format: text

text:
# Generic replica symmetric field-theory for short range Ising spin glasses

## 1 Introduction

The Ising spin glass is the simplest model still incorporating all the complexity that more sophisticated disordered systems show up. As such, it has become widely studied in the last decades. We focus our attention here to the case where Ising spins interact via Gaussian-distributed pair interactions . A huge amount of literature has accumulated since the seminal paper of Edwards and Anderson , nevertheless the most important problems—i.e. the nature and complexity of the glassy phase, the existence of a transition in nonzero magnetic field, temperature-chaos, etc.—are still debated. Consensus has been reached only for mean-field theory, first derived considering an infinite number of fully-connected Ising spins ; its solution by Parisi explicitly breaks the replica symmetry, resulting in a picture where the glassy phase can be decomposed into a set of infinite number and ultrametrically organised pure states . Despite all efforts made to go beyond mean-field theory , which is certainly valid in infinite dimensions, finite-dimensional short-ranged systems are much less understood. Beside the mean-field picture, an alternative description, the so-called “droplet picture” has emerged in a series of papers (a list of them, which is certainly not fully complete, is provided as Ref. ). This approach claims that replica symmetry breaking is an artifact of mean-field theory, and the glassy phase consists of only two pure phases related by a global inversion of the spins. The droplet theory has gained some support from the field of mathematical physics , the conclusions, however, remain disputed .

A large amount of numerical work111An extensive list of references for numerical simulations in spin glasses can be found in . has been carried out to resolve the problem, finite-size effects and long relaxation times, however, make it difficult to reach a definite conclusion. It is clear that analytical methods—especially field-theory, as the most powerful of them—are very important to provide reliable results to settle this controversy. A direct field-theoretical study of the glassy phase, however, has proved to be very hard, due to the complexity of the Gaussian propagators and the ubiquity of infrared divergences (see  and references therein). A scaling theory for the spin glass phase (just below $`T_c`$ and in zero magnetic field) and a proposal to handle the infrared problems were put forward in Ref. , still progress in that direction is very slow.

There is one characteristic of the phase diagram in the mean-field picture which is definitely absent in a droplet-like approach, namely the existence of a spin glass transition in a uniform magnetic field , known as the de Almeida-Thouless (AT) transition. This question can be studied in the symmetric phase, approaching the presumed transition from the high-temperature side, in this way eliminating the problems arising from the complexity of the glassy phase. In the language of replica field-theory, this will lead to a replica symmetric Lagrangean which is invariant under any permutation of the $`n`$ replicas.

The prime purpose of this paper is to provide the generic field-theoretical model appropriate to a detailed study of the problem raised above, i.e. the existence of an AT transition. (In a separate publication , the crossover region around the zero-field critical point is elaborated, and the role that a small magnetic field plays in driving the AT transition is investigated.) Here we rediscover, at the mean-field level, the importance of the replica number $`n`$ in the analysis of the AT transition : for $`n`$ small but nonvanishing, the AT transition line moves away from the zero-field critical point, and an intermediate range of temperature emerges even in zero magnetic field. This phase—which can be called, by the extension of the concept of Sherrington  to continuous $`n`$, the replica magnet phase—is replica symmetric but still has a lower symmetry than the paramagnetic phase. Hence we have two transitions, the first one, in zero field, is an isolated critical point between the two replica symmetric phases (paramagnet and replica magnet), whereas the second one is a whole line in $`HT`$ plane between replica magnet and the replica symmetry broken phase. As a result, we can identify the AT transition as the onset of instability of the replica magnet phase, and since it has a lower symmetry than the paramagnet, we must use a generic replica symmetric Lagrangean to study it by field-theoretical methods.222We keep $`n0`$ small but finite almost everywhere throughout the paper. This is because we want to present formulae for later calculations in the generic cubic model. For this, however, the $`n0`$ limit is rather tricky, due to the degeneracy of the longitudinal and anomalous modes at zero $`n`$.

From Eqs. (1) and (2), one can immediately realize that a perturbational calculation based on that Lagrangean is extremely difficult. This is due to the complicated interaction term with eight different couplings corresponding to the eight possible cubic invariants, and also to the non-diagonal Gaussian-propagators with three distinct bare masses. To overcome these difficulties, we introduce a new representation of the cubic interaction which is associated with a block-diagonalization of the quadratic part. The technique proves to be very efficient, as is displayed in our example where the one-loop calculation of the mass operator is presented.333Other methods are also available, like Replica Fourier Transform , or the usage of projections to the subspaces of the fundamental modes .

