctuations, $`(L_\phi ^{cf})^2`$ is the area at which the thermal fluctuations of the electron number are of the order of one $`_{|𝐫|<L_\phi ^{cf}}𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}n(𝐫)n(𝐫^{})1`$, which result in

$$T\frac{ϵ(L_\phi ^{cf})^2}{2\pi e^2d}1,\frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau _\phi ^{cf}}\frac{g_{cf}T}{\kappa d}.$$
(19)
This estimate can be understood very simply: a thermal fluctuation of a charge $`e`$ in one layer and $`e`$ in the other layer over a scale $`L_\phi ^{cf}`$ involves a charging energy cost of $`\frac{2\pi e^2d}{(L_\phi ^{cf})^2}`$. The energy available for that fluctuation is $`T`$. Balancing the two energies determines $`L_\phi ^{cf}`$.

Substituting estimate (19) into Eq. (18) and using the condition $`g^{cf}\kappa d`$, we find up to a numerical constant

$$\rho _D^2\frac{h^2}{e^4}\left(\frac{1}{g_{cf}^6}\right)\left(\frac{2\pi e^2d}{ϵL^2T}\right)$$
(20)
Our estimate (19) for the phase breaking rate implies $`T\tau _\phi \mathrm{}`$. This by no means indicates a collapse of the Fermi liquid picture of composite fermions, since most of the phase breaking results from scattering off the Chern-Simons field fluctuations whose dynamics \[with characteristic frequency $`T/(\mathrm{}g_{cf})`$\] is very slow compared to $`\tau _\phi `$, but fast compared to the time of the experiment. Field fluctuations which are static on the scale of the experiment time affect the mesoscopic fluctuations only by affecting $`g_{cf}`$. Field fluctuations that are faster than that scale make the potential landscape seen by the composite fermions time dependent, and lead to a suppression of the mesoscopic fluctuations by partial ensemble averaging.

We now use Eq. (20) to estimate the value of the fluctuations of the transresitance of a realistic sample. At $`T=0.6K`$ the average drag $`\rho _D=15\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{}`$ with the interlayer spacing $`d=300\AA `$. For that sample, the single layer resistance at $`\nu =1/2`$ is  $`R=3k\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{}`$, which gives the value $`g_{cf}8`$. Given the sample’s size $`L100\mu m`$, we estimate the magnitude of the fluctuations Eq. (20) as $`\delta \rho _D0.3\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For lower temperatures and smaller samples we expect the fluctuations to be stronger, possibly exceeding the average. Increasing current supresses the mesoscopic fluctuations mostly by heating of the electrons.

We now turn to sketch the calculation, whose details will be published separately. Within the composite fermion random phase approximation (RPA), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is depicted diagrammatically on Fig. 1. The center triangle is the non-linear response of the composite fermions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cf}`$ to a driving field. Since composite fermions interact with scalar and vector potentials, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cf}`$ is a tensor with component $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cf})_{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$, where $`\alpha \beta `$ are the directions of the driving fields, and $`\mu `$ is the direction of the induced current.

In the limit of $`g_{cf}1`$ the analytic expression corresponding to the diagram on Fig. 1 is approximated by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{2h^2ϵ^{\gamma \gamma ^{}}}{e^2g_{cf}}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cf}\right]_{34;\mu \nu }^\gamma ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{\mu \mu ^{}}_3^\mu ^{}}{_3^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{31}^R(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{\nu \nu ^{}}_4^\nu ^{}}{_4^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{42}^A(\omega ),`$

where numerical subscripts indicate spatial coordinates, we imply integration over $`r_{3,4}`$, and the polarization operators are defined in Eq. (4). The mesoscopic fluctuations in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ result from fluctuations in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cf}`$. Within the RPA, the latter is approximated by the corresponing response function for non-interacting particles:

