text:
# Solar neutrinos: global analysis and implications for SNO

## 1 Introduction

From the inception of the subject, solar neutrino research has been motivated by two apparently conflicting goals: 1) to test the theory of nuclear fusion reactions in stars; and 2) to determine neutrino characteristics. In the approximately four decades since its inception, the subject has been dramatically transformed. In the first paper reporting an experimental result , the measurement was compared only with the then existing standard solar model . In the ensuing decades, the emphasis gradually shifted to particle physics as enormous progress was made both experimentally and theoretically. New experiments were reported 222The total rates in the Homestake (chlorine), Kamiokande, SAGE, GALLEX + GNO, and Super-Kamiokande experiments cannot be fit well without some form of new physics even if the solar neutrino fluxes are allowed to be free parameters. Allowing the $`pp`$, 7Be, 8B, 13N, and 15O fluxes to be free parameters, the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ is obtained for zero fluxes of 7Be $`=^{13}`$N $`=^{15}`$O $`=0.0`$ and even this unphysical solution is acceptable only at the $`99.6`$% C.L. This result has been stable for many years as experimental results have been refined., including the results of Kamiokande , SAGE , GALLEX , Super-Kamiokande , GNO , refined results of the chlorine experiment , and (in the near future) there will be results from SNO , BOREXINO , KamLAND  and ICARUS . In parallel activities, the theories of vacuum  and matter-induced (MSW)  neutrino oscillations were developed and explored and the solar models were refined  and verified by helioseismology .

In the last decade or so, it has become customary to blur the distinction between the two goals of solar neutrino research, measuring neutrino properties and using neutrinos to learn about stars. The results of all the experiments are combined in a statistical analysis from which the allowed ranges of neutrino masses and mixing angles are extracted, including among the input data the calculated standard solar model neutrino fluxes and their associated uncertainties.

In the present paper, we take a modest step toward separating the two subjects, neutrino physics and neutrino astronomy, of solar neutrino research. We allow the important 8B neutrino flux, and the much less important $`hep`$ flux, to be free parameters and perform a systematic global analysis  of all the available solar neutrino data (for early work allowing the 8B neutrino flux to vary freely, see ref.  and for related work, see refs. ). We extract from the analysis the allowed ranges of the 8B and $`hep`$ fluxes as well as the neutrino parameters, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$. We continue, following what is currently common practice, to constrain the other solar neutrino fluxes with the aid of the calculated fluxes and uncertainties given by the BP2000 standard solar model .

We emphasize the robustness of most of the allowed regions, and the fragility of some regions, to small changes in the data analysis. We illustrate the effects of changes in the analysis by performing the global analysis of all the data in different ways. In particular, we demonstrate the effects of the common practices (of which we have also been guilty) of treating the 8B absolute flux differently between the measured rates and the measured spectral data and the effects of double counting of the SuperKamiokande rate.

We have also carried out solutions in which the 7Be, 8B, and $`hep`$ fluxes are all allowed to vary without taking into account the solar model predictions, but in this case the range of solutions is too large at present to be useful to discuss. The situation will presumably change when data from the SNO, KamLAND, BOREXINO and ICARUS experiments are available. In a work in preparation, we will report on the implications of the global solutions found here for 7Be experiments like BOREXINO.

In Section 2, we present the global solutions for both active and sterile neutrinos when the 8B and $`hep`$ fluxes are treated as free parameters. Section 3 shows that some solutions (LMA, SMA, and LOW) are robust with respect to changes in the analysis constraints while other solutions (vacuum solutions) are more fragile. We discuss in Section 4 the characteristics of the Just So2 solution and in Section 5 we present the predictions of the currently-allowed oscillation solutions for the measurements with SNO of the charged-current rate and the (charged-current rate) /(neutral-current rate) ratio. We summarize and discuss our main results in Section 6.

## 2 Global solutions

We summarize our main results on the global two-neutrino oscillation solutions in Section 2.1 and describe in Section 2.2, which is intended for aficionados only, our calculational procedures.

### 2.1 Results

Figure 1 shows the globally allowed solutions for both active, Figure 1a, and sterile neutrinos, Figure 1b. The results are presented at four different confidence levels ranging from $`90`$% to $`99.73`$% (corresponding to $`3\sigma `$). There are five isolated regions of allowed solutions for active neutrinos (LMA, SMA, LOW, VAC, and Just So2) and three separate solutions for sterile neutrinos (SMA, VAC, and Just So2).

The allowed oscillation regions are shown for a global solution with the 8B neutrino flux treated as a free parameter in all of the analysis. The allowed regions at different confidence levels are presented for neutrino oscillation models that fit the total rates measured in the chlorine  and gallium  solar neutrinos experiments, as well as the electron recoil energy spectrum measured by the Super-Kamiokande collaboration  during the day and the spectrum measured at night. We treat as one experiment the combined results of the GALLEX and GNO measurements and consider the SAGE results to be an independent experiment. We do not include in this analysis the Super-Kamiokande total rate, since to a large extent the total rate is represented by the flux in each of the spectral energy bins. However, since many groups analyzing solar neutrino data include both the total Super-Kamiokande rate and the spectral data, we perform the analysis in this way in the following section, Section 3.

The best-fit points in each region are shown as black dots. The measurements and errors are taken from the publications of the experimental groups. We use in this paper solar neutrino data that appeared in papers published before February 1, 2001 or in Neutrino 2000. The theoretical errors on all the other fluxes are taken from the BP2000 solar model . The Super-Kamiokande measurement for the 8B neutrino flux is $`\varphi (^8B)=(2.40\pm 0.03_{0.07}^{+0.08})\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$.

Matter effects are significant for all of the allowed islands of solution space between $`10^9\mathrm{eV}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^23\times 10^7\mathrm{eV}^2`$. We call this collection of islands the LOW solution. In some ways of analyzing the data, all of the LOW islands are surrounded by a single $`3\sigma `$ contour.

Following Fogli, Lisi, and Montanino  and de Gouvea, Friedland, and Murayama , we have given our results in terms of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ rather than $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ in order to include solutions with mixing angles greater than $`\pi /4`$ (the so-called ‘dark side’). The general procedure that we have used in deriving the allowed regions is described in ref. ; see Section 2.2 for some details.

Table 1 summarizes the properties of the best-fit points of each allowed region: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$, and goodness of fit, g.o.f. = 1 - C.L. All of the solutions listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1 are allowed at a comfortable confidence level. The LMA and the SMA solutions are slightly preferred.

The global minimum, $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2/\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.=29.0/35=0.83`$, found here (see Table 1) is somewhat smaller than would be expected for data that have a true $`\chi ^2`$ distribution with correctly estimated errors. The principal reason that the $`\chi ^2`$ is somewhat small is that the Super-Kamiokande day and night recoil energy spectra are very well fit by undistorted 8B and $`hep`$ energy spectra, $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=29.0`$ for $`34`$ d.o.f., with $`\varphi (^8B)=0.46\varphi (^8B)_{\mathrm{BP2000}}`$ and $`\varphi (hep)=1.0\varphi (hep)_{\mathrm{BP2000}}`$ and C.L. of $`29`$% .

Figure 2 shows the computed survival probabilities for electron-type neutrinos as a function of energy for the day (no regeneration in the earth), the night (with regeneration), and the annual average. The probabilities were calculated for the best-fit parameters listed in Table 1. The two most striking aspects of this figure are the smallness of the day-night difference (clearly visible in the figure only for the LOW solution at energies below $`1`$ MeV) and the relative flatness (except for the fragile VAC solution, see Section 3) of the survival probabilities at higher energies.

Most previous global analyses (including some analyses that we have published) that took account of Super-Kamiokande data on the recoil eneregy spectrum and the day-night effect have treated the 8B absolute flux differently in fitting the spectral data and in fitting the total rate. In previous analyses, the 8B neutrino flux was treated as a free parameter in fitting the Super-Kamiokande spectral data but was treated as an input parameter, constrained by the calculated standard solar model uncertainties, in fitting the data for the measured total rates of the chlorine, gallium, and electron scattering experiments. This lack of consistency was not present when only rate data were fitted.

