text:
# On Critical Phenomena in a Noncommutative Space

## I Introduction

Space quantization is an old idea. Specific coordinate commutation relations were suggested more than half century ago, in an attempt to resolve the short-distance singularities in local quantum field theory. Recently, interests in field theories on a noncommutative space (or simply NCFT) have been revived, particularly because of their emergence in string/M(atrix) theory. Also NCFT is expected to be relevant to planar quantum Hall systems in a strong magnetic field, since the guiding-center coordinates for the cyclotron motion of a charge in the lowest Landau level are known not to commute with each other.

The simplest case we have encountered in these instances is a space with constant noncommutativity:

$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(\mu ,\nu =1,2,\mathrm{},d),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ are real parameters, of dimension length squared. Classical field theory in such a space can be realized as a deformation of the usual field theory in an ordinary (commutative) space, by changing the product of two fields to the Moyal star product defined by

$$(fg)(x)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }_\mu ^x_\nu ^y)f(x)g(y)|_{y=x}.$$
(2)
Note that the first term on the right side gives the ordinary product, recovered in the limit $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }0`$. Also the commutatator (1) is realized as $`[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=x^\mu x^\nu x^\nu x^\mu `$.

An interesting issue of great importance for future applications of NCFT is whether spatial noncommutativity at short distances could show up in the low energy effective theory, or in the critical behavior at large distances. Conventional wisdom seems to point to a negative answer: When the distance scale under consideration is much larger than the length scale given by the coordinate noncommutativity, the effects of the latter should be negligible. More concretely, this argument goes as follows: The essential difference between the star and ordinary product is the terms other than the first one in eq. (2), which all involve derivatives of higher orders. It is well-known in theory of critical phenomena that the interactions containing derivatives of higher orders are all irrelevant. So one would expect noncommutativity effects to vanish at sufficiently low energies.

The other side of the coin is that the commutator (1) leads to the uncertainty relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }x^\nu \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$. It tells us that for a wave packet in this space, if we make its size in $`x^\mu `$-direction small, then its size in $`x^\nu `$-direction will become big. So the ultraviolet (UV) effects in $`x^\mu `$-direction are entangled with the infrared (IR) effects in $`x^\nu `$-direction. Conceptually we believe it is such UV-IR mixing, implied by coordinate commutation relations (1), that makes noncommutativity effects capable of showing up at large distances. This motivated us to study, using perturbative renormalization group techniques, the critical behavior of the noncommutative Landau-Ginsburg model (NCLGM). As reported below, though the upper critical dimension remains to be four, we have found a number of effects that exhibit the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-dependence at or near criticality. This confirms the entanglement between the UV (at the noncommutative scale, $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$) and the IR (at the scale of the correlation length) effects in a space described by eq. (1).

## II Noncommutative Landau-Ginsburg Model

For simplicity, we first consider the $`d=4`$ case, with only $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{12}=\mathrm{\Theta }^{34}=\mathrm{\Theta }0`$. The Euclidean action of the Landau-Ginsburg model with a real scalar field reads

$$S=d^4x[\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \varphi )^2+\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\frac{g}{4!}\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi ].$$
(3)
Here the star product is defined in eq. (2). Since the star product of two fields differs from the ordinary one only by a total divergence, the quadratic terms, as well as the $`\varphi `$-propagator, in NCLGM remain the same as in the ordinary Landau-Ginsburg model (OLGM). Also for a uniform phase with $`\varphi =const.`$, the quartic terms are the same as in OLGM. So assuming uniform phases, the phase structure at tree level is the same as in the ordinary case: The critical point is still given by $`m^2=0`$, separating the symmetric phase (with $`m^2>0`$ $`\varphi =0`$), and the symmetry broken phase (with $`m^2<0`$ and $`\varphi =const0`$). In this paper we consider only approaching to criticality from the symmetric phase.

The star product in the quartic term is invariant under only cyclic permutations of the factors. Using path integral, the Feynman rule in momentum space for the $`\varphi ^4`$ vertex acquires an additional phase factor:

$`\mathrm{exp}[(i/2){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}k_ik_j],`$ (4)
where $`k_i`$ are the cyclically ordered momenta flowing into the vertex, and $`k_ik_jk_{i,\mu }\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }k_{j,\nu }`$. To keep track of the ordering of the lines, we either allow lines crossing over each other, or introduce a double-line representation for the $`\varphi `$-propagator as if it is a marix. Either way, one can classify Feynman diagrams into planar and non-planar graphs. Alternatively, to simplify the symmetry factors, one can symmetrize the phase factor (4), resulting in the momentum space form of the quartic interactions:

$$S_4=\frac{1}{4!}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi (4)\varphi (3)\varphi (2)\varphi (1)u(4321),$$
(5)
where $`^\mathrm{\Lambda }=_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(_i\frac{d^4k_i}{(2\pi )^4}\right)(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}(_ik_i)`$. The function $`u(4321)`$ is given by

$`u(4321)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3}}[\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{k_1k_2}{2}})\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{k_3k_4}{2}})`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{k_1k_3}{2}})\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{k_2k_4}{2}})`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{k_1k_4}{2}})\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{k_2k_3}{2}})].`$ (8)
It turned out that a planar graph always gives the same contribution in OLGM (with $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$) multiplied by a phase factor, that depends only the external momenta and their cyclic ordering. Thus, planar graphs share the same UV divergences as in OLGM, so we still need a cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in momentum space to regulate the NCFT. But the behavior of non-planar graphs is very different from their $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ counterpart: Rapid oscillations of internal momentum dependent phase factors in the integrand make non-planar graphs in NCFT less divergent than in the ordinary theory. For example, vertex corrections at one loop in ordinary $`\varphi ^4`$ theory are known to be logarithmically divergent; from this one guesses that non-planar vertex diagrams should be finite in NCLGM. Indeed, this can be confirmed by explicit calculations (see below).

Perturbative calculations in this NCFT have been done at one  and two loops. It was found that for the inverse propagator, non-planar graphs make the two limits, the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and the external momentum $`k0`$, not interchangeable. If one insists to have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ first, then the propagator becomes singular as $`k0`$, seemingly obstructing a Wilsonian RG analysis. We observe that this potential IR problem can be bypassed by using a shell integration in momentum space in RG analysis, as advocated by Shankar and Polchinski.

## III RG analysis in $`d`$ dimensions

According to ref. , the RG transformation can be found by using (the cumulant expansion with) usual Feymann diagrams, with the loop integrals being over a thin shell $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/sk\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in momentum space ($`s>1`$). This shell integration represents the elimination of the fast modes $`\varphi _f(k)`$ with momentum $`k`$ within the above shell, resulting in an effective action for the slow modes $`\varphi _s(k)`$ with $`0k\mathrm{\Lambda }/s`$. Then we rescale the momentum $`ksk`$ and field variables, to make the effective action to be of the same form as the original one, but with a new set of coupling constants. The relations between the new and the old coupling constants define the RG transfomation of the system. As usual, we will adopt dimensional regularization, in which we first finish tensor operations involving $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ in four dimensions, then continue the loop integrals with scalar integrand to $`d`$ dimensions.

Applying this procedure to the quadratic term $`S_0=\frac{1}{2}^\mathrm{\Lambda }k^2\varphi (k)\varphi (k)`$ and requiring it be a fixed-point action, leads to the following RG transformations

$$k^{}=sk,\varphi ^{}(k^{})=s^{\frac{d+2}{2}}\varphi _s(k).$$
(9)
Similarly for the term $`S_2=\frac{m^2}{2}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi (k)\varphi (k)`$, the mode elimination by shell integration, together with RG transformation (9), leads to the tree level RG transformation:

$$m^2=s^2m^2.$$
(10)
So the quadratic $`S_2`$ is relevant in the RG sense. So far there is no difference between NCLGM and OLGM.

To proceed, if one naively expand the cosine factors in the quartic term (6) in powers in momenta, and apply the above RG transformation to each term, then at tree level this leads to the conclusion that all the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ dependent terms are irrelevant in any dimension. However, this expansion does not respect the star product structure, the intrinsic feature of any field theory on an NC space, that coherently organizes infinitely many higher order derivative terms. Though each of them behaves like irrelevant, their coherent sum may gives rise to non-trivial effects. Indeed, at least at one loop, it has been shown that counterterms have the same star product structure. Thus, the operators allowed to appear in the Wilsonian effective action must be always of the the form of a star product with the same $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ parameter. The generic quartic terms are always of the form of eq. (6), with the prefactor $`g`$ a function of momenta. Therefore, we should classify the terms in the square bracket in eq. (6) as a marginal operator and its marginality is protected from quantum fluctuations in NCFT intrinsically by geometry. The difference of our treatment from the RG analysis in the commutative case is that we apply the usual RG transformation only to the coefficient $`g(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)`$, with the star product structure intact, and define its relevance, irrelevance etc as usual. Thus at tree level $`g^{}=s^{4d}g`$.

At one-loop level, quartic terms give rise to a tadpole diagram. (See Fig. 1.)

Note that the loop momentum runs only over the shell $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }/s,\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$. The tadpole diagram contributes a correction to the quadratic term

$$S_2^{}=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{s}}\varphi (k)\varphi (k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(k),$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(k)`$ is given by (for $`s=1+t`$ very close to unity)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{6}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{s}}^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle \frac{2+\mathrm{cos}kp}{p^2+m^2}},`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{6}}K_d{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^dt}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+m^2}}(3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Theta }^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2k^2).`$ (13)
where $`K_d=S_d/(2\pi )^d`$ and $`S_d`$ is the surface area of a unit sphere in $`d`$ dimensions. In the last line, we have retained only terms up to second order in momentum $`k`$, since higher-order terms in $`k`$ are irrelevant.

The first term in eq. (12) is $`k`$-independent, modifying the RG transformation (10) to the following one-loop $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-independent RG equation

$$\frac{dr}{dt}=2r+\frac{1}{2}u(1r)K_d,$$
(14)
with dimensionless $`rm^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ and $`ug\mathrm{\Lambda }^{d4}`$; $`r1`$ is assumed.

However, in eq. (12) the second term comes from non-planar graphs. It is both $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$\- and $`k`$-dependent, and is marginal under the RG transformation (9), since it modifies the kinetic term $`S_0`$. Using field theory terminology, it gives rise to wave function renormalization for the $`\varphi `$-field, that explicitly depends on noncommutativity. This is our key observation in this paper. With this term, the Gaussian fixed point action $`S_0`$ is modified to

$`S_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{u}{48}}K_d(\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)^2t\right]{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{s}}}k^2\varphi (k)\varphi (k)`$ (15)
Using $`1+\gamma ts^\gamma `$, and introducing a dimensionless $`\theta =\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ for noncommutativity, we see that the $`\varphi `$-field acquires an anomalous dimension, modifying eq. (9) to

$$\varphi ^{}(k^{})=s^{\frac{d+2\gamma (u,\theta )}{2}}\varphi (k)$$
(16)
with the one-loop $`\gamma `$ depending on noncommutativity:

$$\gamma (u,\theta )=\frac{1}{48}uK_d\theta ^2.$$
(17)
This is a novel result, because in OLGM the anomalous dimension vanishes at one loop. It is a consequence of the nontrivial UV/IR mixing in NCLGM. Also unusual is that the negative value of this anomalous dimension. It may significantly affect the stability of the symmetric phase. We will come back to this point later.

To calculate one-loop corrections to the quartic interaction vertex, as in OLGM , we set all the external momenta to zero. With this prescription, a direct calculation shows that the one-loop RG equation in NCLGM for the quartic coupling $`u`$ is the same as in OLGM; i.e.,

$$\frac{du}{dt}=(4d)u\frac{3}{2}u^2K_d.$$
(18)
With RG equations (14), (18) and the anomalous dimension (17), we can now proceed to take a closer look on the new physics due to noncommutativity.

## IV In $`d4`$ dimensions

In NCLGM, the upper critical dimension remains to be $`d=4`$. When $`d>4`$, the quartic coupling $`u`$ is irrelevant. So it is the unique, trivial Gaussian fixed point, $`u^{}=0=r^{}`$, that controls the IR asymptotically free low-energy behavior, with the same sets of critical exponents as usual in mean field theory: $`\nu =1/2`$ and $`\eta =\gamma (u^{},\theta )=0`$.