$`\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cf}\right]_{12;\mu \nu }^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }\left[J_{12;\mu \nu }^\alpha (\omega ,ϵ)+J_{21;\nu \mu }^\alpha (\omega ,ϵ)\right]},`$ (21)
$`J_{12;\mu \nu }^\alpha (\omega ,ϵ)=\left(\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\omega }{2T}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2T}}\right)`$ (22)
$`\times \left[G_{12}^R(ϵ\omega )G_{12}^A(ϵ\omega )\right]j_\mu \left[G^R(ϵ)j^\alpha G^A(ϵ)\right]_{21}j_\nu ;`$ (23)
The further analysis of the statistics of the vertex (21) follows the lines of Ref. , and results in Eq. (18).

Closing the paper, we point out that two analyses of mesoscopic fluctuations of the Coulomb drag near $`\nu =1/2`$ are of interest. First, one varies the magnetic field and measures the correlation function $`\rho _D(B)\rho _D(B+\delta B)\rho _D(B)\rho _D(B+\delta B)`$, with $`B`$ close to the $`\nu =1/2`$ value. An experimental study of the decay of this correlation function is a way to measure $`L_\phi ^{cf}`$: the characteristic magnetic field of the decay is $`\delta B^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0/[L_\phi ^{cf}]^2`$. Second, one varies the electron density in one of the layers and measures the correlation function $`\rho _D(n)\rho _D(n+\delta n)\rho _D(n)\rho _D(n+\delta n)`$. Again, the decay of this function is governed by $`L_\phi ^{cf}`$: the characteristic density change $`\delta n^{}`$ at which it decays is expected to correspond to half of an electron in a phase coherent region, i.e. $`\delta n^{}=1/2[L_\phi ^{cf}]^2`$. This statement should hold as long as the composite fermion cyclotron radius is much larger than its mean free path, i.e., for $`|\nu 1/2|<(2g_{cf})^1`$.

It is noteworthy that near zero magnetic field $`\delta B^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/L_\phi ^2`$ but $`\delta n^{}=k_Fl/L_\phi ^2`$. Since at $`B=0`$ the electrons do not carry flux tubes, the density change $`\delta n^{}`$ has to be such that the chemical potential changes by $`\mathrm{}/\tau _\phi `$. Thus an experimental observation of $`\frac{\delta B^{}}{\delta n^{}}=2\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ would in some sense be a verification of the attachment of flux to the Fermi liquid quasi-particles at and close to $`\nu =1/2`$.

I.A. is supported by Packard Foundation. AS acknowledges support of the US-Israel BSF, the DIP-BMBF foundation and the Victor Ehrlich chair.


text:
# Introduction to quantum information theory

## Acknowledgments

My view of quantum information theory has developed through conversations with many people, especially Dorit Aharonov, Ike Chuang, Chris Fuchs and Ben Schumacher. Dorit Aharonov originated the elegant and stimulating turn of phrase “what does it mean to compute?” Thanks also to Hideo Mabuchi for a stimulating conversation about analogies between entanglement and thermodynamics in early 1997. Finally, thanks to Vladimír Bužek for many interesting discussions about quantum information theory as this talk was being prepared, and to Damian Pope and Mitch Porter for helpful comments on the manuscript.


text:
# Descendants of the Chiral Anomaly

(Dirac Medalist Meeting, Trieste, Italy, November 2000
MIT-CTP#3051)

## Abstract

Chern-Simons terms are well-known descendants of chiral anomalies, when the latter are presented as total derivatives. Here I explain that also Chern-Simons terms, when defined on a 3-manifold, may be expressed as total derivatives.

The axial anomaly, that is, the departure from transversality of the correlation function for fermion vector, vector, and axial vector currents, involves $`{}_{}{}^{}FF`$, an expression constructed from the gauge fields to which the fermions couple. Specifically, in the Abelian case one encounters

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }=4𝑬𝑩$$
(1)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the covariant electromagnetic tensor

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\mu A_\nu $$
(2a)
while $`𝑬`$ and $`𝑩`$ are the electric and magnetic fields
$$E^i=F^{io},B^i=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{ijk}F_{jk}.$$
(2b)
The non-Abelian generalization reads

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\mu \nu a}F_{\mu \nu }^a=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\alpha \beta }^a$$
(3)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is the Yang-Mills gauge field strength

$$F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+f^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c$$
(4)
and $`a`$ labels the components of the gauge group, whose structure constants are $`f^{abc}`$.