Table 2 shows, for each allowed oscillation region, the total range of the 8B and $`hep`$ fluxes permitted at $`99.73`$% C.L. . The allowed regions were identified in a search in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$, and the 8B and $`hep`$ fluxes were all varied freely. The tabulated values represent the minimum and maximum values of the 8B fluxes anywhere within the designated allowed regions defined by the four free parameters.

The fluxes given in Table 2 are the total fluxes created at the sun and can therefore be directly compared with the predictions of the standard solar model. In terms of the best-estimate 8B neutrino flux from the BP2000 model ($`5.05\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$), the total currently allowed range of solutions is, according to Table 2,

$$0.44\varphi (^8B)_{\nu \mathrm{analysis}}/\varphi (^8B)_{\mathrm{BP2000}}1.95.$$
(1)
The corresponding $`3\sigma `$ range allowed by the error analysis of the standard solar model is

$$0.52\varphi (^8B)/\varphi (^8B)_{\mathrm{BP2000}}1.6.$$
(2)
The range allowed by the global analysis of neutrino experiments is slightly larger than the estimated $`3\sigma `$ uncertainties in the standard solar model 8B neutrino flux prediction. The largest allowed value of the 8B flux corresponds to neutrino parameters within the LMA allowed domain and the smallest allowed value is realized within the Just So2 solution. The allowed range of the $`hep`$ flux is

$$0.0\varphi (hep)_{\nu \mathrm{analysis}}/\varphi (hep)_{\mathrm{BP2000}}12.0.$$
(3)
Because the uncertainty in the nuclear fusion cross section for the $`hep`$ reaction is large and difficult to quantify, no estimated error is given for the $`hep`$ neutrino flux in the standard solar model.

### 2.2 Calculational method

We calculate the global $`\chi ^2(f_B)`$ = $`\chi _R^2(f_B)`$ \+ $`\chi _{Sp}^2(f_B)`$, where the subscripts “$`R`$” and “$`Sp`$” stand for “Rates” and “Spectrum”, for each $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ on a $`201\times 500`$ lattice using 50 points per decade in both $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2`$. The validity of the $`\chi ^2`$ approach in this context, and some results of alterantive approaches, are discussed in refs. . The parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ varies from $`10^{12}\mathrm{eV}^2`$ to $`10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ varies from $`10^4`$ to $`10^1`$. The 8B neutrino flux is treated as a free parameter and at each step of the minimization process is kept the same in both individual $`\chi ^2`$’s for the rates and for the spectrum. The $`\chi _R^2`$ for the rates is calculated using the prescription given in , with updated uncertainties for the astrophysical parameters taken from BP2000 . We do not include uncertainties in the 8B flux since we treat this flux as a free parameter.

For the calculation of $`\chi _{Sp}^2`$, we use the separate day and night spectra measured by the Super-Kamiokande collaboration and presented at Neutrino 2000 . The statistical and systematic errors in the spectrum data are included as explained in  with the simple but important refinement of including separately the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors in the off-diagonal and diagonal elements of the covariance matrix. We use the undistorted spectrum shape for 8B neutrinos that is given in ref.  (see also the very similar spectral shape of ref. ).

After the global $`\chi _{min}^2`$ is determined, we draw the C.L. contours in the plane $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2`$ by connecting points with equal $`\chi ^2`$ = $`\chi _{min}^2`$ \+ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ = 4.605, 5.99, 9.21, 11.83 for 90, 95, 99 and 99.73 % C.L. for two degrees of freedom (the neutrino parameters$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2`$).

For oscillations into an active neutrino, the survival probabilities for electron neutrinos produced in the Sun to arrive in the detector as an electron neutrino are calculated using the electron number density, $`n_e`$, in the BP2000 model . For oscillations into sterile neutrinos, we use the effective density $`n_{\mathrm{sterile}}=n_en_n/2`$, where $`n_n`$ is the number density of neutrons in the BP2000 model . We calculate numerically the survival probabilities, using a hybrid algorithm in which different approaches are used for different values of the parameter $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2`$.

For $`\mathrm{E}/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2`$ $`<`$ $`3\times 10^6`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and all angles (including $`\theta >\pi /4`$ ), we use the well known analytical prescription  for calculating the survival probability at the surface of the Sun using the exact analytical solution for exponential density profiles . The survival probability was averaged over the relevant production region for each neutrino flux (e. g., 8B or $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$) as given in the BP2000 model .

For all other cases ( $`\mathrm{E}/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2`$ $`>`$ $`3\times 10^6`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{eV}^2`$), first the transition probability $`P_{}(\nu _e\nu _1)`$ of an electron neutrino to the $`\nu _1`$ neutrino mass eigenstate at the surface of the Sun was obtained numerically by solving the system of evolution equations in the form given in . The same system of equations was used to calculate the transition probability $`P_{}(\nu _1\nu _e)`$ in the earth. The final survival probability was obtained using the formula :

$`P(\nu _e\nu _e)=`$
$`P_{}(\nu _e\nu _1)P_{}(\nu _1\nu _e)+(1P_{}(\nu _e\nu _1))(1P_{}(\nu _1\nu _e))+`$
$`2\sqrt{P_{}(\nu _e\nu _1)P_{}(\nu _1\nu _e)(1P_{}(\nu _e\nu _1))(1P_{}(\nu _1\nu _e))}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$
where $`P_{}(\nu _e\nu _1)`$ is the transition probability that a $`\nu _e`$ in the solar interior becomes a $`\nu _1`$ mass eigenstate at the solar surface, and where $`P_{}(\nu _1\nu _e)`$ is the transition probability that a $`\nu _1`$ becomes a $`\nu _e`$ after crossing the earth. The quantity $`\varphi `$ is the phase difference of the amplitudes of the $`\nu _e\nu _1\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _e\nu _2\nu _e`$ transitions; the phase difference is acquired as the neutrino states propagate between the center of the Sun and the detector on Earth. The phase is calculated numerically at each stage of the propagation of the neutrino. In the region of parameter space where $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2>3\times 10^6\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{eV}^2`$, averaging over the production region is unnecessary since the transitions take place far from the region of production.

The Earth regeneration effect is relevant for a rather limited range of $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, which is: $`10^5\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{eV}^2<E/\mathrm{\Delta }m^2<10^8\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{eV}^2`$. In this region of parameter space we use the numerical procedure described in detail in ref. . We calculate the transition probabilities along a number of trajectories (we use 0.5 degree spacing between adjacent trajectories) and average them for each detector by using accurately calculated weights proportional to the time the sun spends at different angles during the course of a year.

After the neutrinos leave the Sun and before they reach the detector, they oscillate in vacuum. The vacuum oscillations can be averaged over energy analytically for all relevant $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2`$, except for oscillation lengths comparable to or larger than about 1 A.U. Seasonal effects can be important for these longer oscillation lengths. The analytical formula for an exponential density profile already includes this averaging over vacuum oscillations and no additional averaging is necessary when using this formula. In the region where the survival probabilities are calculated numerically, the averaging is done by propagating the neutrino state in vacuum over one oscillation length and then taking the average of the periodic survival probability over the same distance. Since the equations describing neutrino oscillations in vacuum are exactly solvable, we use a simple analytical expression for the average survival probability. In the region $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2>5\times 10^8\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{eV}^2`$, we include the oscillations in vacuum using the one year averaged survival probabilities for which a convenient analytical expression exists .

## 3 Variations on a theme

In this section, we illustrate the extent to which the allowed oscillation regions are robust or fragile by performing the global analysis in different ways that have been used in the literature.