However, this is not the whole story, when we consider approaching to the critical point $`r=0`$. In fact, the modified scaling law (16) gives a two-point correlation function behaving like

$$\varphi (x)\varphi (0)\frac{1}{x^{d2+\gamma }}.$$
(19)
Due to the minus sign in (17), for very large noncommutative parameter $`\theta `$, the above correlation function does not diverge, which signals an instability of the system. The critical value, $`\theta _c`$, is given by condition

$$u\theta _c^2=\frac{48(d2)}{K_d}.$$
(20)
More precisely, the parameter space for NCLGM is now three-dimensional, described by $`(u,r,\theta )`$. The condition (20) gives us a surface in the parameter space. To access the Gaussian fixed point, we have to fine-tune the parameter $`\theta `$ to make $`\theta <\theta _c(u)`$. Of course, the more close to the fixed point, the less important is the condition (20), since $`\theta _c`$ is pushed to infinity when arriving at the Gaussian fixed point.

In the critical dimension $`d=4`$, the one-loop non-zero anomalous dimension (17) is expected to modify the logarithmic corrections to the scaling laws at criticality.

## V In $`d=4\epsilon `$ dimensions

If the dimension is slightly lower than four, the Gaussian fixed point becomes unstable in IR, and we have a new IR stable fixed point, the noncommutative counterpart of the Wilson-Fisher (NCWF) fixed point. Besides the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$, its position in $`(r,u)`$-space for small $`\epsilon 4d`$ is the same as in usual OLGM:

$$u^{}=\frac{16\pi ^2}{3}\epsilon ,r^{}=\frac{1}{6}\epsilon .$$
(21)
At this fixed point, the critical exponent $`\nu `$ is unchanged: $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\epsilon }{12}`$, but the one-loop critical exponent $`\eta `$ becomes non-vanishing:

$$\eta =\gamma (u^{},\theta )=\frac{\epsilon \theta ^2}{72}.$$
(22)
This result is characteristic of the NCLGM. We would like to stress three important aspects of the critical exponent (22): (1) It starts at order of $`\epsilon `$, while in OLGM it starts at order of $`\epsilon ^2`$ from a higher-order calculation. (2) It is negative, while it is positive in OLGM. (3) It looks non-universal because of its dependence on the dimensionless noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$. However, in the present case, the NCWF fixed point had better be viewed as a line of fixed points labelled by $`\theta `$. Since $`\theta `$ originates in the microscopic sector of the system, its appearance in the macroscopic critical exponent is a genuine manifestation of UV/IR mixing, namely, the fingerprint of a ”high-energy” parameter in low-energy phenomena.

To see how the anomalous dimension (22) affects the stability of the NCWF fixed point, let us examine the two-point correlation function

$$\varphi (x)\varphi (0)\frac{1}{x^{2\epsilon (1+\theta ^2/72)}}.$$
(23)
The criterion to maintain the stability of the NCWF fixed point is that the above correlation function should be divergent for short distances. However, now we have the additional parameter $`\theta `$ as a new knob to tune the system. If it is too large, the correlation function can become convergent. The critical value is given by

$$\theta _c=12/\sqrt{\epsilon },$$
(24)
which depends only on $`\epsilon `$. Therefore, if $`\theta <\theta _c`$, the NCWF fixed point is stable. On the contrary, for $`\theta >\theta _c`$ the NCWF fixed point will no longer be stable. This is reflected in the phase diagram, Fig. 2.

This situation is similar to previous RG analysis for one dimensional and three dimensional interacting fermion systems. There RG analysis could be used to show a similar instability for the Fermi liquid fixed point. To get the picture of the Luttinger liquid (in 1$`d`$) and BCS superconductivity (in 3$`d`$), one had to determine nonperturbatively the underlying physics for the new phase. Here to gain knowledge of the new phase for $`\theta >\theta _c`$, we also need extra efforts. But the study of the new phase in the large $`\theta `$ limit is beyond the scope of the present paper.

## VI Conclusions and Discussions

With the symmetric phase in NCLGM as an example, we have discussed the general features of critical phenomena on a noncommutative space. We have demonstrated that small spatial noncommutativity does not change the phase structure of the system, its upper critical dimension (four), nor the RG flow equations for $`r`$ and $`u`$, the positions of fixed points in ($`r`$,$`u`$)-space and their nature. So the critical behavior in $`d>4`$ is exactly the same as in the commutative case. On the other hand, through UV-IR mixing, noncommutativity gives rise to a non-zero anomalous dimension for the order parameter. In four dimensions it modifies logarithmic corrections to the scaling laws in the critical theory, while it changes the exponent $`\eta `$ at the NCWF fixed point in less than four dimensions. In fact, the NCWF fixed points form a line of fixed points, where the action contains a star product of $`\varphi ^4`$, labeled by the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta \mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, whose inverse is the analog of the magnetic flux per plaquette in a lattice model.

Our perturbative RG analysis starts with the assumption that the symmetric phase of NCLGM is continuously connected to that of OLGM, with $`\varphi =0`$. Our results are consistent with this assumption for small noncommutativity, while indicating instability towards a new phase for large $`\theta `$, consistent with the phase diagram conjectured in ref. .

We expect that noncommutativity should also show up in the critical exponents in the symmetry-broken phase in the NCLGM. Moreover, our analysis is consistent with the proposition, made recently in refs.  and , that the NCLGM is perturbatively renormalizable. Details of our computations and generalization to the complex scalar and non-relativistic cases will be published elsewhere .

Acknowledgment One of us (GHC) acknowledges stimulating discussions with M.P.A. Fisher on possible relevance of noncommutativity in low energy physics. This research was supported in part by the U.S. NSF under Grant No. PHY-9970701.


format: text

text:
# 𝜂'𝐾 puzzle of 𝐵 meson decays and new physics effects in the TC2 model

## Appendix: Input parameters

In this appendix we present the relevant input parameters.

* Input parameters of electroweak and strong coupling constant, gauge boson masses, light meson masses, $`\mathrm{}`$, are as follows (all masses in unit of GeV )

$`\alpha _{em}=1/128,\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.118,\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.23,G_F=1.16639\times 10^5(GeV)^2,`$
$`M_Z=91.188,M_W=80.42,m_{B_d^0}=m_{B_u^\pm }=5.279,m_{\pi ^\pm }=0.140,`$
$`m_{\pi ^0}=0.135,m_\eta =0.547,m_\eta ^{}=0.958,m_{K^\pm }=0.494,m_{K^0}=0.498.`$ (62)
* For the elements of CKM matrix, we use Wolfenstein parametrization, fix the parameters $`A,\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ to their central values: $`A=0.81,\lambda =0.2205,\rho =0.12`$, but varying $`\eta `$ in the range of $`\eta =0.34\pm 0.08`$.
* We first treat the internal quark masses in the loops as constituent masses: $`m_b=4.88\mathrm{GeV},m_c=1.5\mathrm{GeV},m_s=0.5\mathrm{GeV},m_u=m_d=0.2\mathrm{GeV}`$. Second, we use the current quark masses for $`m_i`$ ($`i=u,d,s,c,b`$) which appear through the equation of motion when working out the hadronic matrix elements. For $`\mu =2.5\mathrm{GeV}`$, one found : $`m_b=4.88\mathrm{GeV},m_c=1.5\mathrm{GeV},m_s=0.122\mathrm{GeV},m_d=7.6\mathrm{MeV},m_u=4.2\mathrm{MeV}`$. For the mass of heavy top quark we use $`m_t=\overline{m_t}(m_t)=168\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$.
* For the decay constants of light mesons, the following values will be used in the numerical calculations (in the units of MeV):

$`f_\pi =133,f_K=158,f_\eta ^u=f_\eta ^d=78,f_\eta ^{}^u=f_\eta ^{}^d=68,`$
$`f_\eta ^c=0.9,f_\eta ^{}^c=0.23,f_\eta ^s=113,f_\eta ^{}^c=141.`$ (63)
where $`f_{\eta ^{(^{})}}^u`$ and $`f_{\eta ^{(^{})}}^s`$ have been defined in the two-angle-mixing formalism with $`\theta _0=9.1^{}`$ and $`\theta _8=22.2^{}`$.
* The relevant form factors are

$`F_0^{B\pi }(0)=0.33,F_0^{BK}(0)=0.38,F_0^{B\eta }(0)=0.145,F_0^{B\eta ^{}}(0)=0.135,`$ (64)
in the BSW model , and

$`F_0^{B\pi }(0)=0.36,F_0^{BK}(0)=0.41,F_0^{B\eta }(0)=0.16,F_0^{B\eta ^{}}(0)=0.145,`$ (65)
in the LQQSR approach. And the momentum dependence of form factor $`F_0(k^2)`$ was defined in Ref. as $`F_0(k^2)=F_0(0)/(1k^2/m^2(0^+))`$. The pole masses being used to evaluate the $`k^2`$ dependence of form factors are $`m(0^+)=5.73`$ GeV for $`\overline{u}b`$ and $`\overline{d}b`$ currents, and $`m(0^+)=5.89`$ GeV for $`\overline{s}b`$ currents.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Authors are very grateful to D.S. Du, K.T. Chao, C.S.Li, C.D. Lü, Y.D. Yang and M.Z.Yang for helpful discussions. Z.J. Xiao acknowledges the support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant No.19575015 and 10075013, the Excellent Young Teachers Program of Ministry of Education, P.R.China and the Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province under the Grant No. 994050500.


text:
# 1 Angular dependence

## 1 Angular dependence

The essential parts of this and next section can be found in many references . Here, we attempt to describe central concepts and derive critical expressions as simply as possible.

### 1.1 Introduction

We consider a two-body decay $`0a+b`$ in the rest frame of the parent particle, where the spin state $`(J,M)`$ of the parent particle and the helicities $`\lambda _{a,b}`$ of the daughters are given. The final state with a definite total angular momentum and definite helicities can be constructed as follows: In general, if $`|\widehat{n}\lambda `$ is a state with total angular momentum $`\lambda `$ along the direction $`\widehat{n}`$, one can form a state with total angular momentum $`|J,M`$ where the quantization axis is taken as the $`z`$ direction (i.e. in the lab frame), as

$$|JM,\lambda =𝑑\widehat{n}D_{M,\lambda }^J(\widehat{n})|\widehat{n}\lambda ,$$
(1)
with

$$d\widehat{n}=d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\theta ,D_{m,m^{}}^j(\widehat{n})=D_{m,m^{}}^j(\varphi ,\theta ,0)$$
(2)
where $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ is the polar coordinate of the direction $`\widehat{n}`$, and $`D_{m,m^{}}^j(\widehat{n})`$ is the rotation function, or the wave function of a top with total angular momentum $`|JM`$ and the component along $`\widehat{n}`$ given by $`\lambda `$ which is also a good quantum number.

Suppose $`|\widehat{p}\lambda _a\lambda _b`$ is the state in which particle $`a`$ is moving in the $`\widehat{p}`$ direction with helicity $`\lambda _a`$ and particle $`b`$ is moving in the $`\widehat{p}`$ direction with helicity $`\lambda _b`$:

$$|\widehat{p}\lambda _a\lambda _b=|\widehat{p}\lambda _a|\widehat{p}\lambda _b.$$
(3)
Then, (1) with the identification

$$\widehat{n}=\widehat{p},\lambda =\lambda _a\lambda _b,$$
(4)
gives the state with total angular momentum $`|JM`$ and total helicity $`\lambda _a\lambda _b`$ along the direction of $`a`$:

$$|JM,\lambda _a\lambda _b=N𝑑\widehat{p}D_{M\lambda _a\lambda _b}^J(\widehat{p})|\widehat{p}\lambda _a\lambda _b,$$
(5)
where $`N`$ is a normalization factor. The ranges of the integration are

$$1\mathrm{cos}\theta 1,0\varphi 2\pi .$$
(6)
The possible values of the heclicities are constrained by

$$|\lambda _a\lambda _b|M,$$
(7)
which arises since the orbital angular momentum cannot have a component along the line of decay. The construction (5) indicates that the amplitude for particle $`a`$ to be in direction $`\widehat{p}`$ is $`D_{M\lambda _a\lambda _b}^J(\widehat{p})`$.