The outline of the paper is as follows: In Sec. 2 the generic cubic Lagrangean for the replica symmetric field-theory is set forth, first using only symmetry considerations. It is then derived, starting from the lattice system, and using the standard Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation. Sec. 3 is devoted to an analysis of the zero-loop, i.e. mean-field, results. The zero-field transition, first discovered by Sherrington and Kirkpatrick , proves to be an isolated singularity of the stationary condition, with the unique mass vanishing at that point. On the other hand, one of the three modes becomes massless along the AT surface, signalling the onset of instability of the generic replica symmetric phase. In Sec. 4 we define the new set of cubic couplings. The introduction of this new representation makes it possible to compute Feynmann-graphs of a perturbative approach; this is illustrated in a one-loop calculation of the three masses in Sec. 5. A simple and convenient non-orthogonal basis is presented in Appendix A, whereas a detailed list of vertices computed in this basis is given in Appendix B. This almost complete table of vertex rules is published here for later references, an application for an extended renormalisation group study of the finite-dimensional AT transition is in progress .

## 2 Cubic replica field-theory for the Ising spin glass in nonzero magnetic field

After the invention of the renormalization group , field theoretical representations of statistical models, originally defined on a lattice, became a standard way to study the behaviour of the systems near phase transitions. The renormalisation group made it possible to use a perturbative method, the loop expansion, in low enough dimensions, thus providing excellent analytical tools to compute phase diagrams and critical properties. The extension to spin glasses came immediately after the replica approach had been introduced by Edwards and Anderson , transforming the originally inhomogeneous system into a homogeneous one. A Ginzburg-Landau-Wilson continuum model was first proposed 25 years ago , then further investigated by renormalisation methods . Its cubic Lagrangean was derived—for the Ising case—by Bray and Moore  via the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation. Two of the present authors applied the same field theoretical model in their effort to go beyond the mean-field results, and understand the glassy phase of the finite-dimensional short range Ising spin glass . The magnetic field was always zero in the above works, with the only exception of , where it was introduced by a coupling to the magnetization, leaving the Lagrangean unchanged for the part relevant to the spin glass transition.

Field-theoretical models can be constructed by means of symmetry arguments, building up the Lagrangean from all the possible invariants of the relevant symmetry group of the system. For an Ising spin glass, the fields depend on a pair of replicas, $`\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }=\varphi ^{\beta \alpha }`$ with $`\varphi ^{\alpha \alpha }=0`$, and, as a consequence of the replica trick, any permutation of the $`n`$ replicas leaves the Lagrangean unchanged. Discarding all the terms higher in the order of the $`\varphi `$’s than cubic, we arrive at the following generic replica symmetric Lagrangean after a search of all the quadratic and cubic invariants:

$$=^{(2)}+^{(3)},$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{𝐩}{}[(\frac{1}{2}(pa\rho )^2+m_1)\underset{\alpha \beta }{}\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }+m_2\underset{\alpha \beta \gamma }{}\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \gamma }\varphi _𝐩^{\beta \gamma }\hfill \\ \hfill +m_3\underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{}\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _𝐩^{\gamma \delta }],\end{array}$$
(1)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}^{(3)}=\frac{1}{6\sqrt{N}}\underset{𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟑}}{^{}}[w_1\underset{\alpha \beta \gamma }{}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\beta \gamma }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\gamma \alpha }+w_2\underset{\alpha \beta }{}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\alpha \beta }\hfill \\ \hfill +w_3\underset{\alpha \beta \gamma }{}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\alpha \gamma }+w_4\underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\gamma \delta }+w_5\underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\alpha \gamma }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\beta \delta }\\ \hfill +w_6\underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\alpha \gamma }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\alpha \delta }+w_7\underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \mu }{}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \gamma }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\beta \gamma }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\delta \mu }+w_8\underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \mu \nu }{}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\gamma \delta }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\mu \nu }].\end{array}$$
(2)
Momentum summations in the above formulae are over the reciprocal vectors of a $`d`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice with lattice spacing $`a`$, consisting of infinitely many sites $`N`$ in the thermodynamic limit. The prime in Eq. (2) means the constraint of momentum conservation, $`𝐩_1+𝐩_2+𝐩_3=0`$. Neglecting the fluctuations of fields with wavelength much smaller than the range $`\rho a`$ of the exchange interaction between the spins, we confine the relevant values of momentums in Eqs. (1,2) around the center of the Brillouin zone: $`p<\mathrm{\Lambda }/\rho a`$. The momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ makes it possible to expand the nonlocal quadratic coupling in $`^{(2)}`$, and, as it is common in field-theoretical studies of phase transitions, we stop after the first two terms. (The coupling constant of the kinetic term in Eq. (1) can be set equal to $`\frac{1}{2}`$ without loss of generality. See also later.) 444A replica symmetric treatment of the ordered phase was carried out in Refs. . In this case, the finite order parameter gives rise to a quadratic Lagrangean, even in zero field, which is a special case of $`^{(2)}`$.