We do not repeat here a misleading procedure that has sometimes been used in the literature. It is incorrect to apply an exclusion region at a fixed confidence level based upon the results of a particular measured quantity (for example spectral data or day-night data) to an allowed region based upon consistency with other measured quantities (e. g., total rates). All of the measured quantities should be analyzed together in a single global fit, which is the procedure we follow in this paper.

Figure 3 presents the global solution for the case in which the Super-Kamiokande total rate is included together with the recoil electron energy spectrum. This double-counting procedure has been adopted in many analyses in the literature, including analyses that we have published. It would be correct to use both the total rate and the rates in each spectral bin if the total rate could be determined in a way that was independent of the spectral measurements. Since this is not the case , we have chosen as our standard analysis in this paper the results shown in Figure 1 in which only the spectral data are used for Super-Kamiokande.

Comparing Figure 1 and Figure 3, we see that the six most probable allowed regions (LMA, SMA, LOW, and Just So2 for active neutrinos and SMA and Just So2 for sterile neutrinos, cf. Table 1) are essentially unaffected by whether or not one includes the Super-Kamiokande total rate in the global analysis. The only qualitative change is that the least probable solutions in Figure 1, the vacuum solutions at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2`$, are absent if one includes the Super-Kamiokande rate.

Figure 4 illustrates how two different constraints affect the global solutions. The vacuum solutions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2`$ are prominent in Figure 4a, which was constructed in the same way as Figure 3a except that for Figure 4a only total rates, no spectral data, were considered. Comparing Figure 3a and Figure 4a, we see clearly that the spectral data have removed the previously prominent vacuum solutions. The symmetric best-fit points of the vacuum solution are marked by open circles in Figure 4a.

The only difference between the calculations that led to to Figure 4b and to Figure 3a is that for Figure 3a the BP2000 uncertainty for the 8B neutrino flux was included in evaluating the contribution to the total $`\chi ^2`$ of the individual rates. The imposition of the SSM flux constraint decreases somewhat the goodness of fit of the solutions. The best-fit points are shifted and the allowed regions are distorted. Also, including the standard solar model constraints causes the LMA allowed region to overlap maximal mixing and to extend to larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ values (up to the region excluded by reactor experiments, see the upper right corner of Figure 4b).

Most dramatically, constraining the 8B neutrino flux while comparing the predictions to the total rates, eliminates the Just So2 solution from Figure 4b.

We conclude that the LMA, SMA, and LOW solutions for active neutrinos, and the SMA solution for sterile neutrinos, are all relatively robust. They have been present since the first global analysis that included Super-Kamiokande spectral and day-night data as well as the total rates in the radiochemical experiments .

The vacuum solutions at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2`$, on the other hand, are relatively fragile. Whether or not the vacuum solutions are allowed depends upon how much one emphases the Super-Kamiokande data in the theoretical analysis. The vacuum solutions are present very prominently in the analysis if only the total rates are considered (see Figure 4a and ref. ), barely present if one includes the spectra data but not the total Super-Kamiokande rate (see Figure 1), and absent if one includes both the Super-Kamiokande rate and spectral data (see Figure 3).

The Just So2 solutions, vacuum and sterile, are allowed if one treats the 8B neutrino flux consistently as a free parameter in fitting both the total rates and the Super-Kamiokande spectral data.

## 4 Just So2 Solution

Figure 1 contains two solutions, one for active neutrinos and one for sterile neutrinos, that only appear if the 8B flux is allowed to vary freely, namely, the solutions labeled “Just So2.” These solutions correspond to a best-fit mixing angle of $`\theta =\pi /4`$ and a very small squared mass difference of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^26\times 10^{12}\mathrm{eV}^2`$ (cf. Table 1). At the end of this section, we discuss briefly the history of the Just So2 solutions  and why they are not present in most analyses.

Figure 5 compares the Just So2 survival probability with the principal features of the solar neutrino spectrum, namely, the two most important continuum fluxes ($`pp`$ and 8B) and the 7Be and $`pep`$ neutrino lines. The line fluxes are expressed in units of $`10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. The continuum fluxes have the correct energy dependence but are multiplied by different constants, so that all the fluxes will fit conveniently onto the same figure with a linear vertical scale.

The reason for using the name Just So2 is apparent from Figure 5. The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is just such that the 7Be ($`0.86`$ MeV) $`\nu _e`$ survival probability is very small ($`10`$%) and the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability at the peak ($`0.31`$ MeV) of the $`pp`$ spectrum is very large ($`87`$%).

Figure 5 provides an intuitive way of understanding all the available solar neutrino experimental results. The lack of spectral energy distortion measured by Super-Kamiokande above $`5`$ MeV is a direct result of the smallness of the assumed $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$; practically no oscillations occur above $`5`$ MeV. There is no predicted measurable day-night effect because matter effects are all negligible at such a small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. The SAGE and GALLEX plus GNO results are accounted for by having the 7Be $`\nu _e`$ flux almost entirely absent while the $`pp`$ $`\nu _e`$ flux is hardly diminished. The difference in the ratio of the predicted standard rate to the measured rate in the chlorine experiment (where it is a factor of three) and the Super-Kamiokande experiment (where it is a factor of two) is explained by the almost complete disappearance of the 7Be contribution to the chlorine experiment.

Table 3 gives the contributions of the individual neutrino fluxes to the chlorine and gallium experiments. The Just So2 solution does not provide an excellent fit to the chlorine rate, but does provide very good fits to the rates of the gallium and Super-Kamiokande experiments. For Super-Kamiokande, the Just So2 solution predicts a rate that is $`0.461`$ of the standard model rate, in good agreement with the measured value  of $`0.475\pm 0.016`$.

The Just-so2 solution is allowed for both active and sterile neutrinos, with similar oscillation parameters and goodnes of fit. In general, the difference between active and sterile solutions is due to the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ that result from $`\nu _e`$ conversion. The $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ can contribute to $`\nu e`$ scattering in SuperKamiokande. For the Just-So2 solution, the oscillation effect is practically absent at energies for which SuperKamiokande is sensitive and therefore the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ fluxes do not contribute significantly even for active neutrinos. This is the reason that for the experiments performed so far (but not for BOREXINO), there is no appreciable difference between the active and sterile cases for the Just So2 solution.

Glashow and Krauss  proposed the name of ‘Just So’ neutrino oscillations to describe vacuum oscillations for a neutrino mass difference of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(50130)\times 10^{12}\mathrm{eV}^2`$. The mass of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ was chosen by Glashow and Krauss so as to greatly reduce the 8B contribution to the chlorine experiment, assuming the validity of the standard solar model. For the Just So2 solution considered here, the 8B flux is assumed, when produced at the sun, to already be significantly lower than predicted by the best standard solar model. The best-fit value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^26\times 10^{12}\mathrm{eV}^2`$ suppresses strongly the contribution of the 7Be neutrinos to the chlorine and gallium experiments, but (unlike the Glashow-Krauss solution) does not affect the small 8B flux assumed to be produced at the sun.

The Just So2 solution was first found by Raghavan  and discovered independently and first analyzed in detail by Krastev and Petcov , who allowed the 8B flux to vary and compared the results with the total rates measured in the chlorine, Kamiokande, and gallium experiments (see also ref. ). No spectral data or day-night effects were available when this analysis was performed. The reason that the Just So2 solution was not found in subsequent global solutions that included Super-Kamiokande spectral data is that for Just So2 the 8B flux is $`3.3\sigma `$ below the the standard solar model  flux. In many previous global analyses, the 8B flux was allowed to vary in fitting the spectral data but was constrained by the standard model uncertainties in fitting the rate data . The Just So2 solution does appear in Figure 8 of our analysis  with a free 8B flux of the total rates in the chlorine, gallium, and Super-Kamiokande experiments, but was not found in the same work when spectral and day-night data were included and the 8B flux was constrained by the standard solar model uncertainty.