The quantity $`{}_{}{}^{}FF`$ is topologically interesting. Its integral over 4-space is quantized, and measures the topological class (labeled by integers) to which the vector potential $`A`$ belongs. Consequently, the integral of $`{}_{}{}^{}FF`$ is a topological invariant and we expect that, as befits a topological invariant, it should be possible to present $`{}_{}{}^{}FF`$ as a total derivative, so that its 4-volume integral becomes converted by Gauss’ law into a surface integral, sensitive only to long distance, global properties of the gauge fields. That a total derivative form for $`{}_{}{}^{}FF`$ indeed holds is seen when $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is expressed in terms of potentials. In the Abelian case, we use (2a) and find immediately

$$\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \left(\epsilon ^{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }A_\alpha _\beta A_\gamma \right).$$
(5)
For non-Abelian fields, (4) establishes the result we desire:

$$\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\mu \nu a}F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu \epsilon ^{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\left(A_\alpha ^a_\beta A_\gamma ^a+\frac{1}{3}f^{abc}A_\alpha ^aA_\beta ^bA_\gamma ^c\right).$$
(6)
The quantities whose divergence gives $`{}_{}{}^{}FF`$ are called Chern-Simons terms. By suppressing one dimension they become naturally defined on a 3-dimensional manifold (they are 3-forms), and we are thus led to consider the Chern-Simons terms in their own right :

$`\mathrm{CS}(A)`$ $`=\epsilon ^{ijk}A_i_jA_k`$ (Abelian) (7)
$`\mathrm{CS}(A)`$ $`=\epsilon ^{ijk}\left(A_i^a_jA_k^a+\frac{1}{3}f^{abc}A_i^aA_j^bA_k^c\right)`$ (non-Abelian). (8)
The 3-dimensional integral of these quantities is again topologically interesting. When the non-Abelian Chern-Simons term is evaluated on a pure gauge, non-Abelian vector potential

$$A_i=g^1_ig$$
(9)
the 3-dimensional volume integral of $`\mathrm{CS}(g^1g)`$ measures the topological class (labeled by integers) to which the group element $`g`$ belongs. The integral in the Abelian case – the case of electrodynamics – is called the magnetic helicity $`\mathrm{d}^3r𝑨𝑩`$, $`𝑩=\mathbf{}\times 𝑨`$, and measures the linkage of magnetic flux lines. An analogous quantity arises in fluid mechanics, with the local fluid velocity $`𝒗`$ replacing $`𝑨`$, and the vorticity $`𝝎=\mathbf{}\times 𝒗`$ replacing $`𝑩`$. Then the integral $`\mathrm{d}^3r𝒗𝝎`$ is called kinetic helicity .

I shall not review here the many uses to which the Chern-Simons terms, Abelian and non-Abelian, introduced in , have been put. The applications range from the mathematical characterizations of knots to the physical descriptions of electrons in the quantum Hall effect , vivid evidence for the deep significance of the Chern-Simons structure and of its antecedent, the chiral anomaly.