In zero magnetic field, and in the high-temperature phase where the spin glass order parameter is zero, all the couplings but $`m_1`$ and $`w_1`$ disappear. In this section, we want to find out the order parameter dependence of the couplings defining our Lagrangean. We are especially interested in the general form of the replica field-theory suitable for studying the de Almeida-Thouless transition in finite dimensions. Our starting point is a standard Edwards-Anderson-like  model for $`N`$ Ising spins on a $`d`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice, with a long but finite-ranged interaction:

$$=\underset{(ij)}{}\frac{J_{ij}}{\sqrt{z}}f_{ij}s_is_jH\underset{i}{}s_i.$$
(3)
The notation $`f_{ij}f\left(\frac{|𝐫_i𝐫_j|}{\rho a}\right)`$ was introduced in the above equation, with the smooth positive function $`f(x)`$ which takes the value $`1`$ for $`x1`$, and decays to zero sufficiently fast for $`x>1`$, thereby cutting off the interaction around $`|𝐫_i𝐫_j|\rho a`$. Here $`z=\rho ^d`$ is effectively the coordination number, i.e. the number of spins within the interaction radius; expanding quantities in terms of its negative powers will generate the loop-expansion in the replica field-theory. $`J_{ij}`$ are independent, Gaussian distributed random variables with mean zero and variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, and a homogeneous magnetic field $`H`$ was also included. Summations are over the pairs $`(ij)`$ of lattice sites in the first sum, while over the $`N`$ lattice sites in the second one.

In the spirit of the replica trick, we want to compute quantities like the averaged replicated partition function $`\overline{Z^n}`$ for some positive integer $`n`$, finally deducing spin glass behaviour from the $`n0`$ continuum limit. Averaging first over the quenched disorder results in an effective replica Hamiltonian depending on the spins $`S_i^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n`$:555Throughout the paper, we use different notations for summations over distinct pairs, $`\underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}=\underset{\alpha <\beta }{}`$, and unrestricted sums, $`\underset{\alpha \beta }{}=\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{\beta }{}`$.

$$\overline{Z^n}\underset{\{S_i^\alpha \}}{\mathrm{Tr}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}\underset{ij}{}S_i^\alpha S_i^\beta K_{ij}S_j^\alpha S_j^\beta +\frac{H}{kT}\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{i}{}S_i^\alpha \right),$$

$`K_{ij}\frac{1}{z}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{kT}\right)^2f_{ij}^2`$. A Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation can help us to get rid of the four-spin interaction term; the price we have to pay for that is the introduction of integrals over the “fields” $`Q_i^{\alpha \beta }`$:

$$\overline{Z^n}\left[\underset{(\alpha \beta ),i}{}𝑑Q_i^{\alpha \beta }\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}𝐐^{\alpha \beta }𝐊^1𝐐^{\alpha \beta }+\underset{i}{}\mathrm{ln}\zeta _i\right).$$
(4)
The boldfaced vector and matrix notations in Eq. (4) for $`𝐐^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`𝐊^1`$, respectively, are to simplify the nonlocal term in the formula, whereas the one-spin partition function is defined as follows:

$$\zeta _i=\underset{\{S^\alpha \}}{\mathrm{Tr}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}Q_i^{\alpha \beta }S^\alpha S^\beta +\frac{H}{kT}\underset{\alpha }{}S^\alpha \right).$$
(5)
To construct a field-theory appropriate for a perturbation expansion around the mean-field solution, i.e. around the infinite range model $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, we separate $`Q_i^{\alpha \beta }`$ into its homogeneous, non-fluctuating (mean-field) part, and into its fluctuating part:

$$Q_i^{\alpha \beta }=Q^{\alpha \beta }+\varphi _i^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(6)
When expressed in terms of the $`\varphi `$’s, the exponent in Eq.(4) will be called $``$, and it can be expanded up to any desired order. Turning to a more convenient representation of the fields in momentum space, contributions up to cubic order have the following forms:

$`^{(0)}`$ $`=N\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^1{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}}\left(Q^{\alpha \beta }\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\zeta \right],`$ (7)
$`^{(1)}`$ $`=\sqrt{N}{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Theta }^1Q^{\alpha \beta }S^\alpha S^\beta \right]\varphi _{𝐩=0}^{\alpha \beta },`$ (8)
$`^{(2)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta ),(\gamma \delta )}{}}\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }(pa\rho )\varphi _𝐩^{\gamma \delta },`$ (9)
and finally
$`^{(3)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\sqrt{N}}}\underset{𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟑}}{{\displaystyle ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta ),(\gamma \delta ),(\mu \nu )}{}}W_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta ,\mu \nu }\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\gamma \delta }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\mu \nu }.`$ (10)
A Boltzmann-weight with $`Q^{\alpha \beta }`$, instead of $`Q_i^{\alpha \beta }`$, is understood in the definitions of $`\zeta `$ and the one-site effective average $`\mathrm{}`$ in Eqs. (7,8). $`\mathrm{\Theta }^1`$ is essentially the temperature squared, or more precisely:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{kT}\right)^2f(r)^2d^dr.$$
(11)
The momentum-dependent mass, and the momentum-independent cubic coupling operators are defined as follows:

$`M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }(pa\rho )`$ $`=K_𝐩^1\delta _{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{\mathrm{Kr}}\left[S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta \right],`$ (12)
$`W_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta ,\mu \nu }`$ $`=S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\mu S^\nu S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\mu S^\nu `$
$`S^\gamma S^\delta S^\alpha S^\beta S^\mu S^\nu S^\mu S^\nu S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta `$ (13)
$`+2S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\mu S^\nu .`$
The Kronecker delta in Eq. (12) represents the $`n(n1)/2`$-dimensional unit matrix, whose prefactor comes from the Fourier-transform of $`K_{ij}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}K_𝐩=\frac{1}{N}\underset{ij}{}e^{i𝐩(𝐫_i𝐫_j)}K_{ij}=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{z}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{kT}\right)^2\frac{1}{N}\underset{ij}{}e^{i𝐩(𝐫_i𝐫_j)}f\left(\frac{|𝐫_i𝐫_j|}{\rho a}\right)^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{kT}\right)^2e^{i(𝐩a\rho )𝐫}f(r)^2d^dr.\end{array}$$
(14)
The arrow in the above formula means the double limiting procedure of the thermodynamic limit ($`N\mathrm{}`$), and continuum limit ($`a0`$). The theory resulting then is a field-theory with all the thermodynamic functions scaling correctly with $`N`$, and the lattice constant $`a`$ disappearing from the momentum integrals after introducing the new variable $`\stackrel{~}{𝐩}𝐩a\rho `$, with the upper momentum-cutoff becoming $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐩}`$ space. The range $`\rho `$ of the original interaction, however, survives: a perturbative loop-expansion can be generated where every loop in a Feynmann-diagram contributes a $`z^1=\rho ^d`$ factor.

It is rather common in field-theoretical studies to normalize the fields such that the kinetic term in the Gaussian part of the Lagrangean (that proportional to the squared momentum) be exactly $`\stackrel{~}{𝐩}^2`$ times the unit matrix. This can be simply reached after expanding $`K_𝐩^1`$, Eq. (14), and introducing the new fields by

$$c\varphi _𝐩\varphi _𝐩,$$
(15)
where

$$c=(2d)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\left(r^2f(r)^2d^dr\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{f(r)^2d^dr}\left(\frac{kT}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right).$$
(16)
A corresponding redefinition of the mass operator and cubic interaction,

$$\frac{1}{c^2}MM\text{and}\frac{1}{c^3}WW,$$
(17)
leaves the form of Eqs. (9,10) unchanged. Neglecting short-wavelength fluctuations, the mass-operator in Eq. (12) can be expanded for $`\stackrel{~}{p}1`$. The commonly used truncation at the kinetic term provides:

$`M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }(\stackrel{~}{𝐩})`$ $`=C(d)\left[\delta _{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{\mathrm{Kr}}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta \right)\right]`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{𝐩}^2\delta _{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{\mathrm{Kr}},`$ (18)
where $`C(d)=2df(r)^2d^dr/r^2f(r)^2d^dr`$ is a smooth function of dimensionality, but independent of the temperature and magnetic field. As such, its concrete value is irrelevant, and a simple adjustment of the cutoff function $`f(r)`$ can make it equal to unity.

A replica symmetric field-theory—for the study of the massive high-temperature phase, and/or the massless critical manifolds—can be obtained by choosing a replica symmetric mean-field value $`Q_{\alpha \beta }Q`$ in Eq. (6). The stationarity condition $`^{(1)}0`$ gives us an implicit equation for $`Q`$ (see Eq. (8)):

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^1Q=S^\alpha S^\beta =\frac{\underset{\{S^\alpha \}}{\mathrm{Tr}}\left(S^\alpha S^\beta e^{_{(\alpha \beta )}QS^\alpha S^\beta +\frac{H}{kT}_\alpha S^\alpha }\right)}{\underset{\{S^\alpha \}}{\mathrm{Tr}}\left(e^{_{(\alpha \beta )}QS^\alpha S^\beta +\frac{H}{kT}_\alpha S^\alpha }\right)},\alpha \beta .$$
(19)
$`Q`$ enters the definition of the mass operator, Eq. (18), and the cubic interaction operator, Eq. (13), through the Boltzmann-weight in the averages $`\mathrm{}`$. Replica symmetry is induced also for these operators, resulting in the three different components of the mass:

$`M_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{~}{𝐩})`$ $`=M_1+\stackrel{~}{𝐩}^2,`$
$`M_{\alpha \gamma ,\beta \gamma }(\stackrel{~}{𝐩})`$ $`=M_2,`$ (20)
$`M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }(\stackrel{~}{𝐩})`$ $`=M_3;`$
and the eight different components of the cubic interaction operator:

$`W_{\alpha \beta ,\beta \gamma ,\gamma \alpha }`$ $`=W_1,`$ $`W_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta }`$ $`=W_2,`$ $`W_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta ,\alpha \gamma }`$ $`=W_3,`$ $`W_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }`$ $`=W_4,`$
$`W_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha \gamma ,\beta \delta }`$ $`=W_5,`$ $`W_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha \gamma ,\alpha \delta }`$ $`=W_6,`$ $`W_{\alpha \gamma ,\beta \gamma ,\delta \mu }`$ $`=W_7,`$ $`W_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta ,\mu \nu }`$ $`=W_8.`$ (21)
$`^{(2)}`$ of Eq. (9), together with Eq. (20), is equivalent with that of Eq. (1), provided the two sets of masses are related by the following expressions:

$`m_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M_12M_2+M_3),`$ (22)
$`m_2`$ $`=M_2M_3,`$ (23)
$`m_3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}M_3.`$ (24)
Similarly, Eqs. (2) and (10) are two different representations of $`^{(3)}`$. Using Eq. (21), a one to one correspondence between the two sets of cubic couplings, $`w`$’s and $`W`$’s, can be deduced by a somewhat lengthy but elementary calculation. The results are listed in Table 1.

## 3 Analysis of the stationarity conditions and bare masses

It is easy to recognize that, after a simple rescaling of the temperature, Eq. (19) coincides with the replica symmetric mean-field equation of Sherrington and Kirkpatrick (SK)  for the order parameter of the Ising spin glass on a fully-connected lattice. This may not be surprising: the most direct way to define mean-field theory on a d-dimensional hypercubic lattice is letting $`\rho `$, the range of interaction, go to infinity, thus neglecting all the loop corrections to the equation of state . The solution $`Q`$ of Eq. (19) has, however, an application that goes beyond mean-field theory: it enters the mass operator and interaction components in the formulae Eqs. (18) and (13), respectively, through the effective average $`\mathrm{}`$. Although a field-theory emerging from this procedure has a direct connection to the original parameters, such as temperature, magnetic field and also replica number $`n`$, renormalisation will reshuffle the masses and couplings, possibly forcing them into some fixed point.

Following Refs. , Eq. (19) can be cast into a more convenient form:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^1Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{du}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{\frac{u^2}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}^2(\sqrt{Q}u+H/kT)\mathrm{cosh}^n(\sqrt{Q}u+H/kT)}{\frac{du}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{\frac{u^2}{2}}\mathrm{cosh}^n(\sqrt{Q}u+H/kT)}}`$ (25)
$`=\overline{\mathrm{tanh}^2(\sqrt{Q}u+H/kT)}.`$
The shorthand notation

$$\overline{\mathrm{tanh}^k(\mathrm{})}\frac{\frac{du}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{\frac{u^2}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}^k(\mathrm{})\mathrm{cosh}^n(\sqrt{Q}u+H/kT)}{\frac{du}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{\frac{u^2}{2}}\mathrm{cosh}^n(\sqrt{Q}u+H/kT)}$$
(26)
has been introduced for later use. By Eq. (25), $`Q`$ is implicitly given as a function of temperature, magnetic field and replica number. One can easily find the SK spin glass transition point ($`\mathrm{\Theta }=1`$, $`H=0`$) as an isolated singularity for any given $`n`$ close to zero. (Keeping $`n`$ finite is for later use. At the moment, we must notice that this singularity is rather unaffected by the $`n0`$ limit.) The relevant, positive, solution for $`H=0`$ is

$$Q=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }t>0,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2n}t+\left[\frac{n3}{(n2)^2}+\frac{1}{3(n2)^3}\right]t^2+\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{for }t<0;\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
where the new temperature scale $`t\mathrm{\Theta }^11>0`$ ($`<0`$) in the disordered (spin glass) phase, respectively. As displayed in Figure 1, one can join up smoothly the two regimes by-passing the critical point, like in ordinary critical phenomena.666 It is obvious from Eq. (25) that $`Q=0`$ is always a solution for zero magnetic field, independently of $`t`$ and $`n`$. The $`Q=0`$ solution for $`t<0`$, however, defines the negative $`Q`$ branch (starting from point G in Figure 1(a) with $`Q=0`$, and following the dotted curve, you end up at P with $`Q<0`$) which is non-physical. The two branches meet at the SK transition point.