Transformation of the state $`|JM,\lambda _a\lambda _b`$ under parity is given by

$$P|JM,\lambda _a\lambda _b=\pi _a\pi _b(1)^{Js_as_b}|JM,\lambda _a\lambda _b,$$
(8)
where $`s_{a,b}`$ and $`\pi _{a,b}`$ are the spins and intrinsic parities of the daughter particles, respectively.

### 1.2 $`BV_aV_b`$, helicity basis

In $`B`$ decays of the type $`BV_aV_b`$ ($`V`$: a vector), such as $`B^+\mathrm{\Psi }K^+`$ and $`\overline{D}^0\rho ^+`$, we have

$$J=M=0,s_a=s_b=1,\pi _a=\pi _b=1.$$
(9)
The constraint (7) with $`M=0`$ means $`\lambda _a=\lambda _b`$, and thus there are three possible helicity states:

$$(\lambda _a,\lambda _b)=(+1,+1),(0,0),\mathrm{or}(1,1).$$
(10)
Accordingly, the final state can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_f=\underset{\lambda }{}H_\lambda |f_\lambda (\lambda =+1,0,1),$$
(11)
where $`H_i`$ is the amplitude for each helicity state, and we have defined

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |f_{+1}& & |JM,+1+1,\hfill \\ \hfill |f_0& & |JM,00,\hfill \\ \hfill |f_1& & |JM,11.\hfill \end{array}(J=M=0)$$
(12)
In terms of decay amplitude, one can write

$$H_\lambda =f_\lambda |H_{\mathrm{eff}}|B,$$
(13)
where $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective Hamiltonian responsible for the decay.

When the daughter particles subsquently decay as

$$aa_1+a_2,bb_1+b_2,$$
(14)
the construction (5) applies to each decay in its rest frame. The decay amplitude for $`a_1`$ to be in direction $`(\theta _a,\varphi _a)`$ in the rest frame of $`a`$ and $`b_1`$ to be in direction $`(\theta _b,\varphi _b)`$ in the rest frame of $`b`$ is then (up to an overall constant)

$$A=\underset{m}{}H_mD_{m,\lambda _{a_1}\lambda _{a_2}}^{s_a}(\varphi _a,\theta _a,0)D_{m,\lambda _{b_1}\lambda _{b_2}}^{s_b}(\varphi _b,\theta _b,0).$$
(15)
The $`z`$ axis in the rest frame of $`a`$ is taken to be in the direction of $`\widehat{p}`$, and that in the rest frame of $`b`$ is taken to be in the direction of $`\widehat{p}`$; namely, each in the direction of the motion of the parent particle in the $`B`$ frame. The definition of the azimuthal angles amounts to defining the phase convention for the helicity amplitudes $`H_m`$. To be specific, we define that the $`x`$ directions in the two frames are the same (see Figure 1).

Using

$$D_{m,m^{}}^j(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=e^{im\alpha }d_{m,m^{}}^j(\beta )e^{im^{}\gamma },$$
(16)
the amplitude can be written as

$$A=\underset{m}{}H_me^{im\chi }d_{m,\lambda _{a_1}\lambda _{a_2}}^{s_a}(\theta _a)d_{m,\lambda _{b_1}\lambda _{b_2}}^{s_b}(\theta _b),$$
(17)
with

$$\chi \varphi _a+\varphi _b$$
(18)
being the azimuthal angle from $`b_1`$ to $`a_1`$ measured counter-clock-wise looking down from the $`a`$ side.

### 1.3 Transversity basis

Using the values (9), the parity transformation (8) reads

$$P|f_{+1}=|f_1P|f_0=|f_0P|f_1=|f_{+1};$$
(19)
namely, the helicity-basis states $`|\pm 1`$ are not parity eigenstates. However, we can construct parity eigenstates as

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill |f_{}& & \frac{|f_{+1}+|f_1}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill & \hfill (P+)\\ \hfill |f_{}& & \frac{|f_{+1}|f_1}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill & \hfill (P)\end{array},\text{ and }|f_0(P+).$$
(20)
The final state (11) can then be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_f=\underset{\lambda }{}A_\lambda |f_\lambda (\lambda =,0,),$$
(21)
with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A_{}& & \frac{H_++H_{}}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill \\ \hfill A_{}& & \frac{H_+H_{}}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill \end{array},\text{ and }A_0H_0.$$
(22)
This basis is called the transversity basis .

An often-used set of angles for the transversity basis can be obtained as follows: We note first that the angles $`(\theta _a,\chi )`$ defined in the previous section is the polar coordinate of the $`a_1`$ direction in the $`a`$ rest frame where the $`z`$-direction is taken to be opposite the direction of $`b`$ in that frame and the $`x`$ direction is taken to be in the decay plane of $`bb_1b_2`$ such that $`p_x(b_1)`$ is positive. This defines a right-handed coordinate system where the $`y`$ axis is perpendicular to the decay plane. We now define a new right handed system by

$$x^{}=z,y^{}=x,z^{}=y,$$
(23)
where the $`z^{}`$-axis is now perpendicular to the $`b`$ decay plane. Then, $`(\theta _{tr},\theta _{tr})`$ is defined as the polar coordinate of the $`a_1`$ in this new system. Namely, $`(\varphi _{tr},\varphi _{tr})`$ and $`(\theta _a,\chi )`$ are related by

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}x^{}& =& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr}& =& \mathrm{cos}\theta _a& =& z\\ y^{}& =& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr}& =& \mathrm{sin}\theta _a\mathrm{cos}\chi & =& x\\ z^{}& =& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}& =& \mathrm{sin}\theta _a\mathrm{sin}\chi & =& y\end{array}.$$
(24)
These angles are shown for the case of $`D^{}\rho `$ in Figure 2.

Note, however, that one could also use the angles $`(\chi ,\theta _a,\theta _b)`$ for the transversity basis.

#### 1.3.1 $`B\overline{D}^{}\rho ^+`$ (helicity)

A full angular analysis of this mode has been presented at conferences , but has not been published. Here, we consider the decay $`B\overline{D}^{}\rho ^+`$ which is followed by

$$\overline{D}^{}\overline{D}\pi ,\rho ^+\pi ^+\pi ^0.$$
(25)
We assign,

$$a=\overline{D}^{},a_1=\overline{D},a_2=\pi ,b=\rho ^+,b_1=\pi ^+,b_2=\pi ^0.$$
(26)
The decays of $`D^{}`$ and $`\rho `$ have only one helicity state:

$$\lambda _{a_1}\lambda _{a_2}=0,\lambda _{b_1}\lambda _{b_2}=0.$$
(27)
Thus, the general amplitude form (17) becomes

$$A=\underset{m}{}H_me^{im\chi }d_{m,0}^1(\theta )d_{m,0}^1(\psi ),$$
(28)
where we have relabeled the polar angles

$$\theta =\theta _a(D^{}),\psi =\theta _b(\rho ).$$
(29)
This can be rewritten as

$$A=H_+g_++H_0g_0+H_1g_1$$
(30)
where

$`g_{+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{i\chi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi `$
$`g_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi `$
$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{i\chi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi .`$ (31)
We have used

$$d_{1,1}^1(\theta )=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2},d_{1,0}^1(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{2}},d_{1,1}^1(\theta )=\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2},$$
(32)
together with

$$d_{m,m^{}}^j(\theta )=()^{mm^{}}d_{m^{},m}^j(\theta )=d_{m^{},m}^j(\theta ).$$
(33)
The square of the amplitude is

$`|A|^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}H_mg_m)^{}({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}H_ng_n)`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}|H_m|^2|g_m|^2`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{m<n}{}}\left(\mathrm{}(H_m^{}H_n)\mathrm{}(g_m^{}g_n)\mathrm{}(H_m^{}H_n)\mathrm{}(g_m^{}g_n)\right).`$
Using the explicit forms for $`g_m`$, the final distribution is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\chi ,\theta ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{32\pi }}[(|H_+|^2+|H_{}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\psi +4|H_0|^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\psi `$ (35)
$`+2\left\{\mathrm{}(H_+H_{}^{})\mathrm{cos}2\chi \mathrm{}(H_+H_{}^{})\mathrm{sin}2\chi \right\}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\psi `$
$`+\{\mathrm{}((H_++H_{})H_0^{})\mathrm{cos}\chi \mathrm{}((H_+H_{})H_0^{})\mathrm{sin}\chi \}\mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{sin}2\psi ],`$
where the normalization factor is chosen such that

$$_0^{2\pi }𝑑\chi _1^1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^1d\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\chi ,\theta ,\psi )=|H_+|^2+|H_{}|^2+|H_0|^2.$$
(36)
#### 1.3.2 $`BD^{}\rho `$ (transversity)

Here, we can transform the $`D^{}`$ side to transversity angles, or we could choose the $`\rho `$ side. We arbitrarily choose $`D^{}`$ side. We start from the amplitude (30) and apply the transformations (22) and (24). We obtain

$$\begin{array}{cccc}g_{}\hfill & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(g_++g_{})\hfill & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{cos}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \\ g_0\hfill & & =\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi \hfill & =\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{cos}\psi \hfill \\ g_{}\hfill & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(g_+g_{})\hfill & =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill & =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \end{array},$$
(37)
to be used in

$$A(\varphi _{tr},\theta _{tr},\psi )=\underset{m}{}A_mg_m(\varphi _{tr},\theta _{tr},\psi )(m=,0,).$$
(38)
Squaring this as before, the angular distribution becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi _{tr},\theta _{tr},\psi )}{d\varphi _{tr}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}d\mathrm{cos}\psi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{32\pi }}(|A_{}|^22\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi `$ (39)
$`+|A_{}|^22\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi +|A_0|^24\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi `$
$`+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}(A_{}^{}A_0)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{sin}2\psi \sqrt{2}\mathrm{}(A_0^{}A_{})\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{sin}2\psi `$
$`2\mathrm{}(A_{}^{}A_{})\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi )`$
Integrating this over $`\varphi _{tr}`$ loses all interference effects among different polarization states:

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi _{tr},\theta _{tr},\psi )}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}d\mathrm{cos}\psi }=\frac{9}{16}\left(|A_{}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi +|A_0|^22\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi +|A_{}^2|2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi \right).$$
(40)
At this point, we see that the even parity states ($`A_{}`$ and $`A_0`$) have $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}`$ distribution, and the odd parity state ($`A_{}`$) has $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{tr}`$ distribution. Thus, plotting $`\theta _{tr}`$ distribution only can separate even and odd parity components. On the other hand, both $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ are associated with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\psi `$, and thus $`\psi `$ distribution alone cannot separate different parity components. Further integrating over $`\psi `$ gives

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi _{tr},\theta _{tr},\psi )}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}}=\frac{3}{4}\left((|A_{}|^2+|A_0|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}+|A_{}^2|2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{tr}\right).$$
(41)
#### 1.3.3 $`B\mathrm{\Psi }K^{}`$ (helicity)