Instead, I pose the following question: Can one write the Chern-Simons term as a total derivative, so that (as befits a topological quantity) the spatial volume integral becomes a surface integral? An argument that this should be possible is the following: The Chern-Simons term is a 3-form on 3-space, hence it is maximal and its exterior derivative vanishes because there are no 4-forms on 3-space. This establishes that on 3-space the Chern-Simons term is closed, so one can expect that it is also exact, at least locally, that is, it can be written as a total derivative. Of course such a representation for the Chern-Simons term requires expressing the potentials in terms of “prepotentials”, since the formulas (7), (8) in terms of potentials show no evidence of derivative structure. \[Recall that the total derivative formulas (5), (6) for the axial anomaly also require using potentials to express $`F`$.\]

There is a physical, practical reason for wanting the Abelian Chern-Simons term to be a total derivative. It is known in fluid mechanics that there exists an obstruction to constructing a Lagrangian for Euler’s fluid equations, and this obstruction is just the kinetic helicity $`\mathrm{d}^3r𝒗𝝎`$, that is, the volume integral of the Abelian Chern-Simons term, constructed from the velocity 3-vector $`𝒗`$. This obstruction is removed when the integrand is a total derivative, because then the kinetic helicity volume integral is converted to a surface integral by Gauss’ theorem. When the integral obtains contributions only from a surface, the obstruction disappears from the 3-volume, where the fluid equation acts .

It is easy to show that the Abelian Chern-Simons term can be presented as a total derivative. We use the Clebsch parameterization for a 3-vector :

$$𝑨=\mathbf{}\theta +\alpha \mathbf{}\beta .$$
(10)
This nineteenth century parameterization of a 3-vector $`𝑨`$ in terms of the prepotentials ($`\theta `$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$) is an alternative to the usual transverse/longitudinal parameterization. In modern language it is a statement of Darboux’s theorem that the 1-form $`A_i\mathrm{d}r^i`$ can be written as $`\mathrm{d}\theta +\alpha \mathrm{d}\beta `$ . With this parameterization for $`𝑨`$, one sees that the Abelian Chern-Simons term indeed is a total derivative:

$`\mathrm{CS}(A)`$ $`=\epsilon ^{ijk}A_i_jA_k`$ (11)
$`=\epsilon ^{ijk}_i\theta _j\alpha _k\beta `$
$`=_i\left(\epsilon ^{ijk}\theta _j\alpha _k\beta \right).`$
When the Clebsch parameterization is employed for $`𝒗`$ in the fluid dynamical context, the situation is analogous to the force law in electrodynamics. While the Lorentz equation is written in terms of field strengths, a Lagrangian formulation needs potentials from which the field strengths are reconstructed. Similarly, Euler’s equation involves the velocity vector $`𝒗`$, but in a Lagrangian for this equation the velocity must be parameterized in terms of the prepotentials $`\theta `$, $`\alpha `$, and $`\beta `$.

In a natural generalization of the above, we ask whether a non-Abelian vector potential can also be parameterized in such a way that the non-Abelian Chern-Simons term (8) becomes a total derivative. We have answered this question affirmatively and we have found appropriate prepotentials that do the job .

In order to describe our non-Abelian construction, we first revisit the Abelian problem. As we have stated, the solution in the Abelian case is immediately provided by the Clebsch parameterization (10). However, finding the non-Abelian generalization requires an indirect construction, which we first present for the Abelian case.

Although in the Abelian case we are concerned with U(1) potentials, we begin by considering a bigger group SU(2), which contains our group of interest U(1). Let $`g`$ be a group element of SU(2) and construct a pure-gauge SU(2) gauge potential

$$𝒜=g^1\mathrm{d}g.$$
(12)
We know that $`tr(g^1\mathrm{d}g)^3`$ is a total derivative ; indeed, its 3-volume integral measures the topological winding number of $`g`$ and therefore can be expressed as a surface integral, as befits a topological quantity. The separate SU(2) component potentials $`𝒜^a`$ can be projected from (12) as

$$𝒜^a=itr\sigma ^ag^1\mathrm{d}g,𝒜=𝒜^a\sigma ^a/2i$$
(13)
and

$`\frac{2}{3}tr(g^1\mathrm{d}g)^3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}\epsilon ^{abc}𝒜^a𝒜^b𝒜^c`$
$`=𝒜^1𝒜^2𝒜^3.`$ (14)
Moreover, since $`𝒜^a`$ is a pure gauge, it satisfies

$$\mathrm{d}𝒜^a=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{abc}𝒜^b𝒜^c.$$
(15)
Next define an Abelian vector potential $`A`$ by projecting one component of $`g^1\mathrm{d}g`$

$$A=itr\sigma ^3g^1\mathrm{d}g=𝒜^3.$$
(16)
Note that $`A`$ is *not* an Abelian pure gauge $`\mathbf{}\times 𝑨=𝑩0`$. It now follows from (15) that