To go beyond a mean-field solution, and build loops, one must have well-defined Gaussian propagators, i.e. the eigenvalues of the mass operator must be non-negative. A generic replica symmetric mass operator, like that in Eq. (20), was diagonalised years ago  with the following expressions for the eigenvalues (which will play the role of bare masses here):

$`r_R`$ $`=M_12M_2+M_3,`$ (28)
$`r_A`$ $`=M_1+(n4)M_2(n3)M_3,`$ (29)
$`r_L`$ $`=M_1+2(n2)M_2+{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(n3)}{2}}M_3.`$ (30)
The indices $`R`$, $`A`$ and $`L`$ stand for replicon, anomalous and longitudinal, respectively, each referring to the corresponding family of eigenmodes (see Ref.  and also later sections). From Eqs. (18) and (20), and using the stationarity condition (19), the following expressions are obtained for the bare masses:

$`r_R`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{t}{1+t}}+2Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+t}}\overline{\mathrm{tanh}^4(\sqrt{Q}u+H/kT)},`$ (31)
$`r_A`$ $`=r_R+(n2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+t}}\overline{\mathrm{tanh}^4(\sqrt{Q}u+H/kT)}Q\right],`$ (32)
$`r_L`$ $`=r_R+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}\left[(n4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+t}}\overline{\mathrm{tanh}^4(\sqrt{Q}u+H/kT)}4Q+n(1+t)Q^2\right].`$ (33)
An expansion below the transition provides, in zero field,

$`r_R`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+\mathrm{})(t)+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+\mathrm{})t^2+\mathrm{},`$ (34)
$`r_A`$ $`=(1+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+\mathrm{})(t)+({\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}+\mathrm{})t^2+\mathrm{},`$ (35)
$`r_L`$ $`=(t)+({\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}+\mathrm{})t^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (36)
(The $`n`$-dependent coefficients are displayed in an expanded form for showing clearly the signs for small $`n`$. The complete $`n`$-dependence, however, is easily found.) The hitherto degenerate masses split when passing the SK transition singularity (where they are zero) and emerge positively in the spin glass phase for any $`n0`$. $`r_R`$ starts, however, with a small slope proportional to $`n`$, and becomes massless again at the AT surface $`t_{\text{AT}}=\frac{3}{2}n+\mathrm{}`$, where instability of the replica symmetric phase begins. This result was first derived by Kondor , the aspect we wish to emphasize here is the existence of an intermediary temperature range where replica symmetry persists, see Figure 1, though, as a result of a nonzero $`Q`$, the level of symmetry is lower, leading, at the mean-field level, to the splitting of the bare masses.

By definition, $`r_R0`$ on the AT-surface. From Eqs. (25) and (31), the magnetic field can be expressed as a double series for small $`t`$ and $`n`$; the leading, cubic, term is as follows:

$$(H/kT)^2=\frac{1}{6}(t)^3\frac{1}{4}nt^2=\frac{3}{8}n^2(tt_{\text{AT}})+\frac{1}{2}n(tt_{\text{AT}})^2\frac{1}{6}(tt_{\text{AT}})^3.$$

This can be cast into a scaling form

$$(H/kT)^2=t^\tau \phi (\frac{n}{t^\kappa }),t,n0,$$
(37)
where the exponents have now their mean-field values $`\tau =3`$ and $`\kappa =1`$, and $`\phi (\mathrm{})`$ is the scaling function characterising the AT-surface.

On the basis of the above mean-field analysis, we can define two different, though both replica symmetric, cubic field-theories relevant to describe spin glass transitions of different types in low enough dimensions ($`d`$ certainly smaller than eight):

* The zero-field model—$`H0,t0`$ and $`n0`$—implies, through Eq. (27), $`Q0`$, leading to degenerate bare masses $`r_R=r_A=r_L`$, see Eqs. (31), (32) and (33). It is easy to verify using Eqs. (13) and (21) that all the $`W`$’s but $`W_1`$ are zero, and the same is true, by Table 1, for the small $`w`$’s. Let us put down explicitly the definition of the cubic field theory for the zero-field transition from the paramagnetic phase:

$`r`$ $`r_R=r_A=r_L;`$ (38)
$`w`$ $`w_1,w_i=0,i=2,\mathrm{},8.`$
At the mean-field level, a massless state is reached along the critical line $`H=0`$, $`t=0`$ and $`n0`$; the replica number being a rather innocent parameter around zero. We expect this property to remain for short-ranged (finite-dimensional) systems, and indeed, $`ϵ`$-expansion results have supported this idea . (This kind of replica field-theory was studied in all the Refs. .)
* The second model, which is in fact the most general cubic field-theory with an unbroken replica symmetry, has all the three masses $`m_i`$ and eight couplings $`w_i`$ different. At the mean-field level, it corresponds to a nonzero $`Q`$ which is always such when a magnetic field is switched on. More surprisingly, however, there is a whole range of temperatures $`t_{\text{AT}}t<0`$ even in zero field where the bare parameters correspond to this more general model. Criticality is induced, at least at the mean-field level, by the masslessness of the replicon mode on the de Almeida-Thouless surface. The replica number $`n`$ is now a crucially important parameter; a fact clearly shown by the scaling formula (37). How fluctuations will modify this picture is a prime problem in spin glass theory. There has been two attempts, at least to our knowledge, adressing this question . In Ref.  fluctuations were restricted to the replicon subspace; in our language this means for the masses that $`r_A=r_L=\mathrm{}`$ and $`r_R`$ critical, while all the cubic couplings were zero but $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$. The effect of a small magnetic field was introduced in Ref.  by shifting the bare masses from their zero-field values (more precisely, beside $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ became massive too), the couplings remained, however, unchanged. The replica number was effectively set to zero in these works. Here we wish to emphasize the role $`n`$ may play in a search for a de Almeida-Thouless transition in finite-dimensional systems.

## 4 A canonical representation of the cubic interaction

In a field-theory with more than one mass, as in the generic replica symmetric system introduced in the previous sections, critical manifolds can be classified by their massless eigenmodes. In this case, it is more convenient to use directly the eigenvalues of the mass operator ($`r_R`$, $`r_A`$ and $`r_L`$; Eqs. (28), (29) and (30)), instead of the sets $`m`$’s or $`M`$’s. At that point it is natural to ask what will happen with the interaction vertices whose legs join the, by this time block-diagonalized, propagators. We show in this section how the transformation that block-diagonalizes the quadratic part of the Lagrangean into “modes” induces a new set of cubic couplings describing how these modes interact. Our replicated field-theory becomes more tractable after using these “canonical” cubic parameters.

The $`\frac{1}{2}n(n1)`$-dimensional vectorspace spanned by the two-replica fields $`\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }`$ has the simple structure being a direct sum of the subspaces called longitudinal, anomalous and replicon. Their definitions are as follows ($`\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }=\varphi ^{\beta \alpha }`$ and $`\varphi ^{\alpha \alpha }=0`$ are understood everywhere, of course):

* The longitudinal (L) subspace consists of replica symmetric vectors, i.e. independent of replica indices. Each element from this subspace corresponds to a scalar $`\varphi `$:

$$\varphi _L^{\alpha \beta }=\varphi ,$$
(39)
and it is obviously one-dimensional.
* Any element of the anomalous (A) subspace can be represented by a one-replica field $`\varphi ^\alpha `$, i.e. by a vector restricted, however, by the condition

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\varphi ^\alpha =0.$$
(40)
A generic anomalous field can now be written as

$$\varphi _A^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ^\alpha +\varphi ^\beta ).$$
(41)
As a result of condition (40), the anomalous subspace is $`n1`$-dimensional.
* True two-replica fields, loosely speaking tensors, constitute the replicon (R) subspace with the restriction

$$\underset{\beta }{}\varphi _R^{\alpha \beta }=0\text{for any}\alpha =1\mathrm{}n.$$
(42)
From the $`n`$ equations above follows that the number of independent $`\varphi _R^{\alpha \beta }`$ is $`\frac{1}{2}n(n1)n=\frac{1}{2}n(n3)`$, rendering the replicon subspace $`\frac{1}{2}n(n3)`$-dimensional.

