text:
# Few-Electron Quantum Dot Circuit with Integrated Charge Read-Out

## Abstract

We report on the realization of a few-electron double quantum dot defined in a two-dimensional electron gas by means of surface gates on top of a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure. Two quantum point contacts (QPCs) are placed in the vicinity of the double quantum dot and serve as charge detectors. These enable determination of the number of conduction electrons on each dot. This number can be reduced to zero while still allowing transport measurements through the double dot. Microwave radiation is used to pump an electron from one dot to the other by absorption of a single photon. The experiments demonstrate that this quantum dot circuit can serve as a good starting point for a scalable spin-qubit system.

The experimental development of a quantum computer is at present at the stage of realizing few-qubit circuits. In the solid state, particular success has been achieved with superconducting devices in which macroscopic quantum states are used to define two-level qubit states (see saclay  and references therein). The opposite alternative would be the use of two-level systems defined by microscopic variables, as realized for instance by single electrons confined in semiconductor quantum dots curacao . For the control of one-electron quantum states by electrical voltages, the challenge at the moment is to realize an appropriate quantum dot circuit containing just a single conduction electron.

Few-electron quantum dots have been realized in self-assembled structures imamoglu  and also in small vertical pillars defined by etching leorep . The disadvantage of these types of quantum dots is that they are hard to integrate into circuits with a controllable coupling between the elements, although integration of vertical quantum dot structures is currently being pursued ono . An alternative candidate is a system of lateral quantum dots defined in a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) by surface gates on top of a semiconductor heterostructure curacao . Here, integration of multiple dots is straightforward by simply increasing the number of gate electrodes. In addition, the coupling between the dots can be controlled, since it is set by gate voltages. The challenge is to reduce the number of electrons to one per quantum dot. This has long been impossible, since reducing the electron number decreases at the same time the tunnel coupling, resulting in a current too small to be measured ciorga .

In this report we demonstrate a double quantum dot device containing a voltage-controllable number of electrons down to a single electron. We have integrated it with charge detectors that can read-out the charge state of the double quantum dot with a sensitivity better than a single electron charge. The importance of the present circuit is that it can serve as a fully tunable two-qubit quantum system, following the proposal by Loss and DiVincenzo loss , which describes an optimal combination of the single-electron charge degree of freedom (for manipulation with electrical voltages) and the spin degree of freedom (to obtain a long coherence time).

Our device, shown in Fig. 1a, is made from a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure, containing a 2DEG 90 nm below the surface with an electron density, $`n_s=2.9\times 10^{11}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup>. This small circuit consists of a double quantum dot and two quantum point contacts (QPCs). The layout is an extension of previously reported single quantum dot devices ciorga . The double quantum dot is defined by applying negative voltages to the 6 gates in the middle of the figure. Gate $`T`$ in combination with the left (right) gate, $`L`$ ($`R`$), defines the tunnel barrier from the left (right) dot to drain 1 (source 2). Gate $`T`$ in combination with the middle, bottom gate, $`M`$, defines the tunnel barrier between the two dots. The narrow ”plunger” gate, $`P_L`$ ($`P_R`$), on the left (right) is used to change the electrostatic potential of the left (right) dot. The left plunger, $`P_L`$, is connected to a coaxial cable so that we can apply high-frequency signals. In the present experiments we do not apply dc voltages to $`P_L`$. In order to control the number of electrons on the double dot, we use gate $`L`$ for the left dot and $`P_R`$ for the right dot. All data shown are taken at zero magnetic field and at a temperature of 10 mK.

We first characterize the individual dots. From standard Coulomb blockade experiments curacao  we find that the energy cost for adding a second electron to a one-electron dot is 3.7 meV. The excitation energy (i.e. the difference between the first excited state and the ground state) is 1.8 meV at zero magnetic field. For a two-electron dot the energy difference between the singlet ground state and the triplet excited state is 1.0 meV at zero magnetic field. Increasing the field (perpendicular to the 2DEG) leads to a transition from a singlet to a triplet ground state at about 1.7 Tesla.

In addition to current flowing through the quantum dot, we can measure the charge on the dot using one of the QPCs field ; sprinzak . We define only the left dot (by grounding gates $`R`$ and $`P_R`$, and use the left QPC as a charge detector. The QPC is formed by applying negative voltages to QPC-L and $`L`$. This creates a narrow constriction in the 2DEG, with a conductance, $`G`$, that is quantized when sweeping the gate voltage $`V_{QPCL}`$. The plateau at $`G=2e^2/h`$ and the transition to complete pinch-off (i.e. $`G=0`$) are shown in Fig. 1b. At the steepest point, where $`Ge^2/h`$, the QPC-conductance has a maximum sensitivity to changes in the electrostatic environment, including changes in the charge of the nearby quantum dot. As can be seen in Fig. 1b, the QPC-current, $`I_{QPC}`$, decreases when we make the left-dot gate voltage, $`V_M`$, more negative. Periodically this changing gate voltage pushes an electron out of the left dot. The associated sudden change in charge increases the electrostatic potential in the QPC, resulting in a step-like structure in $`I_{QPC}`$ (see expansion in Fig. 1b, where the linear background is subtracted). So, even without passing current through the dot, $`I_{QPC}`$ provides information about the charge on the dot. To enhance the charge sensitivity we apply a small modulation (0.3 mV at 17.7 Hz) to $`V_M`$ and use lock-in detection to measure $`dI_{QPC}/dV_M`$ sprinzak . Figure 1c shows the resulting dips, as well as the corresponding Coulomb peaks measured in the current through the dot. The coincidence of the two signals demonstrates that the QPC indeed functions as a charge detector. From the height of the step in Fig. 1b (50 pA, typically 1-2 percent of the total current), compared to the noise (5 pA for a measurement time of 100 ms), we can estimate the sensitivity of the charge detector to be about $`0.1e`$, with $`e`$ being the single electron charge. The important advantage of QPC charge detection is that it provides a signal even when the tunnel barriers of the dot are so opaque that $`I_{DOT}`$ is too small to measure field ; sprinzak . This allows us to study quantum dots even while they are virtually isolated from the leads.

Next, we study the charge configuration of the double dot, using the QPC on the right as a charge detector. We measure $`dI_{QPC}/dV_L`$ versus $`V_L`$, and repeat this for many values of $`V_{PR}`$. The resulting two-dimensional plot is shown in Fig. 2a. Blue lines signify a negative dip in $`dI_{QPC}/dV_L`$, corresponding to a change in the total number of electrons on the double dot. Together these lines form the well-known ”honeycomb diagram” pothier ; wilfred . The almost-horizontal lines correspond to a change in the electron number in the left dot, whereas almost-vertical lines indicate a change of one electron in the right dot. In the upper left region the ”horizontal” lines are not present, even though the QPC can still detect changes in the charge, as demonstrated by the presence of the ”vertical” lines. We conclude that in this region the left dot contains zero electrons. Similarly, a disappearance of the ”vertical” lines occurs in the lower right region, showing that here the right dot is empty. In the upper right region, the absence of lines shows that here the double dot is completely empty.