$`𝑨𝑩\mathrm{d}^3r`$ $`=A\mathrm{d}A=𝒜^3\mathrm{d}𝒜^3=𝒜^1𝒜^2𝒜^3`$
$`=\frac{2}{3}tr(g^1\mathrm{d}g)^3.`$ (17)
The last equality is a consequence of (14) and shows that the Abelian Chern-Simons term is proportional to the winding number density of the non-Abelian group element, and therefore is a total derivative. Note that the projected formula (16) involves three arbitrary functions – the three parameter functions of the SU(2) group – which is the correct number needed to represent an Abelian vector potential in 3-space.

It is instructive to see how this works explicitly. The most general SU(2) group element reads $`\mathrm{exp}(\sigma ^a\omega ^a/2i)`$. The three functions $`\omega ^a`$ are presented as $`\widehat{\omega }^a\omega `$, where $`\widehat{\omega }^a`$ is a unit SU(2) 3-vector and $`\omega `$ is the magnitude of $`\omega ^a`$. The unit vector may be parameterized as

$$\widehat{\omega }^a=(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta })$$
(18a)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are functions on 3-space, as is $`\omega `$. A simple calculation shows that
$$g^1\mathrm{d}g=\frac{\sigma ^a}{2i}\left(\widehat{\omega }^a\mathrm{d}\omega +\mathrm{sin}\omega \mathrm{d}\widehat{\omega }^a(1\mathrm{cos}\omega )\epsilon ^{abc}\widehat{\omega }^b\mathrm{d}\widehat{\omega }^c\right)$$
(18b)
$`A`$ $`=tri\sigma ^3g^1\mathrm{d}g`$
$`=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\omega \mathrm{sin}\omega \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }(1\mathrm{cos}\omega )\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (19)
$`A\mathrm{d}A`$ $`=2\mathrm{d}(\omega \mathrm{sin}\omega )\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=2\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{d}(\omega \mathrm{sin}\omega )\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }).`$ (21)
The last two equations show that our SU(2)-projected, U(1) potential possesses a total-derivative Chern-Simons term. Once we have in hand a parameterization for $`A`$ such that $`A\mathrm{d}A`$ is a total derivative, it is easy to find the Clebsch parameterization for $`A`$. In the above,

$$A=\mathrm{d}(2\mathrm{\Phi })+2\left(1(\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\omega }{2})\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }\right)\mathrm{d}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{tan}^1[(\mathrm{tan}\frac{\omega }{2})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }]\right).$$
(22)
The projected formula (19), (22) for $`A`$, contains three arbitrary functions $`\omega `$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$; this offers sufficient generality to parameterize an arbitrary 3-vector $`𝑨`$. Moreover, in spite of the total derivative expression for $`A\mathrm{d}A`$, its spatial integral need not vanish. In our example, the functions $`\omega `$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in general depend on $`𝒓`$; however, if we take $`\omega `$ to be a function only of $`r=|𝒓|`$, and identify $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with the polar and azimuthal angles $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$ of $`𝒓`$, then

$`{\displaystyle A\mathrm{d}A}`$ $`=4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{d}r{\displaystyle \frac{d}{\mathrm{d}r}}(\omega \mathrm{sin}\omega )`$
$`=4\pi (\omega \mathrm{sin}\omega )|_{r=0}^{r=\mathrm{}}.`$ (23)
Thus if $`\omega (0)=0`$ and $`\omega (\mathrm{})=\pi N`$, $`N`$ an integer, the integral is nonvanishing, giving $`4\pi ^2N`$; the contribution comes entirely from the bounding surface at infinity .