The time-independent analysis has been performed by many experiments . We assign

$$a=\mathrm{\Psi },a_1=\mathrm{}^+,a_2=\mathrm{}^{},b=K^{},b_1=K,a_2=\pi .$$
(42)
The decay $`K^{}K\pi `$ has only one helicity state $`\lambda _{b_{1,2}}=0`$. On the other hand, the final state of $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ can have multiple helicity states because of the lepton spins. The actual helicity states, however, are restricted to only two due to the vector nature of the coupling that creates the lepton pair:

$$(\lambda _\mathrm{}^+,\lambda _{\mathrm{}^{}})=(+\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\text{ or }(\frac{1}{2},+\frac{1}{2}).$$
(43)
We have thus,

$$\lambda _{a_1}\lambda _{a_2}=\pm 1,\lambda _{b_1}\lambda _{b_2}=0.$$
(44)
The final angular distribution is given by incoherent sum of the distributions for the two lepton helicity combinations:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\chi ,\theta ,\psi )=|A^{(+1)}|^2+|A^{(1)}|^2,$$
(45)
with

$$A^{(\lambda )}=\underset{m}{}H_me^{im\chi }d_{m\lambda }^1(\theta )d_{m0}^1(\psi ),$$
(46)
where we have relabeled the polar angles

$$\theta =\theta _a(\mathrm{\Psi }),\psi =\theta _b(K^{}).$$
(47)
The amplitude (46) has the form

$$A^{(\lambda )}=\underset{m}{}H_mg_m^{(\lambda )},$$
(48)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g_{+1}^{(+1)}& =& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )e^{i\chi }\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_0^{(+1)}& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_1^{(+1)}& =& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )e^{i\chi }\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \end{array},\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g_{+1}^{(1)}& \hfill =& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )e^{i\chi }\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_0^{(1)}& \hfill =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_1^{(1)}& \hfill =& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )e^{i\chi }\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \end{array}.$$
(49)
The square of the amplitude (48) is

$`|A^{(\lambda )}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}H_mg_m^{(\lambda )})^{}({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}H_,g_n^{(\lambda )})`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}|H_m|^2|g_m^{(\lambda )}|^2`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{m<n}{}}\left(\mathrm{}(H_m^{}H_n)\mathrm{}(g_m^{(\lambda )}g_n^{(\lambda )})\mathrm{}(H_m^{}H_n)\mathrm{}(g_m^{(\lambda )}g_n^{(\lambda )})\right).`$
Using the explicit forms for $`g_m^{(\lambda )}`$, the final distribution is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\chi ,\theta ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{64\pi }}[(|H_+|^2+|H_{}|^2)(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta ^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\psi +|H_0|^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\psi `$ (51)
$`2\left\{\mathrm{}(H_+^{}H_{})\mathrm{cos}2\chi +\mathrm{}(H_+^{}H_{})\mathrm{sin}2\chi \right\}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\psi `$
$`\{\mathrm{}((H_++H_{})^{}H_0)\mathrm{cos}\chi +\mathrm{}((H_+H_{})^{}H_0)\mathrm{sin}\chi \}\mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{sin}2\psi ],`$
where the normalization factor is chosen such that

$$_0^{2\pi }𝑑\chi _1^1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^1d\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\chi ,\theta ,\psi )=|H_+|^2+|H_{}|^2+|H_0|^2.$$
(52)
#### 1.3.4 $`B\mathrm{\Psi }K^{}`$ (transversity)

One can use the relations (22) and (24) directly in the angular distribution (51) to obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi _{tr},\theta _{tr},\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{32\pi }}[|A_{}|^2(1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{tr})\mathrm{sin}^2\psi `$ (53)
$`+|A_0|^22(1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _{tr})\mathrm{cos}^2\psi +|A_{}|^2\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}^2\mathrm{sin}\psi ^2`$
$`\mathrm{}(A_{}^{}A_0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}^2\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{sin}2\psi +\mathrm{}(A_0^{}A_{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{sin}2\psi `$
$`+\mathrm{}(A_{}^{}A_{})\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi ],`$
which is normalized as

$$_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi _{tr}_1^1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}_1^1d\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi _{tr},\theta _{tr},\psi )=|A_{}|^2+|A_{}|^2+|A_0|^2.$$
(54)
The transformation of angles can also be done at amplitude level. With the substitution of ampltudes (22), the amplitude for a given lepton total helicity $`\lambda `$ becomes

$$A^{(\lambda )}=\underset{m}{}A_mg_m^{(\lambda )},(m=,0,),$$
(55)
with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g_{}^{(+1)}& =& \frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta +i\mathrm{sin}\chi )\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_0^{(+1)}& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_{}^{(+1)}& =& \frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\chi +i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi )\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \end{array},$$
(56)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g_{}^{(1)}& \hfill =& \frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta i\mathrm{sin}\chi )\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_0^{(1)}& \hfill =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_{}^{(1)}& \hfill =& \frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\chi i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi )\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \end{array}.$$
(57)
In order to apply the transformation from $`(\theta ,\chi )`$ to $`(\theta _{tr},\varphi _{tr})`$, it is easier to multiply an overall phase factor which does not affect the final angular distribution. We take

$`\xi ^{(+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\chi +i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}}}\mathrm{for}g_m^{(+1)},`$
$`\xi ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\chi +i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}}}\mathrm{for}g_m^{(1)}.`$ (58)
It is easy to see that these factors are indeed pure phases using the relations (24):

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\underset{}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _{tr}}}+\underset{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\chi }{\underset{}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{tr}}}=\mathrm{cos}\theta ^2+\underset{\left(1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)\left(1\mathrm{sin}^2\chi \right)}{\underset{}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\chi }}`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`1\mathrm{sin}^2\chi +\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\chi =\mathrm{cos}^2\chi +\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\chi ,`$
$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{cos}\chi +i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}}\right|^2=\left|\frac{\mathrm{cos}\chi +i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}}\right|^2=1.$$
(60)
Multiplying $`\xi ^{(+1)}`$ to $`g_{}^{(+1)}`$, we have

$$g_{}^{(+1)}g_{}^{(+1)}\xi ^{(+1)}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta +i\mathrm{sin}\chi )\mathrm{sin}\psi \frac{\mathrm{cos}\chi +i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}}.$$
(61)
Using

$`(\mathrm{cos}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta +i\mathrm{sin}\chi )(\mathrm{cos}\chi +i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta i\mathrm{sin}\theta ^2\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{cos}\chi `$ (62)
$`=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}(\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr}+i\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr}),`$
the phase-rotated $`g_{}^{(+1)}`$ is then

$$g_{}^{(+1)}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr}+i\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr})\mathrm{sin}\psi .$$
(63)
Other functions are similarly obtained:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g_{}^{(+1)}& =& \frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr}+i\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr})\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_0^{(+1)}& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr}+i\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr})\mathrm{cos}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_{}^{(+1)}& =& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \end{array},$$
(64)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g_{}^{(1)}& \hfill =& \frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr}i\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr})\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_0^{(1)}& \hfill =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr}i\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr})\mathrm{cos}\psi \hfill \\ \hfill g_{}^{(1)}& \hfill =& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\psi \hfill \end{array}.$$
(65)
These functions gives

$$\begin{array}{c}_\lambda |g_{}^{(\lambda )}|^2=\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{tr})\mathrm{sin}^2\psi ,\\ _\lambda |g_0^{(\lambda )}|^2=(1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _{tr})\mathrm{cos}^2\psi ,_\lambda |g_{}^{(\lambda )}|^2=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi ,\\ _\lambda \mathrm{}(g_{}^{(\lambda )}g_0^{(\lambda )})=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{sin}2\psi ,_\lambda \mathrm{}(g_{}^{(\lambda )}g_0^{(\lambda )})=0,\\ _\lambda \mathrm{}(g_{}^{(\lambda )}g_0^{(\lambda )})=0,_\lambda \mathrm{}(g_{}^{(\lambda )}g_0^{(\lambda )})=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{sin}2\psi \\ _\lambda \mathrm{}(g_{}^{(\lambda )}g_{}^{(\lambda )})=0,_\lambda \mathrm{}(g_{}^{(\lambda )}g_{}^{(\lambda )})=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi ,\end{array}$$
(66)
which immediately leads to (53) through (50) where $`H_m`$ are relaced by $`A_m`$. Note that three of the combinations are zero; this arises from cancellations between the two lepton helicities $`\lambda =\pm 1`$.

### 1.4 Charge conjugate decays

For the charge conjugate decays ($`\overline{B}`$ decays), the rule for the definitions of angles is to start from the corresponding $`B`$ decay, exchange paritcles and antiparticles, and then apply the definition of angles as if the daughter particles were the original particles from the $`B`$ decay. For example, for the decays corresponding to assignment (26) for $`B\overline{D}^{}\rho ^+`$, the particles in the decay $`\overline{B}D^{}\rho ^{}`$ are assined as

$$a=D^{},a_1=D,a_2=\pi ,b=\rho ^{},b_1=\pi ^{},b_2=\pi ^0.$$
(67)
and the angles $`(\theta ,\chi ,\psi )`$ are defined in the same way in terms of $`a_{1,2}`$ and $`b_{1,2}`$. In particular, the angle $`\chi `$ is the azimuthal angle from $`b_1`$ to $`a_1`$ measured counter-clock-wise looking down from the $`a`$ side.

With this definition, the angular distribution is given by (17) with replacement

$$H_\lambda \overline{H}_\lambda ,$$
(68)
with

$$\overline{H}_\lambda \overline{f}_\lambda |H_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B}.$$
(69)
When $`CP`$ is conserved in decay, then we can take (see Appendix)

$$\overline{H}_\lambda =H_\lambda (CP),$$
(70)
which holds to all orders in perturbation theory. In the literature, one sometimes encounters a $`CPT`$ relation $`\overline{H}_\lambda =H_\lambda ^{}`$ which is correct only to first order in perturbation theory. This $`CPT`$ relation is thus not applicable to the decays of concern where the strong phases play inmportant role, since those phases are higher order effects. In terms of tranversity amplitudes, the $`CP`$ relation (68) reads

$$\overline{A}_{}=A_{},\overline{A}_{}=A_{},\overline{A}_0=A_0.(CP)$$
(71)
Inspecting the expressions for the angular distribution, one notes that moving from $`B`$ decay to $`\overline{B}`$ decay according to (70) or (71) corresponds to changing $`\chi `$ to $`\chi `$ for the helicity formulation, and $`\theta _{tr}\pi \theta _{tr}`$ for the transversity formulation. These are nothing but the parity transformation (or equivalantly the mirror inversion) of the configuration. Namely, if one exchanges particles and antiparticles and take mirror inversion, then the resulting angular distribution is the correct one, which is to say that $`CP`$ is conserved.

## 2 Time-dependence

In this section, we will develop a formalism suited for neutral $`B`$ decays to final states that are not $`CP`$ eigenstates. In later sections, it will be applied to $`D^+\pi ^{}`$ final state as well as each of the three polarization states of $`D^+\rho ^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }K^{}`$.

First, let us recall the time evolution of pure $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ states. Assuming $`CPT`$, the physical states $`B_a`$ and $`B_b`$ can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill B_a& =pB^0+q\overline{B}^0\hfill & (m_a,\gamma _a)\hfill \\ \hfill B_b& =pB^0q\overline{B}^0\hfill & (m_b,\gamma _b)\hfill \end{array},$$
(72)
where $`m_{a,b}`$ and $`\gamma _{a,b}`$ are the masses and decay rates of the corresponding physical states. Theoretically and experimentally, $`|p|=|q|`$ within error of order 1%. Here, we assume $`|p|=|q|`$ which makes $`p/q`$ a pure phase factor. The lowest order estimation gives (see Appendix)

$$\frac{p}{q}=\frac{V_{td}^{}V_{tb}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}.$$
(73)
which corresponds to the choice of the $`CP`$ phase of the neutral $`B`$ meson given by

$$CP|B^0=\eta _B|\overline{B}^0,CP|\overline{B}^0=\eta _B^{}|B^0,\mathrm{with}\eta _B=1.$$
(74)
The above value of $`p/q`$ is for the case $`B_a`$ is heavier than $`B_b`$:

$$m_a>m_b.$$
(75)
The physical states evolve as

$$B_aB_ae^{im_at\frac{\gamma _a}{2}t},B_bB_be^{im_bt\frac{\gamma _b}{2}t}.$$
(76)
Hereafter, we will assume that the decay rates of the two physical states are the same

$$\gamma _a=\gamma _b\gamma .$$
(77)
then, the factor $`e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}`$ decouples from all amplitudes, which we will drop for now and restore it at the end. We also separate an overall phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{m_a+m_b}{2}t)`$ and discard it since such overall phase factors do not affect measurable quantities. Then the evolutions of $`B_{a,b}`$ can be simplified as

$$B_aB_ae^{i\frac{\delta m}{2}t},B_bB_be^{i\frac{\delta m}{2}t}(\times e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}),$$
(78)
with

$$\delta mm_am_b>0.$$
(79)
Then, the time evolutions of pure $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ can be obtained by solving (72) for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ and then applying the time evolutions above:

$$B^0=\frac{B_a+B_b}{2p}\frac{1}{2p}(\underset{pB^0+q\overline{B}^0}{\underset{}{B_a}}e^{i\frac{\delta m}{2}t}+\underset{pB^0q\overline{B}^0}{\underset{}{B_b}}e^{i\frac{\delta m}{2}t})=B^0\mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\frac{q}{p}\overline{B}^0i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}.$$
(80)
The time evolution of $`\overline{B}`$ is similarly obtained. Restoring the decay factor $`e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}`$,