We are now able to count the absolute number of electrons. Figure 2b shows a zoom-in of the few-electron region. Starting from the ”00” region, we can label all regions in the honeycomb diagram, e.g. the label ”21” means two electrons in the left dot and one in the right. Besides the blue lines, also short yellow lines are visible, signifying a positive peak in $`dI_{QPC}/dV_L`$. These yellow lines correspond to a charge transition between the dots while the total electron number remains the same. (The positive sign of $`dI_{QPC}/dV_L`$ can be understood if we note that crossing the yellow lines by making $`V_L`$ a little more positive means moving an electron from the right to the left dot, which increases $`I_{QPC}`$. Therefore the differential quantity $`dI_{QPC}/dV_L`$ displays a positive peak.) The QPC is thus sufficiently sensitive to detect inter-dot transitions.

In measurements of transport through lateral double quantum dots, the few-electron regime has never been reached wilfred . The problem is that the gates, used to deplete the dots, also strongly influence the tunnel barriers. Reducing the electron number would always lead to the Coulomb peaks becoming unmeasurably small, but not necessarily due to an empty double dot. The QPC detectors now permit us to compare charge and transport measurements. Figure 3 shows $`I_{DOT}`$ versus $`V_L`$ and $`V_{PR}`$, with the dotted lines extracted from the measured charge lines in Fig. 2b. In the bottom left region the gates are not very negative, hence the tunnel barriers are quite open. Here the resonant current at the charge transition points is quite high ($`100`$ pA, dark gray), and also lines due to cotunneling are visible . Towards the top right corner the gate voltages become more negative, thereby closing off the barriers and reducing the current peaks (lighter gray). The last Coulomb peaks (in the dashed circle) are faintly visible ($`1`$ pA). They can be increased (up to $`70`$ pA) by readjusting the barrier gate voltages. Apart from a slight shift, the dotted lines nicely correspond to the regions where a transport current is visible. We are thus able to measure transport through a one-electron double quantum dot.

The use of gated quantum dots for quantum state manipulation in time requires the ability to modify the potential at high frequencies. We investigate the high-frequency behavior in the region around the last Coulomb peaks (Fig. 4) with a 50 GHz microwave-signal applied to gate $`P_L`$. At the dotted line the 01 and 10 charge states are degenerate in energy, so one electron can tunnel back and forth between the two dots. Away from this line there is an energy difference and only one charge state is stable. However, if the energy difference matches the photon energy, the transition to the other dot is possible by absorption of a single photon. Such photon-assisted tunneling events give rise to the two lines indicated by the arrows. At the lower (higher) line electrons are pumped from the the left (right) dot to the other side, giving rise to a negative (positive) photon-assisted current. We find that the distance between the dotted line and the photon-assisted tunneling lines scales, as expected, linearly with frequency wilfred .

The realization of a controllable few-electron quantum dot circuit represents a significant step towards controlling the coherent properties of single electron spins in quantum dots lieven . Integration with the QPCs permits charge read-out of closed quantum dots. This read-out can become single-shot, with the charge detection started after the coherent manipulation of the double dot quantum states. This procedure maximally reduces backaction effects from the detector. Present experiments focus on increasing the speed of the read-out such that the determination of the charge state is faster than the mixing time, i.e. the time in which the measurement introduces transitions between the charge states delsing .

We thank T. Fujisawa, T. Hayashi, Y. Hirayama, C. J. P. M. Harmans, B. van der Enden, and R. Schouten for discussions and help. This work was supported by the Specially Promoted Research, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan, the DARPA-QUIST program (DAAD19-01-1-0659), and the Dutch Organisation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM).


format: text

text:
# Observation of (𝑩^𝟎)̄→𝚲_𝒄⁺𝒑̄ decay

on leave from \]Nova Gorica Polytechnic, Nova Gorica The Belle Collaboration

## Abstract

We report the measurement of the charmed baryonic decay $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ with a branching fraction of $`(2.19_{0.49}^{+0.56}\pm 0.32\pm 0.57)\times 10^5`$ and a statistical significance of $`5.8\sigma `$. The errors are statistical, systematic, and the error of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+`$ decay branching fraction. This is the first observation of a two-body baryonic $`B`$ decay. The analysis is based on 78.2 fb-1 of data accumulated at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collider.

preprint:   Belle preprint 2002-39 KEK preprint 2002-127 hep-ex/0212052

Although the four- and three-body baryonic $`B`$ decays $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ are experimentally well established cleo-lamc ; blamc , there has been, until now, no reported observation of any two-body mode, such as $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$. In a previous Belle analysis, based on a 29.1 fb-1 data sample blamc , we obtained the following branching fractions for four-, three- and two-body decays:

$`(\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(11.04_{1.17}^{+1.22}\pm 1.98\pm 2.87)\times 10^4`$,

$`(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{})=(1.87_{0.40}^{+0.43}\pm 0.28\pm 0.49)\times 10^4`$,

$`(\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})<0.31\times 10^4\text{(90\% confidence level)}`$.

The measured branching fractions decrease rapidly with decreasing decay multiplicity. This suppression of lower multiplicity decays is a key issue in the understanding of the mechanism behind charmed baryonic $`B`$ decays.

There are several different theoretical calculations for the $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ branching fraction, based on a diquark model duquark , a QCD sum rule model qcd\_sum\_rule  and pole models pole ; bag . They differ by an order of magnitude. Thus, a measurement of the two-body decay $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ branching fraction would distinguish between these different theoretical approaches and provide important insight into the underlying physics.

In this paper we report the first observation of the two-body decay $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$. The analysis is based on a data sample of 78.2 fb-1 accumulated at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB 8 GeV$`e^{}`$ on 3.5 GeV$`e^+`$ asymmetric collider.

The Belle detector is a large-solid-angle magnetic spectrometer that consists of a three-layer silicon vertex detector (SVD), a 50-layer cylindrical drift chamber (CDC), a mosaic of aerogel threshold Čerenkov counters (ACC), a barrel-like array of time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF), and an array of CsI(Tl) crystals (ECL) located inside a superconducting solenoidal coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. An iron flux return located outside the coil is instrumented to detect muons and $`K_L`$ mesons (KLM). The detector is described in detail elsewhere belle . We use a GEANT based Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to model the response of the detector and determine its acceptance sim .