## 5 Implications for the SNO experiment

In this section, we first discuss the predictions for the charged-current current rate in SNO and then discuss the predictions for the ratio of the neutral-current rate to the charged-current rate. We use the solutions that are allowed at $`99.73`$% C. L. in the global fit that is shown in Figure 1. We adopt in this section the notation of refs. .

### 5.1 Predictions for the charged-current rate

The allowed range of neutrino parameters shown in Figure 1 corresponds to a range of predicted values for $`[\mathrm{CC}]_{\mathrm{SNO}}`$, the to-be-measured SNO charged-current rate divided by the predicted standard model rate for SNO charged-current reactions.

Figure 6 shows for each of the oscillation solutions the predicted range allowed at a nominal $`99.7`$% C.L. . Since the predicted rate divided by the standard model rate depends upon the survival probability of solar $`\nu _e`$’s as a function of energy, the predicted values of $`[\mathrm{CC}]_{\mathrm{SNO}}`$ depend upon the recoil electron energy threshold. Figure 6 gives results for both a $`5`$ MeV threshold and an $`8`$ MeV threshold. The dashed error bar labeled “Measure $`3\sigma `$” represents the uncertainty in interpreting the measurements according to the best available estimates , which include the energy resolution, energy scale, 8B neutrino energy spectrum, neutrino cross section, and counting statistics (for one year of operation).

The numerical range for the \[CC\] ratio is, for a $`5`$ MeV threshold: LMA ($`0.200.41`$), SMA ($`0.340.49`$), LOW ($`0.360.42`$), Just So2 ($`0.460.49`$), VAC ($`0.390.44`$) for active neutrinos and SMA ($`0.450.53`$), Just So2 ($`0.450.50`$) and VAC ($`0.410.45`$) for sterile neutrinos. For an $`8`$ MeV threshold, we find for \[CC\]: LMA ($`0.200.41`$), SMA ($`0.400.51`$), LOW ($`0.360.42`$), Just So2 ($`0.460.49`$), VAC ($`0.290.41`$) for active neutrinos and SMA ($`0.450.58`$), Just So2 ($`0.450.50`$) and VAC ($`0.330.39`$) for sterile neutrinos.

For most of the currently allowed neutrino solution space, the predicted value of $`[\mathrm{CC}]_{\mathrm{SNO}}`$ is expected to lie reasonably close to the non-oscillation value of $`[\mathrm{CC}]_{\mathrm{SNO}}=0.475`$, which applies if neutrino oscillations do not occur and Super-Kamiokande is measuring a pure solar $`\nu _e`$ beam. The SMA and Just So2 active neutrino solutions, as well as the SMA and Just So2 sterile neutrino solutions, all predict charged-current rates that are similar to the non-oscillation value. Only for certain LMA solution parameters is the predicted $`[\mathrm{CC}]_{\mathrm{SNO}}`$ rate well separated from the Super-Kamiokande value.

The general trends shown in Figure 6 can be understood quantitatively by a simple relation that is easily derived:

$$[\mathrm{CC}]=\frac{1}{1r}\times [R_{SK}rf_B]\times \frac{P_{\mathrm{SNO}}}{P_{\mathrm{SK}}}.$$
(5)
Here, $`R_{\mathrm{SK}}`$ is the ratio ($`0.475`$) of the neutrino-electron scattering rate observed by Super-Kamiokande to the rate expected on the basis of the standard solar model, $`r0.16`$ is the ratio of neutrino-electron scattering cross sections for muon and electron neutrinos, and $`f_\mathrm{B}`$ is the ratio of the total 8B neutrino flux to the standard solar model flux. The average survival probabilities, $`P_{\mathrm{SNO}}`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{SK}}`$, refer to the energy ranges most important for the SNO and the Super-Kamiokande measurements. Equation 5 is valid for solutions like the LMA and LOW solutions (and somewhat less precisely for the SMA solution) in which the survival probability is practically constant over the region of interest. For the LMA and LOW solutions $`P_{SNO}/P_{SK}1`$ independent of energy thresholds. The derivation of Equation 5 neglects the small energy-dependence of $`r`$.

In addition to providing insight into the trends shown in Figure 6, Equation 5 can be used to make ‘sanity-checks’ of detailed numerical calculations. The reader can make consistency checks of the results presented in Figure 6 by using the data given in Table 1 and Table 2.

### 5.2 The ratio of neutral-current rate to charged-current rate

Figure 7 shows the predicted values of the double ratio, \[NC\]/\[CC\]. Here \[NC\]/\[CC\] is the ratio of the observed neutral-current rate to the charged-current rate in SNO divided by the same ratio calculated with the undistorted BP2000 fluxes. The standard model value for \[NC\]/\[CC\] is $`1.0`$. Figure 7a shows, for a 5 MeV threshold for the CC measurement, the predicted double ratio of neutral-current to charged-current for the currently allowed neutrino oscillation scenarios. Figure 7b shows the same ratio but for an 8 MeV CC threshold. The solid error bars shown represent the $`99.73`$% C.L. for the allowed regions of the six currently favored neutrino oscillation solutions in Figure 1. The error bar labeled “Measure $`3\sigma `$” represents the uncertainty in interpreting the measurements according to the best available estimates , which include the energy resolution, energy scale, 8B neutrino energy spectrum, neutrino cross section, and counting statistics (for $`5000`$ CC events).

The numerical range for the ratio \[NC\]/\[CC\] is, for a $`5`$ MeV CC threshold: LMA ($`2.010.0`$), SMA ($`1.14.0`$), LOW ($`1.83.1`$), Just So2 ($`1.0111.016`$) for active neutrinos and SMA ($`0.9640.997`$) and Just So2 ($`0.9970.999`$) for sterile neutrinos. For an $`8`$ MeV CC threshold, we find for\[NC\]/\[CC\]: LMA ($`2.0510.05`$), SMA ($`1.13.4`$), LOW ($`1.83.0`$), Just So2 ($`1.0081.013`$) for active neutrinos and SMA ($`0.890.99`$) and Just So2 ($`0.9930.997`$) for sterile neutrinos.

The numerical range for the ratio \[NC\]/\[CC\] is, for a $`5`$ MeV CC threshold: LMA ($`2.010.0`$), SMA ($`1.14.2`$), LOW ($`1.83.1`$), Just So2 ($`1.0111.016`$) and VAC ($`1.32.1`$) for active neutrinos and SMA ($`0.9520.996`$), Just So2 ($`0.9970.999`$) and VAC ($`0.960.98`$) for sterile neutrinos. For an $`8`$ MeV CC threshold, we find for\[NC\]/\[CC\]: LMA ($`2.010.0`$), SMA ($`1.13.6`$), LOW ($`1.83.0`$), Just So2 ($`1.0081.012`$) and VAC ($`1.52.3`$) for active neutrinos and SMA ($`0.860.99`$), Just So2 ($`0.9930.997`$) and VAC ($`1.131.21`$) for sterile neutrinos.

The LMA and LOW solutions are predicted to be well separated from the non-oscillation value of \[NC\]/\[CC\] = 1.0. However, the Just So2, Sterile, and part of the SMA solution space are practically coincident with the no oscillation value.

The most striking way that Figure 6 and Figure 7 differ from our previous results  is that the Just So2 are shown in the newer results. The fact that 8B is treated as a free parameter in the present analysis both allows the Just So2 solutions to appear and also decreases somewhat the predicted differences between the MSW active neutrino solutions and the no-oscillation expectations.

The trends in the double ratio can be represented by an analytic formula that is similar to, and derived in the same way, as Equation 5 and which uses the same notation:

$$\frac{[NC]}{[CC]}=\frac{f_\mathrm{B}(1r)}{[R_{SK}rf_B]}\frac{P_{\mathrm{SK}}}{P_{\mathrm{SNO}}}.$$
(6)
## 6 Discussion

For both active and for sterile neutrinos, we have obtained a global solution, shown in Figure 1, for the eight allowed regions of neutrino oscillation parameters.