$`B^0`$ $``$ $`e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\left(B^0\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}\overline{B}^0i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}\right),`$
$`\overline{B}^0`$ $``$ $`e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\left(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}B^0i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}\right).`$ (81)
We now consider the decay amplitudes for a pure $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0`$ state at $`t=0`$ to decay to a final state $`f`$ or its charge conjugate state $`\overline{f}`$ at time $`t`$. The final state could be $`D^{()}\pi ^+`$ or any given polarization state of $`D^{}\rho ^+`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }K^0`$. Define four instantaneous dedcay amplitudes by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a& & Amp(B^0f)\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{a}& & Amp(\overline{B}^0\overline{f})\hfill \\ \hfill b& & Amp(B^0\overline{f})\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{b}& & Amp(\overline{B}^0f)\hfill \end{array},$$
(82)
For $`f=D^{()}\pi ^+`$, for example, $`a`$ and $`\overline{a}`$ are the favored amplitudes and $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ are the suppressed amplitudes. Then, (81) gives

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill A_{B^0f}(t)& =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\left(a\mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\frac{q}{p}\overline{b}i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill & =e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}a\left(\mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\rho i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill A_{\overline{B}^0\overline{f}}(t)& =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\left(\overline{a}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\frac{p}{q}bi\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill & =e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\overline{a}\left(\mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\overline{\rho }i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill A_{B^0\overline{f}}(t)& =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\left(b\mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\frac{q}{p}\overline{a}i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill & =e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\overline{a}\left(\overline{\rho }\mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill A_{\overline{B}^0f}(t)& =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\left(\overline{b}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\frac{p}{q}ai\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill & =e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}a\left(\rho \mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(83)
with

$$\rho \frac{q\overline{b}}{pa},\overline{\rho }\frac{pb}{q\overline{a}}.$$
(84)
For the bottom two amplitudes (the ‘suppressed’ decays), we have ignored overall phase factors $`p/q`$ and $`q/p`$ for the second equalities.

At this point, we can see the relation between the ‘suppressed’ and ‘favored’ modes; namely, up to an overall phase, $`\delta mt\delta mt+\pi `$ transforms $`A_{B^0f}(t)`$ to $`A_{\overline{B}^0f}(t)`$ and $`A_{B^0f}(t)`$ to $`A_{\overline{B}^0f}(t)`$. Equivalently, in the expressions of decay rates,

$$(\mathrm{cos}\delta mt,\mathrm{sin}\delta mt)(\mathrm{cos}\delta mt,\mathrm{sin}\delta mt)$$
(85)
transforms between a suppressed mode and its favoed mode with the same final state. Also, $`p/q`$ is the complex conjugate of $`q/p`$ (within the approximation that $`|p|=|q|`$), and as we will see more explicity later, the weak phase of $`b/\overline{a}`$ is the complex conjugate of that of $`\overline{b}/a`$ with the rest being the ‘strong phase’ which is common to both. Thus,

$$(\text{weak phase})(\text{weak phase})$$
(86)
keeping the strong phase the same transforms between a $`B^0`$ decay and the corresponding $`\overline{B}^0`$ decay (both ‘suppressed’ or both ‘favored’) apart from the difference between $`a`$ and $`\overline{a}`$. Often $`|a|`$ and $`|\overline{a}|`$ are the same and if so the above transformation is exact in the decay rates. When we extend the above time-dependent amplitudes to include interferences between polarizations, the rule between the same final state (85) still holds, but the relation between $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ (86) does not hold in the helicity basis. We will see, however, that it holds in the transversity basis.

The time dependent rates are obtained by squaring (83):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^0f}(t)& =& |a|^2\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{2}\left[(1+|\rho |^2)+(1|\rho |^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta mt+2\mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{sin}\delta mt\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{B}^0\overline{f}}(t)& =& |\overline{a}|^2\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{2}\left[(1+|\overline{\rho }|^2)+(1|\overline{\rho }|^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta mt+2\mathrm{}\overline{\rho }\mathrm{sin}\delta mt\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^0f}(t)& =& |\overline{a}|^2\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{2}\left[(1+|\overline{\rho }|^2)(1|\overline{\rho }|^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta mt2\mathrm{}\overline{\rho }\mathrm{sin}\delta mt\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{B}^0f}(t)& =& |a|^2\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{2}\left[(1+|\rho |^2)(1|\rho |^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta mt2\mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{sin}\delta mt\right]\hfill \end{array}.$$
(87)
In deriving this formula, we have assumed $`CPT`$ in the mixing and that $`\gamma _a=\gamma _b`$. Otherwise, it is general; in particular, there could be direct $`CP`$ violations in any of the decay amplitudes such as $`|a||\overline{a}|`$ etc.

On $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, one would flavor-tag the other side by, say, a lepton. If the tag side decays to $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ at proper time $`t_{tag}`$, the quantum correlation is such that the signal side is pure $`B^0`$ at the same proper time $`t_{sig}=t_{tag}`$ and proceed to evolve as usual from that time on. Thus, for $`t_{sig}>t_{tag}`$, the decay distribution is given simply by the replacement

$$t\mathrm{\Delta }tt_{sig}t_{tag}.$$
(88)
For $`t_{sig}<t_{tag}`$, all that is needed is to put absolute value on $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ of the decay factor $`e^{\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }t}`$. Namely, (87) becomes the distributions on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ with the replacement

$$\gamma t\gamma |\mathrm{\Delta }t|\mathrm{and}\delta mt\delta m\mathrm{\Delta }t.$$
(89)
Explicitly,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^{},f}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)& =& |a|^2\frac{e^{\gamma |\mathrm{\Delta }t|}}{2}\left[(1+|\rho |^2)+(1|\rho |^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta m\mathrm{\Delta }t+2\mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{sin}\delta m\mathrm{\Delta }t\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^+,\overline{f}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)& =& |\overline{a}|^2\frac{e^{\gamma |\mathrm{\Delta }t|}}{2}\left[(1+|\overline{\rho }|^2)+(1|\overline{\rho }|^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta m\mathrm{\Delta }t+2\mathrm{}\overline{\rho }\mathrm{sin}\delta m\mathrm{\Delta }t\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^{},f}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)& =& |\overline{a}|^2\frac{e^{\gamma |\mathrm{\Delta }t|}}{2}\left[(1+|\overline{\rho }|^2)(1|\overline{\rho }|^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta m\mathrm{\Delta }t2\mathrm{}\overline{\rho }\mathrm{sin}\delta m\mathrm{\Delta }t\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^+,f}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)& =& |a|^2\frac{e^{\gamma |\mathrm{\Delta }t|}}{2}\left[(1+|\rho |^2)(1|\rho |^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta m\mathrm{\Delta }t2\mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{sin}\delta m\mathrm{\Delta }t\right]\hfill \end{array},$$
(90)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^{},f}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ denotes the decay rate for one side decaying to a final state $`f`$ while the opposite side is tagged by a negative lepton (or tagged as $`\overline{B}^0`$ by any other method), etc.

### 2.1 $`B^0D^{()}\pi ^+`$

Earlier studies of this mode can be found in Ref. . Diagrams for $`\overline{B}^0D^{}\pi ^\pm `$ are shown in Figure 3.

In addition to dominant tree diagrams, annihilation diagrams may have non-negligible contribution. Also, there may be final-state rescattering $`\overline{D}^{()0}\pi ^0D^{()}\pi ^+`$. The $`CKM`$ factor of these processes, however, is the same as that of the corresponding tree diagram for the same final state, and thus it does not affect the following formulation. Penguins should result in even number of charms; thus, penguins do not contribute.

With the definitions $`fD^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\overline{f}D^+\pi ^{}`$, the four amplitudes of (82) can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a& & Amp(B^0D^{}\pi ^+)=\lambda _c^{}F_c\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{a}& & Amp(\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{})=\lambda _c\overline{F}_c\hfill \\ \hfill b& & Amp(B^0D^+\pi ^{})=\lambda _u^{}F_u\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{b}& & Amp(\overline{B}^0D^{}\pi ^+)=\lambda _u\overline{F}_u\hfill \end{array}\mathrm{with}\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \lambda _cV_{cb}V_{ud}^{}& & \\ \hfill \lambda _uV_{ub}V_{cd}^{}& & \end{array},$$
(91)
where we have separated the $`CKM`$ factors $`\lambda _{c,u}^{()}`$ and called the rest $`F_{c,u}`$ which include strong phases as well as decay constants and form factors (if factorization is assumed). We assume that the $`CP`$ violation is solely through the weak phases that appear in (91); as a consequence we can show that (see Appendix)

$$F_c=\overline{F}_c,F_u=\overline{F}_u.$$
(92)
We then have

$$|a|=|\overline{a}|,|b|=|\overline{b}|.$$
(93)
Using (73) and (82) as well as (92), the value of $`\overline{\rho }`$ defined in (84) is then

$$\overline{\rho }\frac{pb}{q\overline{a}}=\frac{p\lambda _u^{}F_u}{q\lambda _cF_c}=\frac{V_{td}^{}V_{tb}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}\frac{V_{ub}^{}V_{cd}}{V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}}\frac{F_u}{F_c}re^{i\varphi _{\overline{\rho }}}.$$
(94)
where we have defined $`r|\overline{\rho }|`$ and $`\varphi _{\overline{\rho }}\mathrm{arg}\overline{\rho }`$. With the definitions of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _3`$

$$\varphi _1\mathrm{arg}\frac{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}},\varphi _3\mathrm{arg}\frac{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}},$$
(95)
we have

$$\mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V_{td}^{}V_{tb}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}\frac{V_{ub}^{}V_{cd}}{V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}}\right)=\mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}\frac{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}\frac{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}\right)=2\varphi _1+\varphi _3.$$
(96)
Then, $`\overline{\rho }`$ can be written as

$$\overline{\rho }=re^{i(\varphi _w+\delta )}.$$
(97)
with

$$\varphi _w2\varphi _1+\varphi _3,\delta \mathrm{arg}\frac{F_u}{F_c}.$$
(98)
Similarly, one obtains

$$\rho =re^{i(\varphi _w\delta )}.$$
(99)
Note that we have $`|\rho |=|\overline{\rho }|=r`$. The value of $`r`$ is roughly

$$r=\left|\frac{V_{ub}^{}V_{cd}}{V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}}\frac{F_u}{F_c}\right|0.4\lambda ^20.02.(\lambda 0.22:\text{Cabibbo factor}).$$
(100)
With $`\mathrm{}\rho =r\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta )`$ and $`\mathrm{}\overline{\rho }=r\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w+\delta )`$, the four decay rates (87) becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^0D^{}\pi ^+}(t)& =& |a|^2\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{2}\left[(1+r^2)+(1r^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta mt2r\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta )\mathrm{sin}\delta mt\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}}(t)& =& |a|^2\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{2}\left[(1+r^2)+(1r^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta mt+2r\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w+\delta )\mathrm{sin}\delta mt\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^0D^+\pi ^{}}(t)& =& |a|^2\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{2}\left[(1+r^2)(1r^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta mt2r\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w+\delta )\mathrm{sin}\delta mt\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{B}^0D^{}\pi ^+}(t)& =& |a|^2\frac{e^{\gamma t}}{2}\left[(1+r^2)(1r^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta mt+2r\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta )\mathrm{sin}\delta mt\right]\hfill \end{array}.$$
(101)
where have used $`|a|=|\overline{a}|`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{B}^0D^{}\pi ^+}(t)`$ (suppressed) is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^0D^{}\pi ^+}(t)`$ (favored) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^0D^+\pi ^{}}(t)`$ (suppressed) is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}}(t)`$ (favored) by the transformation (85), and within the two suppressed modes and within the favored modes, the expresssions are related by (86) namely $`\varphi _w\varphi _w`$.