We detect the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ via the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+`$ decay channel. Inclusion of charge conjugate states is implicit unless otherwise stated. The particle identification (PID) information from the CDC, ACC and TOF is used to construct likelihood functions $`L_p`$, $`L_K`$ and $`L_\pi `$ for the proton, kaon and pion assignment for all charged tracks, respectively. Likelihood ratios $`LR(A/B)=L_A/(L_A+L_B)`$ are required to be greater than 0.6 to identify a particle from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ decay as type $`A`$, where $`B`$ denotes the other two possible assignments among kaon, pion or proton. In order to maintain high efficiency for the high momentum prompt antiproton that comes directly from the primary $`\overline{B^0}`$ meson decay, we rely more heavily on the kinematic reconstruction and loosen the PID requirement to $`LR(A/B)>0.2`$, which improves the efficiency by a factor of about 20%. Electron and muon candidates are removed if their combined likelihood ratios from the ECL, CDC and KLM information are greater than 0.95. A $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ candidate is selected if the invariant mass $`M(pK^{}\pi ^+)`$ is within $`0.010\text{GeV}/c^2`$ ($`2.5\sigma `$) of the $`2.285\text{GeV}/c^2`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ mass. A $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ mass constrained fit is carried out at the reconstructed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ decay vertex to remove background including secondary particles from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`K_S`$ decay.

The $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ events are identified by their energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=(E_i)E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$, and the beam-energy constrained mass $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}=\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{beam}}^2(\stackrel{}{p}_i)^2}`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ is the beam energy, and $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ and $`E_i`$ are the three-momenta and energies of the $`B`$ meson decay products, all defined in the center-of-mass system of the $`e^+e^{}`$ collision. We select events with $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}>5.20`$GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.20`$GeV. The prompt antiproton track and the virtual $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ track are required to form a common $`B`$ mass constrained decay vertex. To suppress continuum background, we impose requirements on event-shape variables. We require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{thr}}|<0.80`$, where $`\theta _{\mathrm{thr}}`$ is the angle between the thrust axis of the $`B`$ candidate tracks and that of the other tracks. This requirement eliminates 80% of the continuum background and retains 80% of the signal events. We also require $`R_2<0.35`$, where $`R_2`$ is the ratio of the second to the zeroth Fox-Wolfram moments fox\_wolfram . This requirement rejects 50% of the remaining continuum background and retains 90% of the signal. If there are multiple candidates in an event, the candidate with the best $`\chi _B^2`$ for the $`B`$ vertex fit is selected.

Figure 1 shows a scatter plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ versus $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ and their projections for selected events. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ projection is shown for $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}>5.270\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ projection is shown for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.030\text{GeV}`$. The widths determined from single Gaussian fits to signal MC events are $`2.7\text{MeV}/c^2`$ and $`10.3\text{MeV}`$ for $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, respectively. A two-dimensional binned maximum likelihood fit is performed to determine the signal yield. For this fit, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution is represented by a double Gaussian for the signal plus a first order polynomial for the background, and the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution is represented by a single Gaussian for the signal plus the ARGUS function argus\_function  for the background. The region $`\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.1\text{GeV}`$ is excluded from the fit to avoid feed down from modes including extra pions, which produces the bump structure observed in the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0.15\text{GeV}`$. In the fit, the signal shape parameters are fixed to the values fitted to the signal MC, and the signal yield and the background parameters are allowed to float. The curves in Figure 1(b) and (c) indicate the results of this two-dimensional fit.

The signal peak positions determined from fits to the data, $`(5279.5\pm 0.3)\text{MeV}/c^2`$ for $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ and $`(0.9\pm 1.8)\text{MeV}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, are consistent with the world average $`B^0`$ mass pdg2002  and zero, respectively. When we use single Gaussians for $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal functions and fit with the widths as free parameters, the fitted values in the data are found to be $`(1.3\pm 0.3)\text{MeV}/c^2`$ and $`(6.9\pm 1.5)\text{MeV}`$, respectively, which are narrower than those determined with the signal MC. The probability of obtaining such narrow widths is $`𝒪(1\%)`$ and is attributed to a statistical fluctuation. We also investigate the decays $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{B^0}J/\psi \overline{K}^{}(892)^0`$, $`J/\psi p\overline{p}`$ as control samples, and find that for these modes $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ widths are consistent between the data and signal MC. The effect of the narrow widths to the signal yield is investigated by applying fits where single Gaussians with widths allowed to float are used for the signal shapes. The difference in the fitted yields is taken into account in a systematic error as discussed below.

From the fit we obtain $`19.6_{4.4}^{+5.0}`$ signal events. From separate fits to the charge conjugate modes we obtain signal yields of $`6.4_{2.4}^{+3.0}`$ and $`13.3_{3.5}^{+4.2}`$ events for $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ and $`B^0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^{}p`$, respectively. These are consistent within statistical errors.

The branching fraction is calculated as $`N_\mathrm{S}/(\epsilon \times N_{B\overline{B}}\times (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+))`$, using the measured signal yield $`N_\mathrm{S}`$ and the decay branching fraction $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+)=(5.0\pm 1.3)\%`$pdg2002 . The detection efficiency $`\epsilon `$ is evaluated to be 21.1% from the signal MC. The number of $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$ is $`(85.0\pm 0.5)\times 10^6`$. The fractions of charged and neutral $`B`$ mesons are assumed to be the same.

We obtain a branching fraction of

$$(\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})=(2.19_{0.49}^{+0.56}\pm 0.32\pm 0.57)\times 10^5,$$

where the first and the second errors are statistical and systematic, respectively. The last error of 26% is due to uncertainty in the branching fraction $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+)`$.

The total systematic error of 14.8% is determined as follows. The tracking systematic error is estimated to be 8% in total, assuming a correlated systematic error of 2% per charged track, based on tracking efficiency studies with $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$ and $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ samples. The PID systematic error is 10% in total, assuming a correlated systematic error of 3% per proton and 2% per pion or kaon, based on studies with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$ sample for protons; and with a $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$, $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ sample for kaons and pions. The systematic error in the fitting procedure and signal shape is estimated to be 7.3%, which is half of the maximum deviation in the branching fractions obtained with various modifications to the fitting functions: with a single or a double Gaussian for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal, with the widths and means for both $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signals fixed to MC determined values or fitted in the data. Finally, the systematic error in the detection efficiency due to MC statistics is 1.3%.