We allow the 8B and $`hep`$ neutrino fluxes created in the sun to be free parameters, treating the fluxes consistently in both the fits to the recoil energy spectrum and to the total event rates. However, we updated input data from the BP2000 standard solar model including the production profiles of the different neutrino sources, the number density profiles for scatterers of active and of sterile neutrinos, as well as the calculated fluxes, and their uncertainties, for all the neutrino fluxes except the 8B and $`hep`$ fluxes. So, our analysis is only a modest first step toward studying neutrino oscillations independently of solar models. More experimental data are required before one can begin to make studies of solar neutrinos that are truly independent of solar models.

Six of the currently allowed regions are robustly allowed, i. e., the LMA, SMA, LOW, and Just So2 solutions for active neutrinos and the SMA and Just So2 solutions for sterile neutrinos, are essentially unaffected by making common variations in the theoretical analysis. The vacuum solutions at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2`$ are rather fragile; whether or not they are present depends upon how strongly one emphasizes the Super-Kamiokande spectral energy data (see Section 3).

The Just So2 solution with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^26\times 10^{12}\mathrm{eV}^2`$ is allowed in the present analysis because we treat the 8B flux as a free parameter in fitting both the spectral and the total rate data. The total 8B neutrino flux required for the Just So2 solution is $`3.3\sigma `$ below the best-estimate 8B flux of the standard solar model, using both the flux and the uncertainty of the BP2000 model.

The Just So2 solution, discussed in Section 4 and in refs.  and illustrated in Figure 5, describes in an obvious way all of the solar neutrino results measured so far. One can see immediately from Figure 5 that the predicted distortion of the 8B neutrino spectrum is very small in the region accessible to Super-Kamiokande and SNO (above $`5`$ MeV). The day-night effect is predicted to be zero. The rates measured in the radiochemical experiments, chlorine and gallium, are accounted for by the strongly suppressed 7Be $`\nu _e`$ flux, the only slightly suppressed $`pp`$ $`\nu _e`$ flux ($`23`$% for the gallium experiments), and the inferred relatively low total 8B neutrino flux, $`0.47`$ of the BP2000 value.

Unfortunately, the Just So2 solution will not be distinguishable by SNO from the no oscillation hypothesis (see Figure 6 and Figure 7). BOREXINO and other experiments with sensitivity below $`1`$ MeV will be required to identify Just So2 oscillations if Nature has chosen this simple but elusive solution.

Figure 6 shows that the \[CC\] measurement by SNO will not reveal strong evidence for neutrino oscillations unless Nature has chosen a favorable part of the currently allowed LMA oscillation space (cf. Figure 1). The predictions for \[CC\] based upon the best-fit parameters of four solutions, the active and sterile SMA solutions and the active and sterile Just So2 solutions, all lie within the no-oscillation band illustrated in Figure 6. The fragile vacuum solutions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2`$ both lie close to the no-oscillation band. Of the eight solutions illustrated in Figure 6, only the LMA solution offers the possibility of a definitive ($`>3\sigma `$) deviation from the no-oscillation hypothesis.

The diagnostic power of the ratio of neutral-current rate to charged-current rate, \[NC\]/\[CC\], is much greater. The current best global solution predicts a significant deviation from the no-oscillation hypothesis if either of the LMA, SMA, LOW or VAC solutions for active neutrinos is valid. But the Just So2 active neutrino solution and the Just So2 and SMA sterile neutrino solutions predict a double ratio that can be consistent with the no-oscillation value. The predicted numerical range for the \[NC\]/\[CC\] ratio is given in Section 5 for each of the currently allowed oscillation regions.

JNB and PIK acknowledge support from NSF grant No. PHY0070928 and PIK acknowledges support from DOE grant DE-FG02-84ER40163. We are grateful to A. Friedland and E. Lisi for valuable comments and suggestions.


format: text

text:
# New physics effects to the lepton polarizations in the 𝐵→𝐾ℓ⁺ℓ⁻ decay

## 1 Introduction

The two $`B`$ meson factories BaBar and Belle , which have already started operation, open an exciting new era in studying physics of $`B`$ mesons. Both factories have already presented thrilling results on CP violation . The physics program of the B factories contain two main directions: detailed study of CP violation in $`B_d`$ decays and precise measurement of rare Flavor Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) processes. It is well known that FCNC processes are very sensitive to the new physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). So, main goal of the investigations undergoing at $`B`$ factories is to find inconsistencies within the SM, in particular find indications for new physics in the flavor and CP violating sector . New physics effects can appear in rare $`B`$ meson decays in two different ways, either through new contributions to the Wilson coefficients existing in the SM or through the new structures in the effective Hamiltonian which are absent in the SM. Rare $`B`$ meson decays induced by $`bs(d)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ transition has been extensively studied in framework of the SM and its various extensions . One of the efficient ways in establishing new physics beyond the SM is the measurement of the lepton polarization . All previous studies for the lepton polarization have been limited to SM and its minimal extensions, except the works . In  the analysis of the $`\tau `$ lepton polarization for the inclusive $`bs\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay was presented in a model independent way and in  lepton polarizations are investigated using the most general model independent Hamiltonian for the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay.

The aim of this work is studying lepton polarizations in the exclusive $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay using the general form of the effective Hamiltonian including all possible form of interactions. Here we will study $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ leptonic modes because of the following two reasons. Firstly, the electron polarization is hard to measure experimentally, and secondly, it is well known that in the SM the normal $`P_N`$ and transversal $`P_T`$ polarizations are both proportional to the lepton mass and hence their measurements might be possible especially in the $`\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ channel.

The work is organized as follows. In section 2, using a general form of four–Fermi interaction we derive the general expressions for the longitudinal, transversal and normal polarizations of leptons. In section 3 we investigate the sensitivity of the above–mentioned polarizations to the new Wilson coefficients. At the end of this section we also present our conclusion.

## 2 Calculation of lepton polarizations

In this section we compute the lepton polarization asymmetries, using the most general, model independent form of the effective Hamiltonian. The effective Hamiltonian for the $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ transition in terms of twelve model independent four–Fermi interactions can be written in the following form:

$`_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{ts}V_{tb}^{}\{C_{SL}\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\nu }{q^2}}Lb\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}+C_{BR}\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\nu }{q^2}}Rb\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}`$
$`+C_{LL}^{tot}\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_L+C_{LR}^{tot}\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_R+C_{RL}\overline{s}_R\gamma _\mu b_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_L`$
$`+C_{RR}\overline{s}_R\gamma _\mu b_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_R+C_{LRLR}\overline{s}_Lb_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\mathrm{}_R+C_{RLLR}\overline{s}_Rb_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\mathrm{}_R`$
$`+C_{LRRL}\overline{s}_Lb_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}_L+C_{RLRL}\overline{s}_Rb_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}_L+C_T\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}`$
$`+iC_{TE}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}\},`$
where the chiral projection operators $`L`$ and $`R`$ in (2) are defined as

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _5}{2}},R={\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}},`$
and $`C_X`$ are the coefficients of the four–Fermi interactions and $`q=p_Bp_K`$ is the momentum transfer. Note that among twelve Wilson coefficients several already exist in the SM. The coefficients $`C_{SL}`$ and $`C_{BR}`$ correspond to $`2m_sC_7^{eff}`$ and $`2m_bC_7^{eff}`$ in the SM, respectively. The next four terms in Eq. (2) are the vector type interactions with coefficients $`C_{LL}^{tot}`$, $`C_{LR}^{tot}`$, $`C_{RL}`$ and $`C_{RR}`$. Two of these vector interactions containing $`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ and $`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ do exist in the SM as well in the form $`(C_9^{eff}C_{10})`$ and $`(C_9^{eff}+C_{10})`$. Therefore we can say that $`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ and $`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ describe the sum of the contributions from SM and the new physics and they can be written as

$`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}C_{10}+C_{LL},`$
$`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}+C_{10}+C_{LR},`$
The terms with coefficients $`C_{LRLR}`$, $`C_{RLLR}`$, $`C_{LRRL}`$ and $`C_{RLRL}`$ describe the scalar type interactions. The last two terms with the coefficients $`C_T`$ and $`C_{TE}`$, obviously, describe the tensor type interactions.