The $`CP`$ violating parameters that can be extracted from these distributions are

$$r\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta )\mathrm{and}r\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w+\delta ).$$
(102)
Note that the two extractable paramters are always multiplied with $`r`$, and the value of $`r`$ cannot be obtained by the fit. As discussed earlier, the corresponding distributions on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ are obtained by replacements $`\gamma t\gamma |\mathrm{\Delta }t|`$ and $`\delta mt\delta m\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The first paramter $`r\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta )`$ can be obtained through the asymmetry between positive and negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^{},D^{}\pi ^+}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ (favored) or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^+,D^{}\pi ^+}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ (suppressed), and the second paramter $`r\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w+\delta )`$ is similarly obtained through $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^+,D^+\pi ^{}}(t)`$ (favored) or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^{},D^+\pi ^{}}(t)`$ (suppressed). This feature that single mode can give a $`CP`$ violating parameter through asymmetry between positive and negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is unique to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$. In fact, most of the information on $`CP`$ violation is in such asymmetries. If we define

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_X(|\mathrm{\Delta }t|)\mathrm{\Gamma }_X(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_X(\mathrm{\Delta }t),$$
(103)
we have

$`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^{},D^{}\pi ^+}(|\mathrm{\Delta }t|)=\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^+,D^{}\pi ^+}(|\mathrm{\Delta }t|)`$ $`=`$ $`Nr\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta )e^{\gamma t}\mathrm{sin}(\delta mt),`$ (104)
$`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^+,D^+\pi ^{}}(|\mathrm{\Delta }t|)=\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}^{},D^+\pi ^{}}(|\mathrm{\Delta }t|)`$ $`=`$ $`Nr\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w+\delta )e^{\gamma t}\mathrm{sin}(\delta mt),`$ (105)
where $`N`$ is a common normalization factor which is known.

Now we derive the corresponding time-integrated expressions. We use following integrals.

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\gamma t}𝑑t`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }},`$ (106)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\gamma t}\mathrm{sin}\delta mtdt`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1+x^2}},`$ (107)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\gamma t}\mathrm{cos}\delta mtdt`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x^2}}.`$ (108)
Here $`x=\delta m/\gamma `$. The time-integrated decay rates become

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0D^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|a|^2}{2\gamma }}[(1+r^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1r^2}{1+x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2rx}{1+x^2}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta )]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|a|^2}{2\gamma }}[(1+r^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1r^2}{1+x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2rx}{1+x^2}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w+\delta )]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0D^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|a|^2}{2\gamma }}[(1+r^2){\displaystyle \frac{1r^2}{1+x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2rx}{1+x^2}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w+\delta )]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0D^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|a|^2}{2\gamma }}[(1+r^2){\displaystyle \frac{1r^2}{1+x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2rx}{1+x^2}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta )]`$ (109)
If we set $`\delta =0`$ for simplicity, we see that the information on $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w)`$ is in the asymmetry between the top two rates (the favored modes) or in the asymmetry between the bottom two rates (the suppressed modes). The absolute amount of the differnce is the same for both cases, but the total rate is about 5 times larger for the favored modes compared to the suppressed modes. It means that the significance (number of sigmas) is $`\sqrt{5}`$ times smaller for the favored modes. Thus, most of the information is contained in the suppressed modes.

The expressions (101) and (109) are valid also for $`f=D^{}\pi ^+`$, $`D^{}\rho ^+`$. When there are more than one polarization states as in $`D^{}\rho ^+`$, there is extra effect due to interferences between different polarization states, which we will discuss next.

### 2.2 $`B^0D^{}\rho ^+`$

This mode was first stdied in detail in Ref. . We first note that the expressions for the time dependent amplitudes (83) are still valid when applied to each polarization state:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill A_{B^0f_\lambda }(t)& =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\left(a_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\frac{q}{p}\overline{b}_\lambda i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill & \hfill =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}a_\lambda \left(\mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\rho _\lambda i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)& \\ \hfill A_{\overline{B}^0\overline{f}_\lambda }(t)& =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\left(\overline{a}_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\frac{p}{q}b_\lambda i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill & \hfill =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\overline{a}_\lambda \left(\mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\overline{\rho }_\lambda i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)& \\ \hfill A_{B^0\overline{f}_\lambda }(t)& =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\left(b_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\frac{q}{p}\overline{a}_\lambda i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill & \hfill =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\overline{a}_\lambda \left(\overline{\rho }_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)& \\ \hfill A_{\overline{B}^0f_\lambda }(t)& =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\left(\overline{b}_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\frac{p}{q}a_\lambda i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill & \hfill =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}a_\lambda \left(\rho _\lambda \mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)& \end{array}$$
(110)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_\lambda & & Amp(B^0f_\lambda )=\lambda _c^{}F_{c\lambda }\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{a}_\lambda & & Amp(\overline{B}^0\overline{f}_\lambda )=\lambda _c\overline{F}_{c\lambda }\hfill \\ \hfill b_\lambda & & Amp(B^0\overline{f}_\lambda )=\lambda _u^{}F_{u\lambda }\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{b}_\lambda & & Amp(\overline{B}^0f_\lambda )=\lambda _u\overline{F}_{u\lambda }\hfill \end{array},$$
(111)
and

$$\rho _\lambda \frac{q\overline{b}_\lambda }{pa_\lambda },\overline{\rho }_\lambda \frac{pb_\lambda }{q\overline{a}_\lambda }.$$
(112)
Each of (110) gives the polarization amplitudes to a given final state at time $`t`$. Then, the angular distribution of pure $`B^0`$ at $`t=0`$ decaying to $`f`$ at time $`t`$ is simply obtained by replacing $`H_\lambda `$ or $`A_\lambda `$ by $`A_{B^0f_\lambda }(t)`$ in (35) or (39). For $`B^0(t=0)f`$, for example, the time-dependent angular distribution is given by (39) with the replacement

$`|A_\lambda |^2`$ $``$ $`|A_{B^0f_\lambda }(t)|^2,`$
$`\mathrm{}(A_{}^{}A_0)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}(A_{B^0f_{}}^{}(t)A_{B^0f_0}(t)),`$
$`\mathrm{}(A_0^{}A_{})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}(A_{B^0f_0}^{}(t)A_{B^0f_{}}(t)),`$
$`\mathrm{}(A_{}^{}A_{})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}(A_{B^0f_{}}^{}(t)A_{B^0f_{}}(t)).`$ (113)
Or the decay amplitudes are obtained from (38) by the same replacement:

$`A_{B^0f}(\mathrm{\Omega },t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}a_\lambda \left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}\rho _\lambda i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}\right)g_\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega })`$
$`A_{\overline{B}^0\overline{f}}(\mathrm{\Omega },t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\overline{a}_\lambda \left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}\overline{\rho }_\lambda i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}\right)g_\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega })`$
$`A_{B^0\overline{f}}(\mathrm{\Omega },t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}\overline{a}_\lambda \left(\overline{\rho }_\lambda \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}\right)g_\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega })`$
$`A_{\overline{B}^0f}(\mathrm{\Omega },t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}a_\lambda \left(\rho _\lambda \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta mt}{2}}\right)g_\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ (114)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\varphi _{tr},\theta _{tr},\psi )`$ or $`(\chi ,\theta ,\psi )`$, and $`g_\lambda `$’s are given by (37) or (31). Here, the final states are $`fD^{}\rho ^+`$ and $`\overline{f}D^+\rho ^{}`$. Note that one could use angles $`(\varphi _{tr},\theta _{tr},\psi )`$ or $`(\chi ,\theta ,\psi )`$ for the tranversity amplitudes (for that matter, for the helicity amplitudes also - we just have not provided $`g(\varphi _{tr},\theta _{tr},\psi )`$ for the helicity amplitudes).

Since $`F_{u\lambda }`$ and $`F_{c\lambda }`$ are nothing but the polarization amplitudes apart from the $`CP`$ violating phases, they themselves should satisfy the $`CP`$ relations (70) and (71) (see Appendix):

$$\overline{F}_{q\lambda }=F_{q\lambda }(\text{helicity}),$$
(115)
$$\overline{F}_q=F_q,\overline{F}_{q0}=F_{q0},\overline{F}_q=F_u,(\text{tranversity})$$
(116)
where $`q=u`$ or $`c`$.

#### 2.2.1 Helicity basis

With the relations (115) for helicity basis, the decay amplitudes can be written as

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill a_\lambda & =& \lambda _c^{}F_{c\lambda },\overline{a}_\lambda \hfill & \hfill =& \lambda _cF_{c\lambda },& \\ \hfill b_\lambda & =& \lambda _u^{}F_{u\lambda },\overline{b}_\lambda \hfill & \hfill =& \lambda _uF_{u\lambda }.& \end{array}(\text{helicity})$$
(117)
This gives

$$|a_\lambda |=|\overline{a}_\lambda |,|b_\lambda |=|\overline{b}_\lambda |.$$
(118)
And the parameters $`\rho _\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ becomes

$$\rho _\lambda =\frac{q}{p}\frac{\lambda _uF_{u\lambda }}{\lambda _c^{}F_{c\lambda }},\overline{\rho }_\lambda =\frac{p}{q}\frac{\lambda _u^{}F_{u\lambda }}{\lambda _cF_{c\lambda }}.$$
(119)
Then, the same procedure that led to (97) and (99) allows one to write

$$\rho _\lambda =r_\lambda e^{i(\varphi _w+\delta _\lambda )},\overline{\rho }_\lambda =r_\lambda e^{i(\varphi _w\delta _\lambda )},$$
(120)
where

$$|\rho _\lambda |=|\overline{\rho }_\lambda |r_\lambda ,$$
(121)
and

$$\delta _\lambda \mathrm{arg}\frac{F_{u\lambda }}{F_{c\lambda }}.$$
(122)
#### 2.2.2 Transversity basis

Using the relations (116) for transversity, we can write

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill a_\lambda & =& \lambda _c^{}F_{c\lambda },\overline{a}_\lambda \hfill & \hfill =& \xi _\lambda \lambda _cF_{c\lambda },& \\ \hfill b_\lambda & =& \lambda _u^{}F_{u\lambda },\overline{b}_\lambda \hfill & \hfill =& \xi _\lambda \lambda _uF_{u\lambda },& \end{array}(\text{transversity})$$
(123)
where

$$\xi _\lambda =\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& (\lambda =,0)\hfill \\ \hfill 1& (\lambda =)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(124)
We will use the tranveristy basis for the rest of this section. Clearly, we have

$$|a_\lambda |=|\overline{a}_\lambda |\mathrm{and}|b_\lambda |=|\overline{b}_\lambda |,$$
(125)
and the procedure semilar to that led to (97) and (99) gives

$$\rho _\lambda =\xi _\lambda r_\lambda e^{i(\varphi _w\delta _\lambda )},\overline{\rho }_\lambda =\xi _\lambda r_\lambda e^{i(\varphi _w+\delta _\lambda )},$$
(126)
where

$$|\rho _\lambda |=|\overline{\rho }_\lambda |r_\lambda ,$$
(127)
and

$$\delta _\lambda \mathrm{arg}\frac{F_{u\lambda }}{F_{c\lambda }}.$$
(128)
Let’s evaluate the expilict decay rates; namely, the coefficients given in (113). Note that $`\rho _\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ are related by $`\varphi _w\varphi _w`$. Togethter with (85), all we need is to evaluate one of the four modes which we take to be the favored mode $`B^0D^{}\rho ^+`$. Calculation is straightforward and we obtain (apart from the common factor $`e^{\gamma t}/2`$)