Figure 2 shows the invariant mass distribution $`M(pK^{}\pi ^+)`$ for $`B`$ candidates in the signal region $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.030\text{GeV}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}>5.27`$GeV/$`c^2`$. The curve indicates a fit result with a Gaussian over linear background. The fitted width of $`(4.0\pm 1.0)\text{MeV}/c^2`$ and the fitted mean of $`(2286.4\pm 1.3)\text{MeV}/c^2`$ are consistent with values obtained from fits to signal MC events, which are generated assuming the world average $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ mass pdg2002 . We obtain a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ yield of $`17.5_{4.6}^{+5.2}`$ events, consistent with the $`B`$ signal yield mentioned above.

We consider a contribution in the $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ signal yield from other $`B`$ decays, which gives an uniform distribution in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ invariant mass. We analyze the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ sideband $`0.015<|M(pK^{}\pi ^+)M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}|<0.050\text{GeV}/c^2`$, and obtain a $`B`$ signal yield of $`1.2_{2.4}^{+3.2}`$ events, which is consistent with expectation of $`1.4\pm 0.4`$ events from the $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ decay MC, assuming our observed branching fraction. From this we estimate the other $`B`$ decay contribution of $`(0.1_{0.7}^{+0.9})`$ events in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ signal region, which is negligibly small. From a simultaneous fit of the $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ signal yield and the other $`B`$ decay contribution in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ signal and sideband regions, we obtain a statistical significance of $`5.8\sigma `$. The significance is calculated as $`\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}(_0/_{max})}`$, where $`_{max}`$ and $`_0`$ denote the maximum likelihoods with the fitted signal yield and with the yield fixed at zero, respectively.

We investigate the $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ decay in MC with all known $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ decay modes pdg2002 . The overall detection efficiency for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+`$ final state, including intermediate resonances, is found to be consistent with that calculated for the non-resonant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+`$ decay alone. The other $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ decays show no peaking structure in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distributions.

Finally, the overall systematics are checked by analyzing the decay mode $`\overline{B^0}J/\psi \overline{K}^{}(892)^0`$ observed as $`J/\psi p\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{K}^{}(892)^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, which contains the same final state particles as the mode under study. A similar analysis procedure is applied, except for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ vertex fit. A $`J/\psi `$ is tagged if the measured invariant mass $`M(p\overline{p})`$ is within $`0.019\text{GeV}/c^2`$ of the $`J/\psi `$ mass. A $`\overline{K}^{}(892)^0`$ is tagged if the measured invariant mass $`M(K^{}\pi ^+)`$ is within $`0.2\text{GeV}/c^2`$ of the $`K^{}(892)^0`$ mass. Vertex fits are also carried out at the $`J/\psi `$ and $`B`$ vertices. We obtain a signal of $`23.7_{4.9}^{+5.6}`$ events and a branching fraction of $`(\overline{B^0}J/\psi \overline{K}^{}(892)^0)=(1.02_{0.21}^{+0.24}\pm 0.14)\times 10^3`$, which is consistent with previous measurements pdg2002 ; jpsikst .

In summary, we report the measurement of the charmed baryonic $`B`$ decay $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ with a branching fraction of $`(2.19_{0.49}^{+0.56}\pm 0.32\pm 0.57)\times 10^5`$ and a statistical significance of $`5.8\sigma `$. This is the first observation of a two-body baryonic $`B`$ decay. The branching fraction is found to be about an order-of-magnitude smaller than that of the three-body decay $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$. This suppression is a unique feature of two-body baryonic decays; in contrast, the two- and three-body mesonic $`B`$ decays are comparable. A pole model bag  predicts a value of the branching fraction of $`(1.13.1)\times 10^5`$ for $`\overline{B^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$, which is consistent with our measurement, while the other models duquark ; qcd\_sum\_rule ; pole  give substantially larger values. Charmless baryonic two-body decays are expected to be suppressed by an additional factor of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|^2`$pdg2002 . The result reported here implies that their branching fractions should not be much above the $`10^7`$ level, which are consistent with the present upper limits belle\_charmless\_two\_body .

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for their excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources; National Science Foundation of China under contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 17017; the Ministry of Science and Technology of Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan and the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

In the standard model (SM), baryon and lepton numbers ($`B`$ and $`L`$, respectively) are automatically conserved, while in supersymmetry (SUSY) neither gauge symmetry nor any such fundamental principles tells us as to why these discrete symmetries should be exactly respected. This prompts us to define in supersymmetric theories a discrete quantum number called $`R`$-parity as $`R=(1)^{(3B+L+2S)}`$ , where $`S`$ is the spin of the particle. In fact, it is not fair to be totally dictated by theoretical prejudice and ab initio abandon the $`R`$-parity violating (RPV) terms. A rather open-minded approach would be to keep the RPV interactions in the theory and constrain them from observations/ non-observations at different experiments. There is a rich phenomenological consequence of $`R`$-parity violation. When $`R`$-parity is violated, the lightest supersymmetric particle is no longer stable and superparticles need not be produced in pairs. As a result, one needs to reformulate the SUSY search strategies. A complete set of RPV interactions introduces 48 new parameters into the theory, and so it is important to constrain them from existing data. Upper bounds on RPV couplings emerge from proton stability, $`n`$$`\overline{n}`$ oscillation, neutrino masses and mixings, charged current universality, atomic parity violation, $`Z`$ pole observables, meson decays and mixings, etc., a thorough account of which has been reviewed in .

During the last few years many new data on branching ratios (BRs) and CP asymmetries in different $`B`$ decay channels are coming from the $`B`$ factories. It is therefore worthwhile to examine the consequences of these data for RPV models. Let us first discuss why $`B`$ decays in RPV scenario are interesting. In the $`R`$-parity conserving limit, leading SUSY contributions to $`B`$ decays would come from penguins and/or boxes. As has been noted by several authors, e.g. , such SUSY loops are either suppressed, or at best comparable, with respect to the SM penguins on account of the heaviness of SUSY spectrum. On the contrary, RPV might trigger such decays at tree level with suitable couplings turned on, and there lies its importance. Moreover, such RPV couplings are complex, and their phases play their part in inducing new contribution to CP violation. As an example, processes which are purely penguin driven in the SM (e.g. $`bsd\overline{d}`$ or $`bss\overline{s}`$), may not receive any appreciable corrections from SUSY loops, but tree level RPV contributions to them might be significant. Even otherwise, in processes like $`bc\overline{c}s`$ which is dominated by the SM tree diagram, a RPV tree contribution might have an effect in the extraction of the angle $`\beta `$ of the unitarity triangle. All these effects in the context of $`B`$ decaying into $`\pi K`$, $`\varphi K`$, $`J/\psi K_S`$ final states have been studied by many authors .