Exclusive $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay is described by the matrix element of effective Hamiltonian over $`B`$ and $`K`$ meson states, which can be parametrized in terms of form factors. It follows from Eq. (2) that in order to calculate the amplitude of the $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay, the following matrix elements are needed

$`K\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu b\right|B,`$
$`K\left|\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu b\right|B,`$
$`K\left|\overline{s}b\right|B,`$
$`K\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\right|B.`$
These matrix elements are defined as follows:

$`K(p_K)\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu b\right|B(p_B)=f_+\left[(p_B+p_K)_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_K^2}{q^2}}q_\mu \right]+f_0{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_K^2}{q^2}}q_\mu ,`$ (2)
with $`f_+(0)=f_0(0)`$,

$`K(p_K)\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\right|B(p_B)=i{\displaystyle \frac{f_T}{m_B+m_K}}\left[(p_B+p_K)_\mu q_\nu q_\mu (p_B+p_K)_\nu \right],`$ (3)
The matrix elements $`K(p_K)\left|\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu b\right|B(p_B)`$ and $`K\left|\overline{s}b\right|B`$ can be calculated by contracting both sides of Eqs. (2) and (3) with $`q^\mu `$, and using equation of motion we get

$`K(p_K)\left|\overline{s}b\right|B(p_B)`$ $`=`$ $`f_0{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_K^2}{m_bm_s}},`$ (4)
$`K(p_K)\left|\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu b\right|B(p_B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_T}{m_B+m_K}}\left[(p_B+p_K)_\mu q^2q_\mu (m_B^2m_K^2)\right].`$ (5)
Taking into account Eqs. (24), the matrix element of the $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay can be written as

$`(BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{4\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\{\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}[A(p_B+p_K)_\mu +Bq_\mu ]`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{}\left[C(p_B+p_K)_\mu +Dq_\mu \right]+\overline{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}Q+\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _5\mathrm{}N`$
$`+`$ $`4\overline{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}(iG)\left[(p_B+p_K)_\mu q_\nu (p_B+p_K)_\nu q_\mu \right]`$
$`+`$ $`4\overline{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }H[(p_B+p_K)_\mu q_\nu (p_B+p_K)_\nu q_\mu ]\}.`$
The auxiliary functions above are defined as

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{LR}^{tot}+C_{RL}+C_{RR})f_++2(C_{BR}+C_{SL}){\displaystyle \frac{f_T}{m_B+m_K}},`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{LR}^{tot}+C_{RL}+C_{RR})f_{}2(C_{BR}+C_{SL}){\displaystyle \frac{f_T}{(m_B+m_K)q^2}}(m_B^2m_K^2),`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LR}^{tot}+C_{RR}C_{LL}^{tot}C_{RL})f_+,`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LR}^{tot}+C_{RR}C_{LL}^{tot}C_{RL})f_{},`$ (7)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`f_0{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_K^2}{m_bm_s}}(C_{LRLR}+C_{RLLR}+C_{LRRL}+C_{RLRL}),`$
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`f_0{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_K^2}{m_bm_s}}(C_{LRLR}+C_{RLLR}C_{LRRL}C_{RLRL}),`$
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_T}{m_B+m_K}}f_T,`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{TE}}{m_B+m_K}}f_T,`$
where

$`f_{}=(f_0f_+){\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_K^2}{q^2}}.`$
It follows immediately from Eq. (6) that the difference from the SM is due to the last four terms only, namely, scalar and tensor type interactions. Using Eq. (6) we next calculate the final lepton polarizations for the $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay. For this purpose we define the following orthogonal unit vectors, $`S_L^\mu `$ in the rest frame of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`S_L^{+\mu }`$ in the rest frame of $`\mathrm{}^+`$, for the polarization of the leptons along the longitudinal ($`L`$), transversal ($`T`$) and normal ($`N`$) directions:

$`S_L^\mu `$ $``$ $`(0,\stackrel{}{e}_L^{})=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{}}{\left|\stackrel{}{p}_{}\right|}}),`$
$`S_N^\mu `$ $``$ $`(0,\stackrel{}{e}_N^{})=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_K\times \stackrel{}{p}_{}}{\left|\stackrel{}{p}_K\times \stackrel{}{p}_{}\right|}}),`$
$`S_T^\mu `$ $``$ $`(0,\stackrel{}{e}_T^{})=(0,\stackrel{}{e}_N^{}\times \stackrel{}{e}_L^{}),`$ (8)
$`S_L^{+\mu }`$ $``$ $`(0,\stackrel{}{e}_L^+)=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_+}{\left|\stackrel{}{p}_+\right|}}),`$
$`S_N^{+\mu }`$ $``$ $`(0,\stackrel{}{e}_N^+)=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_K\times \stackrel{}{p}_+}{\left|\stackrel{}{p}_K\times \stackrel{}{p}_+\right|}}),`$
$`S_T^{+\mu }`$ $``$ $`(0,\stackrel{}{e}_T^+)=(0,\stackrel{}{e}_N^+\times \stackrel{}{e}_L^+),`$
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_K`$ are the three momenta of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`K`$ meson in the center of mass (CM) frame of the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ system, respectively. The longitudinal unit vectors $`S_L^{}`$ and $`S_L^+`$ are boosted to CM frame of $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ by Lorentz transformation,

$`S_{L,CM}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\left|\stackrel{}{p}_{}\right|}{m_{\mathrm{}}}},{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{p}_{}}{m_{\mathrm{}}\left|\stackrel{}{p}_{}\right|}}),`$
$`S_{L,CM}^{+\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\left|\stackrel{}{p}_{}\right|}{m_{\mathrm{}}}},{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{p}_{}}{m_{\mathrm{}}\left|\stackrel{}{p}_{}\right|}}),`$ (9)
while vectors $`\stackrel{}{S}_N`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S}_T`$ are not changed by boost.

The differential decay rate of the $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay for any spin direction $`\stackrel{}{n}^{()}`$ of the $`\mathrm{}^{()}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{n}^{()}`$ is the unit vector in the $`\mathrm{}^{()}`$ rest frame, can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{n}^{()})}{dq^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}\right)_0\left[1+\left(P_L^{()}\stackrel{}{e}_L^{()}+P_N^{()}\stackrel{}{e}_N^{()}+P_T^{()}\stackrel{}{e}_T^{()}\right)\stackrel{}{n}^{()}\right],`$ (10)
where $`\left(d\mathrm{\Gamma }/dq^2\right)_0`$ corresponds to the unpolarized differential decay rate, and $`P_L`$, $`P_N`$ and $`P_T`$ represent the longitudinal, normal and transversal polarizations, respectively. The expression for the unpolarized differential decay rate in Eq. (10) is

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}\right)_0={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha ^2}{2^{14}\pi ^5m_B}}\left|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right|^2\lambda ^{1/2}(1,r,s)v\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (11)
where $`\lambda (1,r,s)=1+r^2+s^22r2s2rs`$ , $`s=q^2/m_B^2`$, $`r=m_K^2/m_B^2`$ and $`v=\sqrt{14m_{\mathrm{}}^2/q^2}`$ is the lepton velocity. The explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`128\lambda m_B^4m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(AG^{})+32m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}^2(1r)\text{Re}(CD^{})+16m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}(1r)\text{Re}(CN^{})`$
$`+`$ $`16m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}^2s\left|D\right|^2+4m_B^2s\left|N\right|^2+16m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}s\text{Re}(DN^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1024}{3}}\lambda m_B^6sv^2\left|H\right|^2`$
$`+`$ $`4m_B^2sv^2\left|Q\right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\lambda m_B^4s(3v^2)\left|A\right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{256}{3}}\lambda m_B^6s(3v^2)\left|G\right|^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}m_B^4s\left\{2\lambda (1v^2)\left[2\lambda 3(1r)^2\right]\right\}\left|C\right|^2.`$
The polarizations $`P_L`$, $`P_N`$ and $`P_T`$ are defined as:

$`P_i^{()}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}(\stackrel{}{n}^{()}=\stackrel{}{e}_i^{()}){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}(\stackrel{}{n}^{()}=\stackrel{}{e}_i^{()})}{{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}(\stackrel{}{n}^{()}=\stackrel{}{e}_i^{()})+{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}(\stackrel{}{n}^{()}=\stackrel{}{e}_i^{()})}},`$
where $`P^{()}`$ represents the charged lepton $`\mathrm{}^{()}`$ polarization asymmetry for $`i=L,N,T`$, i.e., $`P_L`$ and $`P_T`$ are the longitudinal and transversal asymmetries in the decay plane, respectively, and $`P_N`$ is the normal component to both of them. With respect to the direction of the lepton polarization, $`P_L`$ and $`P_T`$ are $`P`$–odd, $`T`$–even, while $`P_N`$ is $`P`$–even, $`T`$–odd and $`CP`$–odd. calculations lead to the following results for the longitudinal, transversal and normal polarization of the $`\mathrm{}^{()}`$:

$`P_L^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{4m_B^2v}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\{\pm {\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\lambda m_B^2\text{Re}(AC^{}){\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\lambda m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(CG^{}){\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\lambda m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(AH^{})`$ (12)
$`4m_{\mathrm{}}(1r)\text{Re}(CQ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{256}{3}}\lambda m_B^4s\text{Re}(GH^{})4m_{\mathrm{}}s\text{Re}(DQ^{})2\text{Re}(NQ^{})\},`$
$`P_T^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi m_B^3\sqrt{s\lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\{\pm {\displaystyle \frac{4}{s}}m_{\mathrm{}}(1r)\text{Re}(AC^{}){\displaystyle \frac{64}{s}}(1r)m_{\mathrm{}}^2\text{Re}(CG^{})`$
$`\pm 4m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(AD^{})64m_{\mathrm{}}^2\text{Re}(DG^{})\pm 2\text{Re}(AN^{})32m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(GN^{})+2v^2\text{Re}(CQ^{})\},`$
$`P_N^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{m_B^3v\sqrt{s\lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left\{4m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Im}(CD^{})+2\text{Im}(CN^{})2\text{Im}(AQ^{})\pm 32m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Im}(CG^{})\right\}`$ . (14)
From these expressions we can make the following conclusion. Contributions coming from the SM to $`P_L^{}`$ and $`P_L^+`$ are exactly the same but with the opposite sign. However contributions coming from new interactions to $`P_L^{}`$ and $`P_L^+`$ can have same or opposite sign. This can be useful in looking for new physics.

From Eq. (2) we observe that at zero lepton mass limit, contributions coming from scalar interactions survive. Similarly terms coming from scalar and tensor interactions survive in the massless lepton limit for $`P_L^{()}`$. Therefore, experimentally measured value of $`P_{L,T}^{()}`$ for the $`BK\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ can give a very promising hint in looking new physics beyond SM. About normal polarization we can comment as follows. One can see from Eq. (14) the difference between $`P_N^{}`$ and $`P_N^+`$ (for which SM predicts $`P_N^{}=P_N^+`$) is again due to the existence of the scalar and tensor interactions. Incidentally, w e should note that a similar situation takes place for the lepton polarizations in the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay . It follows from this discussion that a measurement of the lepton polarization of each lepton and combined analysis of lepton and antilepton polarizations $`P_L^{}+P_L^+`$, $`P_T^{}P_T^+`$ and $`P_N^{}+P_N^+`$ can give very useful information to constraint or to discover new physics beyond SM, which are all zero in the SM in the limit of massless leptons. Therefore if in experiments nonzero value of the above mentioned combined lepton asymmetries were observed, this can be considered as an discovery of the new physics beyond SM.

## 3 Numerical analysis

First of all we introduce the values of the input parameters used in the present work: $`\left|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right|=0.0385`$, $`\alpha ^1=129`$, $`G_F=1.17\times 10^5GeV^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_B=4.22\times 10^{13}GeV`$, $`C_9^{eff}=4.344,C_{10}=4.669`$. It is well known that the Wilson coefficient $`C_9^{eff}`$ receives short as well as long distance contributions coming from the real $`\overline{c}c`$ intermediate states, i.e., with the $`J/\psi `$ family, but in this work we consider only short distance contributions. Experimental data on $`(BX_s\gamma `$ fixes only the modulo of $`C_7^{eff}`$. For this reason throughout our analysis we have considered both possibilities, i.e., $`C_7^{eff}=0.313`$, where the upper sign corresponds to the SM prediction.

For the values of the form factors, we have used the results of  (see also ). The $`q^2`$ dependence of the form factors can be represented in terms of three parameters as

$`F(s)=F(0)exp(c_1s+c_2s^2+c_3s^3),`$ (15)
where the values of parameters $`F(0)`$, $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ for the $`BK`$ decay are listed in Table 1.

From the expressions of the lepton polarizations we see that they all depend on $`q^2`$ and the new Wilson coefficients. It may be experimentally difficult to study the dependence of the the polarizations of each lepton on both quantities. Therefore we eliminate the dependence of the lepton polarizations on $`q^2`$, by performing integration over $`q^2`$ in the allowed kinematical region, so that the lepton polarizations are averaged. The averaged lepton polarizations are defined as

$`P_i={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle _{4m_{\mathrm{}}^2}^{(m_bm_K)^2}}P_i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq^2}}𝑑q^2}{{\displaystyle _{4m_{\mathrm{}}^2}^{(m_bm_K)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq^2}}𝑑q^2}}.`$ (16)
We present our results in a series figures. Note that in all figures we presented the value of $`C_7^{eff}`$ is chosen to have its SM value, i.e., $`C_7^{eff}=0.313`$. Figs. (1) and (2) depict the dependence of the averaged longitudinal polarization $`P_L^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ and the combination $`P_L^{}+P_L^+`$ on new Wilson coefficients, at $`C_7^{eff}=0.313`$ for $`BK\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay. From these figures we see that $`P_L^{}`$ is sensitive to the existence of all new interactions except to vector and scalar interactions with coefficients $`C_{LL}`$, $`C_{RL}`$ and $`C_{RLLR}`$, $`C_{LRLR}`$, respectively, while the combined average $`P_L^{}+P_L^+`$ is sensitive to scalar type interactions only. It is interesting that contributions from $`C_{RLLR}`$, $`C_{LRLR}`$ ($`C_{LRRL}`$, $`C_{RLRL}`$) to the combined asymmetry is always negative (positive). Therefore determination of the sign of $`P_L^{}+P_L^+`$ can be useful in discriminating the type of the interaction. From Fig. (2) we see that $`P_L^{}+P_L^+=0`$ at $`C_X=0`$, which confirms the SM result as expected. For the other choice of $`C_7^{eff}`$, i.e., $`C_7^{eff}=0.313`$ the situation is similar to the previous case, but the magnitude of $`P_L^{}+P_L^+`$ is smaller. Figs. (3) and (4) are the same as Figs.(1) and (2) but for the $`BK\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay. In this case the difference of the dependence of the longitudinal polarization $`P_L^{}`$ on new Wilson coefficients from the muon case is as follows: In the muon case $`P_L^{}`$ is negative for all values of the new Wilson coefficients while for the tau case $`P_L^{}`$ can receive both values, for example for $`C_T<1`$, $`P_L^{}`$ is positive, and for $`C_T>1`$, $`P_L^{}`$ is negative.