$`|A_\lambda |^2`$ $``$ $`|a_\lambda |^2[(1+r_\lambda ^2)+(1r_\lambda ^2)\mathrm{cos}\delta mt`$
$`2\xi _\lambda r_\lambda \mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta _\lambda )\mathrm{sin}\delta mt],`$
$`\mathrm{}(A_{}^{}A_0)`$ $``$ $`\left[\mathrm{}(a_{}^{}a_0)(1+r_{}r_0\mathrm{cos}(\delta _{}\delta _0))+\mathrm{}(a_{}^{}a_0)r_{}r_0\mathrm{sin}(\delta _{}\delta _0)\right]`$ (129)
$`+`$ $`\left[\mathrm{}(a_{}^{}a_0)(1r_{}r_0\mathrm{cos}(\delta _{}\delta _0))\mathrm{}(a_{}^{}a_0)r_{}r_0\mathrm{sin}(\delta _{}\delta _0)\right]\mathrm{cos}\delta mt`$
$``$ $`[\mathrm{}(a_{}^{}a_0)(r_{}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta _{})+r_0\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta _0))`$
$`+\mathrm{}(a_{}^{}a_0)(r_{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _w\delta _{})r_0\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _w\delta _0))]\mathrm{sin}\delta mt,`$
$`\mathrm{}(A_e^{}A_{})`$ $``$ $`\left[\mathrm{}(a_e^{}a_{})(1r_er_{}\mathrm{cos}(\delta _e\delta _{}))+\mathrm{}(a_e^{}a_{})r_er_{}\mathrm{sin}(\delta _e\delta _{})\right]`$
$`+`$ $`\left[\mathrm{}(a_e^{}a_{})(1+r_er_{}\mathrm{cos}(\delta _e\delta _{}))\mathrm{}(a_e^{}a_{})r_er_{}\mathrm{sin}(\delta _e\delta _{})\right]\mathrm{cos}\delta mt`$
$``$ $`[\mathrm{}(a_e^{}a_{})(r_e\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta _e)r_{}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _w\delta _{}))`$
$`\mathrm{}(a_e^{}a_{})(r_e\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _w\delta _e)+r_{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _w\delta _{}))]\mathrm{sin}\delta mt,`$
where $`\lambda =(,0,)`$, $`e=(,0)`$, and the suppressed modes for the same final states are obtained by the transformation $`\delta mt\delta mt+\pi `$ or (85), and among the two suppressed or among the two favored modes, the $`B^0`$ decay and the $`\overline{B}^0`$ decay are related by $`\varphi _w\varphi _w`$. The distribution (39) with these replacements then gives the desired time-dependent angular distributions.

#### 2.2.3 Fit parameters

Squares of the amplitudes (114) give the rates, and with complex functions in programing language, these expressions are all needed to perform the fit. The fit parameters are $`a_\lambda `$, $`\overline{a}_\lambda `$, $`\rho _\lambda `$, and $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$. Note that only the relative phases matter among $`a_\lambda `$ and among $`\overline{a}_\lambda `$; namely, one can set $`a_0`$ = real and $`\overline{a}_0`$ = real, for example. In addition, $`|a_\lambda |=|\overline{a}_\lambda |`$ (helicity) or $`|a_\lambda |=|\overline{a}_\lambda |`$ (transversity) reduces the number of degrees of freedom by 3 in each basis. Furthermore, there are phase relations in

$$\frac{\overline{a}_\lambda }{\overline{a}_0}=\frac{a_\lambda }{a_0}(\lambda =\pm 1),\mathrm{or}\frac{\overline{a}_\lambda }{\overline{a}_0}=\xi _\lambda \frac{a_\lambda }{a_0}(\lambda =,),$$
(130)
which reduces 2 degrees of freedom. Thus, there are 5 degrees of freedom in $`a_\lambda `$ and $`\overline{a}_\lambda `$ including the overall normalizations. One may parametrize, for example, as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}a_{+1}\hfill & =& |a_{+1}|e^{i\varphi _{+1}}\hfill \\ a_0\hfill & =& |a_0|\hfill \\ a_1\hfill & =& |a_1|e^{i\varphi _1}\hfill \end{array},\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{a}_{+1}\hfill & =& |a_1|e^{i\varphi _1}\hfill \\ \overline{a}_0\hfill & =& |a_0|\hfill \\ \overline{a}_1\hfill & =& |a_{+1}|e^{i\varphi _{+1}}\hfill \end{array}\text{(helicity)},$$
(131)
or,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}a_{}\hfill & =& |a_{}|e^{i\varphi _{}}\hfill \\ a_0\hfill & =& |a_0|\hfill \\ a_{}\hfill & =& |a_{}|e^{i\varphi _{}}\hfill \end{array},\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{a}_{}\hfill & =& |a_{}|e^{i\varphi _{}}\hfill \\ \overline{a}_0\hfill & =& |a_0|\hfill \\ \overline{a}_{}\hfill & =& |a_{}|e^{i\varphi _{}}\hfill \end{array}\text{(transversity)}.$$
(132)
Also $`\rho _\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ are constrained by the expression (112); namely, we actually fit $`r_\lambda `$, $`\delta _\lambda `$, and $`\varphi _w`$, which amounts to 7 degrees of freedom. The total number of degrees freedom is thus $`5+7=12`$ including the overall normalization.

### 2.3 Time dependent angular distribution for $`\mathrm{\Psi }K^0`$

The only one relevant final state to be considered is $`\mathrm{\Psi }K^0`$ where $`K^0`$ decays to $`K_S\pi ^0`$. We denote the final state as $`f_\lambda =(\mathrm{\Psi }K_S^0)_\lambda `$, where $`\lambda `$ could be for helicity basis or transveristy basis. The particle assignments are

$$a=\mathrm{\Psi },a_1=\mathrm{}^+,a_2=\mathrm{}^{},b=K^0,b_1=K_S,a_2=\pi ^0.$$
(133)
All we need is the amplitudes for each polarization (helicty basis or transversity basis) at time $`t`$ when the $`B`$ meson was pure $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0`$ at $`t=0`$. Then, we can use the distributions (51) and (53) to obtain the angular distribution at that time. Incoherent sum over the two possible helicity states of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ decay is already taken into account in those angular distributions.

Since we are dealing with only one final state (apart from polarization), the first and the last of (83) will do:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A_{B^0f_\lambda }(t)& =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}a_\lambda \left(\mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\rho _\lambda i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill A_{\overline{B}^0f_\lambda }(t)& =& e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}t}a_\lambda \left(\rho _\lambda \mathrm{cos}\frac{\delta mt}{2}i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\delta mt}{2}\right)\hfill \end{array},$$
(134)
where

$$a_\lambda =Amp(B^0(\mathrm{\Psi }K_S^0)_\lambda ),\overline{b}_\lambda =Amp(\overline{B}^0(\mathrm{\Psi }K_S^0)_\lambda ),\rho _\lambda =\frac{q\overline{b}_\lambda }{pa_\lambda }.$$
(135)
The $`\rho _\lambda `$ parameter is then

$$\rho _\lambda =\frac{q}{p}\frac{K_S|\overline{K}^0}{K_S|K^0}\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{K}^0)_\lambda |H_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B}^0}{(\mathrm{\Psi }K^0)_\lambda |H_{\mathrm{eff}}|B^0}.$$
(136)
Eq. (73) gives $`q/p`$, and using (185) of Appendix,

$$\frac{K_S|\overline{K}^0}{K_S|K^0}=\frac{q_K^{}}{p_K^{}}=\frac{V_{cs}V_{cd}^{}}{V_{cs}^{}V_{cd}}$$
(137)
can be obtained as in the case of $`B`$ where we have ignored the small deviation of $`|q_K/p_K|`$ from unity. Assuming that the color-suppressed tree diagram dominates the amplitudes $`a`$ and $`\overline{b}`$, or assumming that penguin and other contributions do not modify the weak phase significantly,

$$(\mathrm{\Psi }K^0)_\lambda |H_{\mathrm{eff}}|B^0=V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}F_\lambda ,(\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{K}^0)_\lambda |H_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B}^0=V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}\overline{F}_\lambda .$$
(138)
By the similar argument that led to the $`CP`$ relations (115) and (116), $`F_\lambda `$ and $`\overline{F}_\lambda `$ are related by

$$\overline{F}_\lambda =F_\lambda (\text{helicity}),$$
(139)
$$\overline{F}_{}=F_{},\overline{F}_0=F_0,\overline{F}_{}=F_{},(\text{tranversity})$$
(140)
Let’s use the transversity basis for the rest of this section. Then, the amplitudes given by (138) togehter with the $`CP`$ relation above gives

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{K}^0)_\lambda |H_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B}^0}{(\mathrm{\Psi }K^0)_\lambda |H_{\mathrm{eff}}|B^0}=\xi _\lambda \frac{V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}}{V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}}\text{(transversity)},$$
(141)
where $`\xi _\lambda `$ is the sign defined by (124). Combining all ingredients, $`\rho _\lambda `$ becomes

$$\rho _\lambda =\left(\frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}}\right)\left(\frac{V_{cs}V_{cd}^{}}{V_{cs}^{}V_{cd}}\right)\left(\xi _\lambda \frac{V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}}{V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}}\right)=\xi _\lambda \left(\frac{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}\right)^{}/\left(\frac{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}\right).$$
(142)
With the definition of $`\varphi _1`$ (95), we can write

$$\rho _\lambda =\xi _\lambda e^{2i\varphi _1}\text{(transversity)}.$$
(143)
Recall that the value of $`\rho `$ for the gold-plated $`\mathrm{\Psi }K_S`$ final state was $`e^{2i\varphi _1}`$; namely, the transverse polarization $`A_{}`$ has the same time-dependent $`CP`$ asymmetry as the $`\mathrm{\Psi }K_S`$ final state, and $`A_{}`$ and $`A_0`$ states have the $`CP`$ asymmetry opposite to that of $`\mathrm{\Psi }K_S`$. These arguments are valid when a given polarization state dominates the final state and when integrated over the angular distribution.

The angular distribution is given by the expression (53) with the coefficient replaced according to (113). Explicitly,

$`|A_\lambda |^2`$ $``$ $`|a_\lambda |^2(1\pm \xi _\lambda \mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\delta mt)`$
$`\mathrm{}(A_{}^{}A_0)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}(a_{}^{}a_0)(1\pm \mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\delta mt)`$ (144)
$`\mathrm{}(A_e^{}A_{})`$ $``$ $`\pm \mathrm{}(a_e^{}a_{})\mathrm{cos}\delta mt\mathrm{}(a_e^{}a_{})\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\delta mt`$
where the upper sign is for $`B^0\mathrm{\Psi }K_S^0`$, the bottom sign is for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Psi }K_S^0`$, $`\lambda =(,0,)`$ and $`e`$ stands for $``$ or $`0`$. They are related by the transformation (85) as expected. Note that $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _1`$ can be obtained by these angular distributions, which helps to resolve the discrete ambiguity of $`\varphi _1`$.

## 3 Appendix

### 3.1 $`CP`$ relations

We will hereby derive the $`CP`$ relations (70) and (115). Suppose the effective Hamiltonian commutes with $`CP`$:

$$IH_{\mathrm{eff}}I^{}=H_{\mathrm{eff}},$$
(145)
where

$$ICP.$$
(146)
For example, the Hamiltonian for the tree diagram of $`B^0D^{}\pi ^+`$ is (up to a constant) <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1What we are calling $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is actually the $`S`$ operator.