In this paper we shall restrict ourselves to $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay, and comment on other $`\pi \pi `$ modes ($`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^0\pi ^\pm `$). The dominant SM contribution to $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay comes from a tree graph which has a suppression from $`V_{ub}`$. The RPV amplitude is driven by the product $`\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}`$. For $`i=`$ 2 and 3, the existing bound on this combination is rather modest ($`|\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}|<3.6\times 10^3`$) . The propagator of the RPV tree diagram is a slepton whose mass can be in the 100 GeV range. Thus the RPV amplitude can be comparable in size with the SM amplitude. It may be recalled at this stage that the presence of two interfering amplitudes of comparable magnitude is essential for a large direct CP violating asymmetry.

Additionally, the above product coupling contributes to the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing through box graphs , and that makes the situation more tricky. In fact, this is one of the very few situations where a new physics operator can contribute to both mixing and decay with amplitudes comparable, or possibly even larger, than the SM contributions. The angle $`\beta `$ of the unitarity triangle is determined from the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing phase $`\varphi _M`$. The SM box diagram yields $`\varphi _M`$ to be 2$`\beta `$. Now that the $`\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}`$ combination is turned on, there is new contribution not only to decay into $`\pi \pi `$ final states but also to $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing at the same time. The twin rôle of these specific product couplings for the $`\pi \pi `$ final states thus adds a new twist and brings in significant calculational intricacies.

Now once the mixing phase gets contaminated, the immediate concern is what happens then to $`B`$ decays into, for example, $`J/\psi K_S`$ and $`\varphi K_S`$ final states? Supposing that only the above couplings, namely the $`\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}`$ combinations, are operative, there will not be any new contribution to the decay diagrams for the above final states, but the corresponding mixing induced asymmetries will get modified through new contribution to $`\varphi _M`$. The CP asymmetries in the above channels are proportional to sin 2$`\beta `$ in the SM. Now both the asymmetries will measure not the angle $`\beta `$ (defined as argument of $`V_{td}`$) but some other $`\beta _{eff}`$ carrying traces of new physics.

Now, as mentioned before, the $`\pi \pi `$ final states from $`B`$ decays require special attention as the given choice of RPV product couplings inducts new effects simultaneously into mixing and decay. Using the available data set on BRs and CP asymmetries (to be reviewed in the next section), we obtain useful constaints on the RPV product couplings. This is true even considering the fact that the present experimental errors are still quite large. For example, we obtain a new bound $`|\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}|0.0022`$ for a slepton mass of around 100 GeV, which is a marginal improvement over its existing bound of 0.0036. However, our bound is more general since we take into account the possibility of destructive interference between the SM and the RPV box amplitudes where as the previous bound was derived by saturating the experimental number by RPV box only. In addition, interesting correlations among $`\gamma `$ (another angle of the unitarity triangle), the weak phase of the RPV product coupling, and the strong phase difference between the SM and RPV amplitudes emerge. It is to be noted that our primary aim is to put an upper bound on new physics parameters (RPV couplings) using the standard technique of accomodating as much of new physics as possible in the space between experimental data and SM predictions in the $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel. In the process, we observe a simultaneous enhancement of the BR in $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ final state which is a big bonus in view of recent data showing large BR in this channel for which the SM prediction is too low.

## II Review of data and the relevant formulae

Data is available on all $`\pi \pi `$ modes. Let us first look at the BRs (multiplied by $`10^6`$) as they stand in ICHEP 2004 :

$`Br(B\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`4.6\pm 0.4;`$
$`Br(B\pi ^0\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`1.51\pm 0.28;`$ (1)
$`Br(B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`5.5\pm 0.6.`$
We use $`B`$ to indicate a flavor-untagged $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B^0}`$. Defining

$`\lambda =\mathrm{exp}(i2\beta )\pi ^+\pi ^{}||\overline{B^0}/\pi ^+\pi ^{}||B^0,`$ (2)
and the direct and mixing induced CP asymmetries as

$`a_{CP}^d=(1|\lambda |^2)/(1+|\lambda |^2),a_{CP}^m=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\lambda /(1+|\lambda |^2),`$ (3)
we write their present experimental numbers  as

$`S_{\pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`a_{CP}^m=0.74\pm 0.16,`$
$`C_{\pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`a_{CP}^d=0.46\pm 0.13,`$
$`A_{CP}(\pi ^+\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`0.01\pm 0.07,`$ (4)
$`A_{CP}(\pi ^0\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`0.28\pm 0.39.`$
The quantities $`a_{CP}^d`$ and $`a_{CP}^m`$ are obtained from the time-dependent measurement on $`B`$:

$`a_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}^{dm}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B^0}(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B^0}(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{})}}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`a_{CP}^d\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt+a_{CP}^m\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ is the mass difference between the two mass eigenstates.

To motivate our further discussions, let us assume temporarily that only two interfering amplitudes contribute to the $`\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and denote them by

$$a_1\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _1)\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _1)\mathrm{and}a_2\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _2)\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _2),$$

where $`\varphi _i`$’s and $`\delta _i`$’s ($`i=1,2`$) are the weak and the strong phases, respectively. We also use the notation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\delta =\delta _2\delta _1;\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\varphi _2\varphi _1.$$
(6)
We, however, wish to emphasize that for the actual numerical analyses, we will take into account not only the SM tree diagram but also the SM penguin amplitudes as well111The SM amplitudes in the naive factorization approach are given in Eq. (A1) of Appendix-A in Ref. ., in addition to new physics contributions.

The observables $`a_{CP}^d`$ and $`a_{CP}^m`$ can be expressed in terms of the above parameters. One obtains

$`a_{CP}^d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1|\lambda _{\pi \pi }|^2}{1+|\lambda _{\pi \pi }|^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2a_1a_2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }{a_1^2+a_2^2+2a_1a_2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }},`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{and}a_{CP}^m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{Im}\lambda _{\pi \pi }}{1+|\lambda _{\pi \pi }|^2}},\mathrm{where}`$ (8)
$`\lambda _{\pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\varphi _M}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^+\pi ^{}|_{eff}|\overline{B_q}}{\pi ^+\pi ^{}|_{eff}|B_q}}=\eta _{CP}e^{i(\varphi _M+2\varphi _1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(a_1^2+a_2^2e^{2i\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi }+2a_1a_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \right)}{\left(a_1^2+a_2^2+2a_1a_2\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )\right)}}.`$ (9)
Here $`\varphi _M`$ is the phase of the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing amplitude (this may include phases from the CKM elements as well as phases from new physics), and $`\eta _{CP}`$ is the CP eigenvalue ($`+1`$) for the final state $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.