With this preparation, I can now describe the non-Abelian construction . We are addressing the following mathematical problem: We wish to parameterize a non-Abelian vector potential $`A^a`$ belonging to a group $`H`$, so that the non-Abelian Chern-Simons term (8) is a total derivative. Since we are in three dimensions, the vector potential has $`3\times (dimH)`$ components, so our parameterization should have that many arbitrary functions.

The solution to our mathematical problem is to choose a large group $`G`$ (compact, semisimple) that contains $`H`$ as a subgroup. The generators of $`H`$ are called $`I^m`$ \[$`m=1,\mathrm{}`$, $`(dimH)`$\] while those of $`G`$ not in $`H`$ are called $`S^A`$ \[$`A=1,\mathrm{},(dimG)(dimH)`$\]. We further demand that $`G/H`$ is a symmetric space; that is, the structure of the Lie algebra is

$`[I^m,I^n]`$ $`=f^{mno}I^o`$ (24a)
$`[I^m,S^A]`$ $`=h^{mAB}S^B`$ (24b)
$`[S^A,S^B]`$ $`h^{mAB}I^m.`$ (24c)
Here $`f^{mno}`$ are the structure constants of $`H`$. Eq. (24b) shows that the $`S^A`$ provide a representation for $`I^m`$ and, according to (24c), their commutator closes on $`I^m`$. The normalization of the $`H`$-generators is fixed by $`trI^mI^n=N\delta ^{mn}`$. With $`g`$, a generic group element of $`G`$, giving rise to a pure gauge potential $`𝒜=g^1\mathrm{d}g`$ in $`G`$, we define the $`H`$-vector potential $`A`$ by projecting with generators belonging to $`H`$:

$$A=\frac{1}{N}trI^mg^1\mathrm{d}g.$$
(25)
We see that the Abelian \[U(1)\] construction presented in (12)–(16) follows the above pattern: $`\text{SU(2)}=GH=\text{U(1)}`$; $`I^m=\sigma ^3/2i`$, $`S^A=\sigma ^2/2i,\sigma ^3/2i`$. Moreover, a chain of equations analogous to (14)–(17) shows that the $`H`$ Chern-Simons term is proportional to $`tr(g^1\mathrm{d}g)^3`$, which is a total derivative :

$$\text{CS}(AH)=\frac{1}{48\pi ^2N}tr(g^1\mathrm{d}g)^3.$$
(26)
Two comments elaborate on our result. It may be useful to choose for $`H`$ a direct product $`H_1H_2G`$, where it has already been established that the Chern-Simons term of $`H_2`$ is a total derivative, and one wants to prove the same for the $`H_1`$ Chern-Simons term. The result (26) implies that

$$\text{CS}(AH_1)+\text{CS}(AH_2)=\frac{1}{48\pi ^2N}tr(g^1\mathrm{d}g)^3.$$
(27)
Since the right side is known to be a total derivative, and the second term on the left side is also a total derivative by hypothesis, Eq. (27) implies the desired result that $`\text{CS}(AH_1)`$ is a total derivative. Furthermore, since the total derivative property of $`tr(g^1\mathrm{d}g)^3`$ is not explicitly evident, our “total derivative” construction for a non-Abelian Chern-Simons term may in fact result in an expression of the form $`a\mathrm{d}a`$, where $`a`$ is an Abelian potential. At this stage one can appeal to known properties of an Abelian Chern-Simons term to cast $`a\mathrm{d}a`$ into total derivative form, for example, by employing a Clebsch parameterization for $`a`$. In other words, our construction may be more accurately described as an “Abelianization” of a non-Abelian Chern-Simons term.