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\lambda _ch_c+(h.c.)$$
(147)
with

$$h_c_T^T𝑑td^3x(\overline{c}b)_\mu (\overline{d}u)^\mu ,$$
(148)
where $`(\overline{q}q^{})_\mu `$ is a color-singlet $`VA`$ current which is a function of space-time:

$$(\overline{q}q^{}(x))_\mu \overline{q}^a(x)\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q^a(x).(x=(t,\stackrel{}{x}))$$
(149)
with $`a`$ being the color index. The $`CKM`$ factor $`\lambda _c`$ is defined in (82). The $`CP`$ phases of quark fields are taken as

$$\eta _q=1,$$
(150)
where the $`CP`$ phase is defined by

$$I|q_{\stackrel{}{p}\sigma }=\eta _q|\overline{q}_{\stackrel{}{p},\sigma },$$
(151)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the momentum and $`\sigma `$ is the spin component along $`z`$. With this choice of $`CP`$ phase, one can show that (see, for example, Ref )

$$I(\overline{q}q^{}(x))_\mu I^{}=(\overline{q}q^{}(x^{}))_{}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{}=(\overline{q}^{}q(x^{}))^\mu (x^{}=(t,\stackrel{}{x})).$$
(152)
Note that the Lorentz index $`\mu `$ changed from subscript to superscript. We then have after the integration over space

$$Id^3x(\overline{c}b)_\mu (\overline{d}u)^\mu I^{}=\left[d^3x(\overline{c}b)^\mu (\overline{d}u)_\mu \right]^{},$$
(153)
which leads to

$$Ih_cI^{}=h_c^{}.$$
(154)
Similarly, we can show

$$Ih_c^{}I^{}=h_c.$$
(155)
This makes (145) hold if $`\lambda _c`$ is real. In general, $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ includes strong interaction that results in phase shifts. Still, it can be writen in the form (147) and that it would be invariant under $`CP`$ if the $`CKM`$ factors are real; namely, (154) and (155) are satisfied.

The helicity states of $`Ba+b`$ transforms under $`CP`$ as (see, for example, Ref )

$$I|JM,\lambda _a\lambda _b;ab=\eta _a\eta _b()^{Js_as_b}|JM,\lambda _a\lambda _b;\overline{a}\overline{b},$$
(156)
where $`J=0`$ and $`s_{a,b}=1`$ for our case, and $`\eta _a`$ and $`\eta _b`$ are the $`CP`$ phases of $`a`$ and $`b`$ respectively:

$$CP|a;\stackrel{}{p},\sigma =\eta _a|\overline{a};\stackrel{}{p},\sigma ,CP|b;\stackrel{}{p},\sigma =\eta _b|\overline{b};\stackrel{}{p},\sigma ,$$
(157)
where $`\sigma `$ is the $`z`$-component of spin. If $`a`$ or $`b`$ are not self-conjugate, then their $`CP`$ phases are cancelled when the value of $`\rho `$ is calculated or relation between $`\rho _\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$ is evaluated. For a self-conjuagte particle, the $`CP`$ phase does matter. However, $`CP`$ of relvant spin-1 particles, such as any known spin-1 $`(c\overline{c})`$ states, $`\rho ^0`$, $`a_1^0`$, $`\omega `$, $`\varphi `$, etc. are all $`+1`$. Thus, we take $`\eta _a\eta _b`$ to be $`+1`$ keeping in mind that if any of the spin-1 particles are self-conjugate and $`CP`$ then it has to be included in the sign. Thus, in terms of our short notation, the above relation becomes

$$I|f_\lambda =|\overline{f}_\lambda .$$
(158)
Then, the helicity amplitude transforms as (with $`\eta _B=1`$)

$`H_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`f_\lambda |H_{\mathrm{eff}}|B^0`$ (159)
$`=`$ $`\underset{\overline{f}_\lambda |}{\underset{}{f_\lambda |I^{}}}\underset{H_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\underset{}{IH_{\mathrm{eff}}I^{}}}\underset{\eta _B|\overline{B}^0}{\underset{}{I|B^0}}=\overline{H}_\lambda ,`$ (160)
which proves (70).

The proof of the relation (115) starts from realizing that the relevant effective Hamiltonian can be written as

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=(\lambda _ch_c+\lambda _uh_u)+(\lambda _c^{}h_c^{}+\lambda _u^{}h_u^{}),$$
(161)
where the second part is just the h.c. of the first part to make the whole Hermitian, and $`\lambda _c=V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _u=V_{ub}V_{cd}^{}`$ as before. The term $`\lambda _ch_c`$ includes a $`bc`$ transition and creation of a $`\overline{u}d`$ pair, and $`\lambda _c^{}h_c^{}`$ includes a $`\overline{b}\overline{c}`$ transition and creation of a $`\overline{d}u`$ pair, etc. Again, $`h_{c,u}`$ contain the effect of strong interaction to all order.

Assuming that $`CP`$ violation occurs solely through the complex $`CKM`$ phases, we should have

$`Ih_cI^{}=h_c^{},`$ $`Ih_uI^{}=h_u^{},`$
$`Ih_c^{}I^{}=h_c,`$ $`Ih_u^{}I^{}=h_u,`$ (162)
which makes $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ invariant under $`CP`$ if $`\lambda _{c,u}`$ are real. Then, $`a_\lambda `$ defined in (111) with $`f=D^{}\rho ^+`$ can be written as

$$a_\lambda f_\lambda |H_{\mathrm{eff}}|B^0=f_\lambda |\lambda _c^{}h_c^{}|B^0=\lambda _c^{}f_\lambda |h_c^{}|B^0.$$
(163)
Comparing with (111) indentifies $`F_{c\lambda }`$ as

$$F_{c\lambda }=f_\lambda |h_c^{}|B^0.$$
(164)
Similarly,

$$\overline{F}_{c\lambda }=\overline{f}_\lambda |h_c|\overline{B}^0.$$
(165)
Then, we have (again with $`\eta _B=1`$)

$$F_{c\lambda }=\underset{\overline{f}_\lambda |}{\underset{}{f_\lambda |I^{}}}\underset{h_c}{\underset{}{Ih_c^{}I^{}}}\underset{|\overline{B}^0}{\underset{}{I|B^0}}=\overline{F}_{c\lambda }.(QED)$$
(166)
The proof of $`\overline{F}_{u\lambda }=F_{u\lambda }`$ (helicity) proceeds the same way.

The relations (92) is proved similarly. Here, the effective hamiltonian is again written in the form (161) and is invariant under $`CP`$ if the $`CKM`$ factors are real. With $`J=s_1=s_2=\lambda =0`$ in (156), the transformation of the final state $`f=D^{()}\pi ^+`$ under $`CP`$ is

$$I|f=\eta _D\eta _\pi |\overline{f},I|\overline{f}=\eta _D^{}\eta _\pi ^{}|f,$$
(167)
with proper choice of $`CP`$ phases (you can set $`\lambda =0`$ in (158)). The quantities $`F_{c,u}`$ and $`\overline{F}_{c,u}`$ are identified as

$`F_c=f|h_c^{}|B^0,`$ $`\overline{F}_c=\overline{f}|h_c|\overline{B}^0,`$
$`F_u=\overline{f}|h_u|B^0,`$ $`\overline{F}_u=f|h_u^{}|\overline{B}^0.`$ (168)
The final result is obtained by simply setting $`\lambda =0`$ in (166):

$$F_c=\overline{F}_c,\text{and similarly}F_u=\overline{F}_u.$$
(169)
### 3.2 Derivation of $`p/q`$

The two mass-eigenstates are the eigenvectors of the Schrodinger equation in the $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ space:

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Psi }=H\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(170)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a two component vector and $`H`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix in the $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ space:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right),H=M+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}B^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}|B^0& B^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B}^0\\ \overline{B}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}|B^0& \overline{B}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B}^0\end{array}\right)$$
(171)
where $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are hermitian matrixes. When $`\gamma _a=\gamma _b`$, the decay part decouples and the mass matrix part (mixing part) only should be considered; thus, we will drop $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The $`CPT`$ invariance allows one to write

$$H=M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m& \mu \\ \mu ^{}& m\end{array}\right),(M:\mathrm{real}).$$
(172)
In particular,

$$\mu =B^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B}^0,\mu ^{}=\overline{B}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}|B^0.$$
(173)
The eigenvalues are

$$det\left(\begin{array}{cc}m\lambda & \mu \\ \mu ^{}& m\lambda \end{array}\right)=0,\lambda =m\pm |\mu |.$$
(174)
Let’s define the eigenvector for the heavier of the two to be $`pB^0+q\overline{B}^0`$, which then should satisfy

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m& \mu \\ \mu ^{}& m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ q\end{array}\right)=(m+|\mu |)\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ q\end{array}\right).$$
(175)
The top component (the $`B^0`$ coefficient) of this equation gives

$$mp+\mu q=mp+|\mu |p\frac{p}{q}=\frac{\mu }{|\mu |}.$$
(176)
On the other hand, the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ transition is caused by the box diagram at the lowest order whose effective Hamiltonian can be written as

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=(V_{tb}V_{td}^{})^2h_{b\overline{d}d\overline{b}}+(h.c.),$$
(177)
where $`h_{b\overline{d}d\overline{b}}`$ is the effective hamitonian that transforms $`\overline{B}^0`$ to $`B^0`$ and itself transforms under $`CP`$ as

$$Ih_{b\overline{d}d\overline{b}}I^{}=h_{b\overline{d}d\overline{b}}^{},Ih_{b\overline{d}d\overline{b}}^{}I^{}=h_{b\overline{d}d\overline{b}};$$
(178)
namely, $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is invariant under $`CP`$ if it were not for the $`CKM`$ phases. Then the off-diagonal elements of $`H`$ are related by $`CP`$ as (with $`\eta _B=1`$)

$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`B^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B}^0`$ (179)
$`=`$ $`B^0|(V_{tb}V_{td}^{})^2h_{b\overline{d}d\overline{b}}|\overline{B}^0`$
$`=`$ $`(V_{tb}V_{td}^{})^2\underset{\overline{B}^0|}{\underset{}{B^0|I^{}}}\underset{h_{b\overline{d}d\overline{b}}^{}}{\underset{}{Ih_{b\overline{d}d\overline{b}}I^{}}}\underset{|B^0}{\underset{}{I|\overline{B}^0}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(V_{tb}V_{td}^{})^2}{(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})^2}}\overline{B}^0|(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})^2h_{b\overline{d}d\overline{b}}^{}|B^0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(V_{tb}V_{td}^{})^2}{(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})^2}}\overline{B}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}|B^0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(V_{tb}V_{td}^{})^2}{(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})^2}}\mu ^{}.`$
Thus,

$$\frac{\mu }{\mu ^{}}=\frac{(V_{tb}V_{td}^{})^2}{(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})^2}\frac{\mu }{|\mu |}=\pm \frac{(V_{tb}V_{td}^{})}{(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})}.$$
(180)
Using (176), we see that $`pB^0+q\overline{B}^0`$ with

$$\frac{p}{q}=\pm \frac{(V_{tb}V_{td}^{})}{(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})}.$$
(181)
This method is simple and elegant but cannot define the sign; in order to do so, one needs to actually evaluate $`\mu `$ :

$$\mu =\frac{G_F^2m_W^2}{12\pi ^2}f_B^2m_BB_B\eta _2S_0(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})^2$$
(182)
where $`f_B`$ is the decay constant of $`B^0`$, $`\eta _2>0`$ is a QCD correction factor, $`S_0>0`$ is a function of the top quark mass, and $`B_B`$ is the ‘bag factor’ of the $`B`$ meson which is believed to be positive. Then, $`p/q`$ is now

$$\frac{p}{q}=\frac{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}}{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}},$$
(183)
and these $`p`$ and $`q`$ makes $`pB^0+q\overline{B}^0`$ the heavier of the two mass eigenstates.

In the neutral $`K`$ system, we define $`p_K`$ and $`q_K`$ in parallel to the $`B`$ system; namely, the heavier ($`K_L`$) is defined to be $`p_KK^0+q_K\overline{K}^0`$. Thus, $`K_S`$ is

$$K_S=p_KK^0q_K\overline{K}^0.$$
(184)
Even though there is some complication due to the lifetime difference; the situation for the phase of $`p_K/q_K`$ is essentially the same and to a good accuracy it is given by applying $`tc`$ and $`bs`$ to (183):

$$\frac{p_K}{q_K}=\frac{V_{cs}V_{cd}^{}}{V_{cs}^{}V_{cd}}.$$
(185)
The conventions used here for $`p`$ and $`q`$ are not the same as those in Ref. .