For the sake of completeness we also include the expressions for the BR$`(B\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$:

$`\mathrm{BR}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $``$ $`a_1^2+a_2^2+2a_1a_2\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ),`$
$`\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B^0}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $``$ $`a_1^2+a_2^2+2a_1a_2\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ),`$ (10)
where the phase space factors have been suppressed. When one averages over these two terms, one obtains the expression in the denominator of Eq. (7).

In the SM $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are identified with the tree and the top-mediated strong penguin amplitudes, respectively, so that $`\varphi _1=\gamma `$, $`\varphi _2=\beta `$ and $`\varphi _M=2\beta `$. One expects $`a_2`$ to be suppressed with respect to $`a_1`$ due to the standard loop suppression factors. This is an approximate representation of the standard form of the amplitudes found in the literature , where both charm- and up-quark mediated strong penguins, as well as the electroweak penguins, are taken into account. One usually decomposes the top-penguin into terms proportional to $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}`$ and $`V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}`$ using the unitarity relationship. The term proportional to $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}`$ is dumped with the tree amplitude, since all of them carry the same weak phase, and this combination is usually called $`T_c`$. The terms proportional to $`V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}`$ does not have any weak phase in the leading order of the Wolfenstein representation; this group is called $`P_c`$. The electroweak penguins are expected to be much smaller than both $`T_c`$ and $`P_c`$, and they can be neglected, or treated separately, depending upon the precision required. In the approximation that the penguins are much smaller than the tree amplitude, and among the penguins, the top-quark mediated one is the dominant, we can use the numbers quoted in the literature for $`T_c`$ and $`P_c`$ for $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$, respectively. As a standard prediction in all theoretical models, one finds $`|P_c/T_c|0.250.35`$ . Thus the observable $`a_{CP}^d`$ appears to be small in the SM. Moreover, as we shall see below, the measured BR for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode turns out to be a bit smaller than the SM prediction, the degree of discrepancy depending upon the method of calculation.

Thus, the explanation of the BR($`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) data needs a destructive interference between the two amplitudes leading to large $`|\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\delta |`$. On the other hand, large asymmetry as experimentally measured requires large $`|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\delta |`$. These twin requirements constrain the parameter space.

## III The $`𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing and $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ decay in $`𝑹`$-parity violating supersymmetry

It is well known that in order to avoid rapid proton decay one cannot have both lepton number and baryon number violating RPV model, and we shall work with a lepton number violating one. This leads to slepton/sneutrino mediated$`B`$decays, and slepton/sneutrino/squark mediated $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing. We start with the superpotential

$$𝒲_\lambda ^{}=\lambda _{ijk}^{}L_iQ_jD_k^c,$$
(11)
where $`i,j,k=1,2,3`$ are quark and lepton generation indices; $`L`$ and $`Q`$ are the SU(2)-doublet lepton and quark superfields and $`D^c`$ is the SU(2)-singlet down-type quark superfield, respectively. For the process $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, the relevant four-Fermi operator is of the form

$$_\lambda ^{}=\frac{\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}}{2m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L_i}}^2}(\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu P_Lu)_8(\overline{d}\gamma _\mu P_Rb)_8+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(12)
where $`P_R(P_L)=(1+()\gamma _5)/2`$, and the subscript 8 denotes a color octet combination. In the above formula $`i`$ is the generation index of the slepton. The current bound on $`\lambda _{111}^{}`$ is too restrictive ($`|\lambda _{111}^{}|<3.5\times 10^4`$ ), which rules out the possibility that this coupling plays any significant role in$`B`$decays. For $`i=2`$ or 3, the bound on the product $`\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}`$ is rather modest ($`|\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}|<3.6\times 10^3`$) . Following the standard practice we shall assume that the RPV couplings are hierarchical i.e., only one combination of the couplings is numerically significant. For simplicity we choose to ignore the RPV penguin contributions, which are expected to be small even compared to the SM penguin amplitudes; this follows from the smallness of the relevant RPV couplings compared to the SM gauge couplings. The bounds on the RPV couplings that we eventually derive are insensitive to the inclusion of RPV penguins.

There is a much stronger bound on the product couplings of the type $`\lambda _{i13}^{}\lambda _{}^{}{}_{i31}{}^{}8.10^8`$ from tree-level $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing (see ); however, we consider only one type of product coupling to be nonzero (namely, $`\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}`$) in our analysis.

Our discussion of $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing in the framework of an $`L`$-violating RPV model follows that of . The off-diagonal element in the $`2\times 2`$ effective Hamiltonian causes the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing. The mass difference between the two mass eigenstates $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ is given by (following the convention of )

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M=2|M_{12}|,$$
(13)
with the valid approximation $`|M_{12}||\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}|`$. Let the SM amplitude be

$$|M_{12}^{SM}|\mathrm{exp}(2i\theta _{SM})$$
(14)
where $`\theta _{SM}=\beta `$ for the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ system. We follow the $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ convention for the unitarity triangle .

If we have $`n`$ number of new physics (NP) amplitudes with weak phases $`\theta _n`$, one can write

$$M_{12}=|M_{12}^{SM}|\mathrm{exp}(2i\theta _{SM})+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}|M_{12}^i|\mathrm{exp}(2i\theta _i).$$
(15)
This immediately gives the effective mixing phase $`\theta _{eff}`$ as

$$\theta _{eff}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{|M_{12}^{SM}|\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{SM})+\underset{i}{}|M_{12}^i|\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _i)}{|M_{12}^{SM}|\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _{SM})+_i|M_{12}^i|\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _i)},$$
(16)
and the mass difference between mass eigenstates as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M=2\left[|M_{12}^{SM}|^2+\underset{i}{}|M_{12}^i|^2+2|M_{12}^{SM}|\underset{i}{}|M_{12}^i|\mathrm{cos}2(\theta _{SM}\theta _i)+2\underset{i}{}\underset{j>i}{}|M_{12}^j||M_{12}^i|\mathrm{cos}2(\theta _j\theta _i)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(17)
These are going to be our basic formulae. The only task is to find $`M_{12}^i`$ and $`\theta _i`$.

The SM mixing amplitude, dominated by the top-quark loop, is

$`M_{12}^{SM}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{B^0}|H_{eff}^{SM}|B^0}{2m_B}}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{6\pi ^2}}(V_{td}V_{tb}^{})^2\eta _Bm_Bf_B^2B_Bm_W^2S_0(x_t).`$
where

$$S_0(x)=\frac{4x11x^2+x^3}{4(1x)^2}\frac{3x^3\mathrm{ln}x}{2(1x)^3}.$$
(19)
It is easy to check from the RPV superpotential that there are two different kind of boxes that contribute to $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing: first, the one where one has two sfermions flowing inside the loop, alongwith two SM fermions , and secondly, the one where one slepton, one $`W`$ (or charged Higgs or Goldstone) and two up quarks complete the loop . It is obvious that the first amplitude is proportional to the product of four $`\lambda ^{}`$ type couplings, and the second to the product of two $`\lambda ^{}`$ type couplings times $`G_F`$. We call them L4 and L2 boxes, respectively. The detailed calculations including the QCD corrections at the next-to-leading order (NLO), which we follow in our present analysis, may be found in .