It is obvious from Fig. (4) that if the values of the new Wilson coefficients $`C_{LRRL}`$, $`C_{LRLR}`$, $`C_{RLLR}`$, $`C_{RLRL}`$ and $`C_{TE}`$ are negative (positive), $`P_L^{}+P_L^+`$ is negative (positive). Absolutely similar situation takes place for $`C_7^{eff}>0`$. For these reasons determination of the sign and of course magnitude of $`P_L^{}+P_L^+`$ can give promising information about new physics.

In Figs. (5) and (6) the dependence of the average transversal polarization $`P_T^{}`$ and the combination $`P_T^{}P_T^+`$ on the new Wilson coefficients are presented for the $`BK\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay, respectively. We observe from Fig. (5) that the average transversal polarization is strongly dependent only on $`C_{LRRL}`$ and $`C_{RLRL}`$ and quite weakly to remaining Wilson coefficients. It is also interesting to note that for the negative (positive) values of these scalar coefficients $`P_T^{}`$ is negative (positive). For the $`P_T^{}P_T^+`$ case, there appears strong dependence on all four scalar interactions with coefficients $`C_{LRRL},C_{RLLR},C_{LRLR},C_{RLRL}`$. The behavior of this combined average transversal polarization is identical for the coefficients $`C_{LRLR},C_{RLLR}`$ and $`C_{LRRL},C_{RLRL}`$ in pairs, so that four lines responsible for these interactions appear only to be two. Moreover $`P_T^{}P_T^+`$ is negative (positive) for the negative (positive) values of the new Wilson coefficients $`C_{LRRL}`$ and $`C_{RLRL}`$ and positive (negative) for the coefficients $`C_{LRLR}`$ and $`C_{RLLR}`$. Remembering that in SM, in massless lepton case $`P_T^{}0`$ and $`P_T^{}P_T^+0`$. Therefore determination of the signs and magnitudes of $`P_T^{}`$ and $`P_T^{}P_T^+`$ can give quite a useful information about the existence of new physics. For the choice of $`C_7^{eff}=0.313`$, apart from the minor differences in their magnitudes, the behaviors of $`P_T^{}`$ and $`P_T^{}P_T^+`$ are similar as in the previous case.

As is obvious from Figs. (7) and (8), $`P_T^{}`$ and $`P_T^{}P_T^+`$ show stronger dependence only on $`C_T`$ for the $`BK\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay. Again $`P_T^{}`$ and $`P_T^{}P_T^+`$ change sign at $`C_T1`$. As has already been noted, determination of the sign and magnitude of $`P_T^{}`$ and $`P_T^{}P_T^+`$ are useful hints in looking for new physics.

Note that for simplicity all new Wilson coefficients in this work are assumed to be real. Under this condition $`P_N^{}`$ and $`P_N^{}+P_N^+`$ have non-vanishing values coming from the imaginary part of SM, i.e., from $`C_9^{eff}`$. From Figs. (9) and (10) we see that $`P_N^{}`$ and $`P_N^{}+P_N^+`$ are strongly dependent on all scalar type interactions for the $`BK\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay. Similar behavior takes place for the $`BK\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay as well. The change in sign and magnitude of both $`P_N^{}`$ and $`P_N^{}+P_N^+`$ that are observed in these figures is an indication of the fact that an experimental verification of them can give unambiguous information about new physics.

In the present work we analyze the possibility of pinning down new physics beyond SM by studying lepton polarizations only. It follows from Eq. (11) that the branching ratio of the $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay depends also on the new Wilson coefficients and hence we expect that it can give information about new physics. In this connection there follows the question: Can one establish new physics by studying the lepton polarizations only? In other words, are there regions of the new Wilson coefficients $`C_X`$ in which the value of the branching ratio coincides with that of the SM prediction, but the lepton polarizations would not? In order to answer this question, we present in Figs. (11)–(14) the dependence of the branching ratio on the average and combined average polarizations of the leptons. In these figures the value of the branching ratio ranges between the values $`10^7(BK\tau ^+\tau ^{})5\times 10^7`$. These figures depict that there indeed exist such regions of $`C_X`$ in which the value of the branching ratio does agree with the SM result, while the lepton polarizations differ from the SM prediction. It follows from the pair of Figs. (3), (11); (7), (13) and (8), (14), that if $`C_T`$ lies in the region $`2C_T0`$, the above–mentioned condition, i.e., mismatch of the polarizations in the standard model and the new physics, is fulfilled. On the other hand one can immediately see from Fig. (12) that such a region for the combined average longitudinal lepton polarization does not exist and hence it is not suitable in search of new physics. Note that in all figures intersection point of all curves correspond to the SM case. This analysis allows us to conclude that there exists certain regions of new Wilson coefficients for which study of the lepton polarization itself can give promising information about new physics.

Finally, a few words about the detectibilty of the lepton polarization asymmetries at $`B`$ factories or future hadron colliders, are in order. As an estimation, we choose the averaged values of the longitudinal polarization of muon and transversal and normal polarizations of the $`\tau `$ lepton, which are approximately close to the SM prediction, i.e., $`P_L0.9`$, $`P_T0.6`$ and $`P_N0.01`$. Experimentally, to measure an asymmetry $`P_i`$ of a decay with the branching ratio $`B`$ at the $`n\sigma `$ level, the required number of events is given by the formula $`N=n^2/(P_i^2`$. It follows from this expression that to observe the lepton polarizations $`P_L`$, $`P_T`$ and $`P_N`$ in $`BK\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay at $`1\sigma `$ level, the expected number of events are $`N=(1;3;10^4)\times 10^7`$, respectively. On the other hand, The number of $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs that is expected to be produced at $`B`$ factories is about $`N5\times 10^8`$. A comparison of these numbers allows us to conclude that while measurement of the normal polarization of the $`\tau `$ lepton is impossible, measurements of the longitudinal polarization of muon and transversal polarization of $`\tau `$ lepton could be accessible at $`B`$ factories.

## Figure captions

Fig. (1) The dependence of the average longitudinal polarization asymmetry $`P_L^{}`$ of muon on the new Wilson coefficients.
Fig. (2) The dependence of the combined average longitudinal polarization asymmetry $`P_L^{}+P_L^+`$ of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}^+`$ on the new Wilson coefficients for the $`BK\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$ decay.
Fig. (3) The same as in Fig. (1), but for the $`BK\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ decay.
Fig. (4) The same as in Fig. (2), but for the $`BK\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ decay.
Fig. (5) The same as in Fig. (1), but for the average transversal polarization asymmetry $`P_T^{}`$ of muon.
Fig. (6) The same as in Fig. (2), but for the transversal polarization asymmetry $`P_T^{}P_T^+`$.
Fig. (7) The same as in Fig. (5), but for the $`BK\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ decay.
Fig. (8) The same as in Fig. (6), but for the $`BK\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ decay.
Fig. (9) The dependence of the average normal asymmetry $`P_N^{}`$ of muon on the new Wilson coefficients.
Fig. (10) The dependence of the combined average normal polarization asymmetry $`P_N^{}+P_N^+`$ on the new Wilson coefficients for the $`BK\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$ decay.
Fig. (11) Parametric plot of the correlation between the integrated branching ratio $``$ (in units of $`10^7`$) and the average longitudinal lepton polarization asymmetry $`P_L^{}`$ as function of the new Wilson coefficients as indicated in the figure, for the $`BK\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ decay.
Fig. (12) The same as in the Fig. (11), but for the combined average longitudinal lepton polarization asymmetry $`P_L^{}+P_L^+`$.
Fig. (13) The same as in Fig. (11), but for the average transversal lepton polarization asymmetry $`P_T^{}`$ .
Fig. (14) The same as in the Fig. (13), but for the combined average transversal lepton polarization asymmetry $`P_T^{}P_T^+`$.