To illustrate explicitly the workings of this construction, I present now the parameterization for an SU(2) potential $`A_i=A_i^a\sigma ^a/2i`$, which contains $`3\times 3=9`$ functions in three dimensions. For $`G`$ we take O(5), while $`H`$ is chosen as $`\text{O(3)}\text{O(2)}\text{SU(2)}\text{U(1)}`$, and we already know that an Abelian \[U(1)\] Chern-Simons term is a total derivative. We employ a 4-dimensional representation for O(5) and take the $`\text{O(2)}\text{U(1)}`$ generator to be $`I^0`$:

$$I^0=\frac{1}{2i}\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& I\end{array}\right)$$
(28a)
while the $`\text{O(3)}\text{SU(2)}`$ generators are $`I^m`$, $`m=1,2,3`$:
$$I^m=\frac{1}{2i}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma ^m& 0\\ 0& \sigma ^m\end{array}\right).$$
(28b)
Finally, the complementary generators of O(5), which do not belong to $`H`$, are $`S^A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}^A`$, $`A=1,2,3`$:
$$S^A=\frac{1}{i\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ \sigma ^A& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{S}^A=\frac{1}{i\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma ^A\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(28c)
There are a total of ten generators, which is the dimension of O(5), and one verifies that their Lie algebra is as in (24).

Next we construct a generic O(5) group element $`g`$, which is a $`4\times 4`$ matrix. The construction begins by choosing a special O(5) matrix $`M`$, depending on six functions, a generic O(3) matrix $`h`$ with three functions, and a generic O(2) matrix $`k`$ involving a single function, for a total of ten functions,

$$g=Mhk$$
(29)
where $`M`$ is given by

$$M=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+𝝎𝝎^{}\frac{1}{4}(𝝎\times 𝝎^{})}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{i}{2}(𝝎\times 𝝎^{})𝝈& 𝝎𝝈\\ 𝝎^{}𝝈& 1+\frac{i}{2}(𝝎\times 𝝎^{})𝝈\end{array}\right).$$
(30)
Here $`𝝎`$ is a complex 3-vector, involving six arbitrary functions. The SU(2) connection is now taken as in (25)

$$A^m=tr(I^mg^1\mathrm{d}g)$$
(31a)
and with (29) this becomes
$`A`$ $`=h^1\stackrel{~}{A}h+h^1\mathrm{d}h`$ (31b)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ $`=tr(I^mM^1\mathrm{d}M).`$ (31c)
We see that $`k`$ disappears from the formula for $`A`$, which is an SU(2) gauge-transform (with $`h`$) of the connection $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ that is constructed just from $`M`$. It is evident that $`A`$ depends on the required nine parameters: three in $`h`$ and six in $`M`$.

\[Interestingly, the parameterization (31) of the SU(2) connection possess a structure analogous to the Clebsch parameterization of an Abelian vector. Both present their connection as a gauge transformation of another, “core” connection: $`\theta `$ in the Abelian formula $`\mathbf{}\theta +\alpha \mathbf{}\beta `$, and $`h`$ in (31b).\]

The Chern-Simons term (31b) of $`A`$ in (31a) relates to that of (31c) by a gauge transformation:

$$\text{CS}(A)=\text{CS}(\stackrel{~}{A})+\mathrm{d}tr\left(\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}h^1\mathrm{d}h\stackrel{~}{A}\right)+\frac{1}{48\pi ^2}tr(h^1\mathrm{d}h)^3.$$
(32)
The last two terms on the right describe the response of a Chern-Simons term to a gauge transformation; the next-to-last is manifestly a total derivative, as is the last – in a “hidden” fashion. Finally,

$$\text{CS}(\stackrel{~}{A})=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}a\mathrm{d}a$$
(33)
where

$$a=\frac{𝝎\mathrm{d}𝝎^{}𝝎^{}\mathrm{d}\omega }{1+𝝎𝝎^{}\frac{1}{4}(𝝎\times 𝝎^{})^2}$$
(34)
We remark that $`a`$ can now be parameterized in the Clebsch manner, so that $`a\mathrm{d}a`$ appears as a total derivative, completing our construction.