In the presence of RPV, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ effective Hamiltonian can be written as

$$_{eff}^{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}c_i(\mu )O_i(\mu )+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\stackrel{~}{c}_i(\mu )\stackrel{~}{O}_i(\mu )+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(20)
where $`\mu `$ is the regularization scale, and

$`O_1`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{b}\gamma ^\mu P_Ld)_1(\overline{b}\gamma _\mu P_Ld)_1,`$
$`O_2`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{b}P_Rd)_1(\overline{b}P_Rd)_1,`$
$`O_3`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{b}P_Rd)_8(\overline{b}P_Rd)_8,`$ (21)
$`O_4`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{b}P_Ld)_1(\overline{b}P_Rd)_1,`$
$`O_5`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{b}P_Ld)_8(\overline{b}P_Rd)_8,`$
where $`P_{R(L)}=(1+()\gamma _5)/2`$. The subscripts 1 and 8 indicate whether the currents are in colour-singlet or in colour-octet combination. The $`\stackrel{~}{O}_i`$s are obtained from corresponding $`O_i`$s by replacing $`LR`$. The Wilson coefficients $`c_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c_i}`$ at $`q^2=m_W^2`$ and at the low energy scale have been taken from .

Now we come to the decay amplitude. The matrix element of the RPV operator for $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is given, using conventional factorization , by

$$\pi ^+\pi ^{}|_\lambda ^{}|\overline{B^0}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L_i}}^2}\frac{m_\pi ^2}{(m_d+m_u)(m_bm_u)}f_\pi F_0^{B\pi }(m_\pi ^2)(m_B^2m_\pi ^2)$$
(22)
where $`f_\pi `$ is the pion decay constant and $`F_0`$ is the Bauer-Stech-Wirbel (BSW) form factor. We use conventional factorization  for simplicity.

## IV Numerical results

We now turn to the numerical results. The calculational intricacies leading to our results are two-fold. First, we must bring in the RPV box diagram for reasons discussed above. The dependence on the weak phase associated with the complex RPV product couplings $`\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}`$ is therefore rather involved and intriguing. Second, although for illustration we have often discussed in the text the interference of SM tree and RPV tree amplitudes only, leading to CP asymmetries in the $`B\pi \pi `$ channel, for actual numerical details we have included the SM penguin as the third interfering amplitude, and its effect is numerically non-negligible. Although the introduction of RPV introduces a few more parameters (see below), we now have sufficient number of constraints. As a consequence, the new results, in particular the constraints on the magnitude of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ and the product coupling $`\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}`$ have a very restrictive pattern.

The RPV model introduces four extra parameters compared to the SM: (a) the left slepton and sneutrino masses, which are equal up to the SU(2) breaking D-terms, (b) the magnitude of the product $`\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}`$ (which according to our convention can be either positive or negative), (c) the phase of this product, hereafter called $`\varphi `$ or the weak RPV phase, which can have any value between 0 and $`\pi `$ to maintain consistency with the sign convention in (b), and (d) the strong phase between the SM tree and the RPV amplitudes varying between 0 and $`2\pi `$. We fix the slepton mass at 100 GeV which is consistent with the current bound coming from direct searches. The squarks are taken to be degenerate with the sleptons. Even though that is unrealistic from the Tevatron data, the numbers change only marginally. The magnitude of the product coupling and the remaining two parameters are randomly varied within their allowed ranges or bounds.

In order to carry out the numerical analysis we need some more inputs like quark masses, form factors and the relevant CKM elements. We use $`m_u=4.2`$ MeV, $`m_d=7.6`$ MeV, $`m_b=4.88`$ GeV, pion decay constant $`f_\pi =132`$ MeV, and the decay form factor in the BSW model $`F_0^{B\pi }(m_\pi ^2)=0.39`$. The relevant Wilson coefficients for $`bd`$ transition in the LO scheme are taken from . We expect the strong phase difference between the SM tree and the SM penguin amplitudes to be small, but do not impose it as a constraint. The CKM parameters whose values are not precisely known have been varied randomly within the range allowed by the CKM fit . In particular $`V_{td}`$ is allowed to lie in the range between 0.0030 and 0.0096. Arguably such ranges may change in the presence of RPV, since the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing amplitude and the resulting mass difference of $`B`$ meson mass eigenstates ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$), an important ingredient of the CKM fit, are affected for reasons discussed above. In order to compensate for the restricted inputs we have not constrained the weak phase $`\gamma `$ within the SM range, but varied it randomly in the entire range of 0 to $`\pi `$ 222The angle $`\gamma `$ is expected to lie in the first quadrant from the CKM fit when $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing data, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$, is taken into account. Once we entertain the possibility of new physics in $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing, that constraint is no longer applicable, and there is a second possible solution, with $`\gamma `$ in the second quadrant .. The other important input parameter $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ has been varied in the range allowed by the CKM fit: $`0.725\pm 0.033`$ at 68% C.L. . The justification for using such limits is that the usual CKM fit without the direct measurement of CP asymmetries yields $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ very close to this range. We have checked that none of our results, apart from the allowed range of RPV weak phase, depends sensitively on the choice of the angle $`\beta `$, and thus this analysis holds for some other slightly different CKM fits too.

The origin of the strong phase can at present only be modeled. In naive factorization, admittedly, there cannot be any strong phase between two tree amplitudes. But in pQCD, dynamical enhancement of annihilation and exchange topologies play a significant part in generating a significant strong phase difference. Our approach has been the following: (i) we have used factorization model as a simplistic approach to calculate amplitudes, but (ii) we have treated the strong phase difference between the dominant interfering amplitudes as a phenomenological parameter.

As stated above the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (13) also leads to a pair of new box amplitudes for $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing, viz., L2 and L4. The first kind has two $`\lambda ^{}`$ vertices, two SU(2) gauge couplings, and two up quarks, one slepton and one $`W`$ inside the box. We have neglected, for simplicity, the imaginary part which arises in this diagram from cutting the up quark lines. The second type has four $`\lambda ^{}`$ vertices. Neglecting the SM box completely, and taking the product coupling to be real, the authors in  found the conservative bound $`|\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}|3.6\times 10^3`$. We, on the other hand, take into account the SM box and the possible phase of the RPV product coupling which is randomly varied over the range already given. This, as discussed above, modifies the phase $`\varphi _M`$ from its SM value of $`2\beta `$ to $`2\beta _{eff}`$. We now impose the constraint that $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta _{eff})`$ should satisfy the observed CP-asymmetry in the $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ channel (i.e., $`\beta _{eff}`$, which is a combination of $`\beta `$, RPV weak phase $`\varphi `$, and the box amplitudes, should satisfy $`0.692\mathrm{sin}(2\beta _{eff})0.758`$).

We next list all the constraints imposed in our study of the allowed space of the RPV parameters: (i) $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$, (ii) CP asymmetry from the decay $`BJ/\psi K_S`$, (iii) BR($`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$), and (iv) the asymmetries $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`S_{\pi \pi }`$. In addition, we also impose the model independent constraint $`S_{\pi \pi }^2+C_{\pi \pi }^2<1`$. All the experimental numbers are taken at 1$`\sigma `$.

The random variation of the parameters subject to the constraints as discussed above leads to the scatter plots displayed in Figures 1 and 2. The following salient features are to be noted.

1. From Figure 1, one can see that though $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ can be accomodated over its entire range, $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ has a rather narrow allowed range: $`0.67<S_{\pi \pi }<0.58`$. The correlation between $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ is also to be noted.

2. The unitarity triangle angle $`\gamma `$ lies in the second quadrant: $`112^{}<\gamma <146^{}`$. This range changes a bit if we change the allowed range of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta _{eff})`$. However, in no case it goes to the first quadrant, as happens in the pure SM case. This is understandable: one needs to have destructive interference between the SM tree and the SM penguin amplitudes to lower the BR. If one tries to do this entirely with the RPV amplitude one ends up with unaceptable values of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$. The above range of $`\gamma `$ should not be interpreted as in conflict with the standard CKM fit results. The reason is that once we have new physics in $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing, the $`V_{td}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ constraints no longer apply. Also note that the $`B\pi K`$ analysis predicts $`\gamma `$ in the second quadrant .

3. The RPV coupling has a new upper bound for 100 GeV sfermions (see Figure 2),

$$|\lambda _{i11}^{}\lambda _{i13}^{}|2.2\times 10^3.$$
(23)
The RPV weak phase lies in the third quadrant if this coupling is taken to be positive. This bound is more or less stable against the variation of $`\beta `$.

4. The strong phase difference between the SM tree and the SM penguin amplitudes can be kept small, as dictated by different theoretical models333Our analysis has been carried out in the context of naive factorization  model. The strong phase is small here, since that comes only from the imaginary part of the respective Wilson coefficients. It is also small in QCD factorization model. In pQCD  it is not so small since the annihilation topologies are taken into account. However, one should note that the pQCD analysis uses $`T_c`$ and $`P_c`$, which are not exactly identical to our tree and penguin amplitudes, respectively.. On the other hand, the strong phase difference between the SM tree and the RPV amplitudes, treated as a phenomenological parameter, has a very restrictive range: $`40^{}<\delta <40^{}`$. The reason for this restriction is that the CP asymmetries are mainly controlled by the SM tree and the RPV amplitudes.

A comment on the robustness of our bound on the product coupling is now in order. If we vary the experimental data by $`\pm 2\sigma `$ and allow for the uncertainties of the involved parameters, the constraint in Eq. (23) relaxes by about 20%.

So far we have focussed our attention on the quark level process $`bu\overline{u}d`$ and studied its impact in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay. It is now time to wonder what would be the impact of the SU(2) conjugate quark level process $`bd\overline{d}d`$? Both operators contributes to $`B\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and to understand the nature of the SM and RPV contributions to this process it is important to recall that the quark composition of $`\pi ^0`$ is the antisymmetric combination $`(u\overline{u}d\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}`$. In the SM, while $`bu\overline{u}d`$ corresponds to a colour suppressed tree diagram, $`bd\overline{d}d`$ can proceed only through penguin graphs. It turns out that a part of the $`bd\overline{d}d`$ RPV amplitude is almost exactly (upto the SU(2) D-term splitting between sleptons and sneutrinos) cancelled by the corresponding $`bu\overline{u}d`$ amplitude. However, another part remains, and that can significantly enhance the $`B\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ branching ratio. The $`B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ data is satisfied by the allowed RPV parameter space.

The RPV scenario that we have considered in this paper can be directly tested at colliders. If RPV indeed contributes to $`B`$ decays as discussed in this paper, the associated light sleptons/sneutrinos, with masses in the range $`100300`$ GeV, mediating such decays are very likely to be produced at the Tevatron and, most certainly, at the LHC. Thus resonant production of sleptons/sneutrinos  will provide a useful cross-check of this scenario. The $`\lambda _{i11}^{}`$ couplings (in particular, $`\lambda _{211}^{}`$) give rise to a distinct collider signature in the form of like-sign dilepton signals. Such final states have low SM and $`R`$-parity conserving supersymmetry background. The dominant production mechanism is a $`\lambda ^{}`$ induced resonant charged slepton production at tree level at hadron colliders. This is followed by a $`R`$-parity conserving gauge decay of the charged slepton into a neutralino and a charged lepton. The neutralino can then decay via the crossed process to give rise to a second charged lepton, which due to the majorana nature of the neutralino can have the same charge as the hard lepton produced in the slepton decay. It is gratifying to note that the study of Ref.  shows that for a value of $`\lambda _{211}^{}=0.05`$, which is perfectly compatible with our bound on the product $`\lambda _{211}^{}\lambda _{213}^{}`$, a smuon mass of about 300 GeV would be visible above the backgrounds with 2 fb-1 integrated luminosity at the Tevatron Run II, while for the same coupling a resonant smuon can be observed with a mass of 750 GeV at LHC with 10 fb-1 integrated luminosity. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect smuon signals already at the upgraded Tevatron.

## V Conclusions

1. RPV contribution to the decay $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode is interesting because the same new physics amplitude affects both $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing and the decay. Their interplay leads to important constraints. The constraints are expected to be tighter as more data accumulate.

2. As we have shown, the upper bound on the magnitude of the RPV product coupling has been improved over the existing results. The RPV weak phase also gets restricted.

3. A bonus of RPV is that one can enhance the $`B\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ branching ratio to a significant level, which is a much desired result in view of what one finds from the current experiments.

## Acknowledgements

A.D. and A.K. have been supported by the BRNS grant 2000/37/10/BRNS of DAE, Govt. of India. A.K. has also been supported by the grant F.10-14/2001 (SR-I) of UGC, India, and by the fellowship of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. G.B.’s research has been supported, in part, by the DST, India, project number SP/S2/K-10/2001.