A generic field $`\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }`$ can always be decomposed into the sum

$$\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }=\varphi _L^{\alpha \beta }+\varphi _A^{\alpha \beta }+\varphi _R^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(43)
It is straightforward to see that the subspaces defined above give the exact diagonalisation of a generic replica symmetric matrix, as defined in the equations of (20), i.e.

$$\underset{(\gamma \delta )}{}M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }\varphi _i^{\gamma \delta }=r_i\varphi _i^{\alpha \beta },i=L,A,R,$$
(44)
the eigenvalues given in Eqs. (30), (29) and (28), respectively. For a generalization to higher order operators, the matrix-element of $`M`$ between two arbitrary vectors $`\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\psi ^{\alpha \beta }`$ will be computed after having represented them by the longitudinal scalar, anomalous vector and replicon tensor, as explained above (see Eqs. (39), (41) and (43)). An expression in terms of the three second-order invariants $`\varphi \psi `$, $`_\alpha \varphi ^\alpha \psi ^\alpha `$ and $`_{\alpha \beta }\varphi _R^{\alpha \beta }\psi _R^{\alpha \beta }`$ arises:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_{\{\varphi ,\psi \}}& \underset{(\alpha \beta ),(\gamma \delta )}{}M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }\psi ^{\gamma \delta }\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}r_R\underset{\alpha \beta }{}\varphi _R^{\alpha \beta }\psi _R^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{n2}{4}r_A\underset{\alpha }{}\varphi ^\alpha \psi ^\alpha +\frac{n(n1)}{2}r_L\varphi \psi \hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
(to get the anomalous term, the restriction (40) has been used). Except for numerical factors, the corresponding eigenvalues appear as the coefficients of the three possible second order invariants; viz. RR, AA and LL.

The most important point we can learn from Eq. (45) is a complete factorization of a matrixelement, provided $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are chosen from one of the subspaces L, A or R; i.e.

$$\begin{array}{c}M_{\{\varphi ,\psi \}}=\hfill \\ \hfill \{\text{expression of mass components}\}\times \{\text{invariant composed of }\varphi \text{ and }\psi \}.\end{array}$$
(46)
Generalization to a cubic replica symmetric operator, as defined in Eq. (21), is straightforward. The analogue of the matrixelement can be easily defined by

$$W_{\{\varphi ,\psi ,\chi \}}\underset{(\alpha \beta ),(\gamma \delta ),(\mu \nu )}{}W_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta ,\mu \nu }\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }\psi ^{\gamma \delta }\chi ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(47)
Taking each of the fields $`\varphi `$, $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ from one of the subspaces L, A or R, the nonzero values obtained can be listed as follows:

$`W_{RRR}`$ $`=g_1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \gamma }{}}\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }\psi ^{\beta \gamma }\chi ^{\gamma \alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }\psi ^{\alpha \beta }\chi ^{\alpha \beta },`$ (48)
$`W_{RRA}`$ $`=g_3{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }\psi ^{\alpha \beta }\chi ^\alpha ,`$
$`W_{RRL}`$ $`=g_4{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }\psi ^{\alpha \beta }\chi ,`$
$`W_{RAA}`$ $`=g_5{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }\psi ^\alpha \chi ^\beta ,`$
$`W_{AAA}`$ $`=g_6{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\varphi ^\alpha \psi ^\alpha \chi ^\alpha ,`$
$`W_{AAL}`$ $`=g_7{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\varphi ^\alpha \psi ^\alpha \chi ,`$
$`W_{LLL}`$ $`=g_8\varphi \psi \chi .`$
Symmetry makes the remaining $`W_{RAL}`$, $`W_{RLL}`$ and $`W_{ALL}`$ all identically zero. As for the masses, a complete factorization occurs in the above formula, except the RRR vertex.777The reason for that is the two different cubic invariants we can construct from replicon fields; see the first line of Eq. (48). We prefer the name “canonical” for the set of cubic parameters $`g`$ emerging in the above formulas, as they are, in some sense, an extension of the notion of eigenvalues to the cubic interaction term. After a somewhat lengthy calculation, we obtained the set of equations for the $`g_i`$ in terms of the $`W_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},8`$, which are the counterparts of Eqs. (28), (29) and (30). (We omit to display these rather complicated, and not very instructive, expressions here; they can be easily obtained from Eqs. (49a-h) below and using Table 1.)

Comparing Eqs. (2) and (48), a one to one correspondence between a $`w_i`$ and a $`g_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},8`$, is obvious. When expressing the $`g`$’s in terms of the $`w`$’s, instead of the $`W`$’s, not only the formulas become simpler, but a clear R $``$ A $``$ L hierarchy emerges:

$`g_1`$ $`=w_1,`$ (49a)
$`g_2`$ $`=2w_2,`$ (49b)
$`g_3`$ $`=w_1+w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{n2}{6}}w_3,`$ (49c)
$`g_4`$ $`=w_1+w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{3}}w_3+{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{3}}w_4,`$ (49d)
$`g_5`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{n4}{4}}w_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{n2}{6}}w_3+{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)^2}{12}}w_5,`$ (49e)
$`g_6`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3n8}{4}}w_1+{\displaystyle \frac{n4}{4}}w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(n4)}{8}}w_3{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)^2}{4}}w_5+{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)^3}{8}}w_6,`$ (49f)
$`g_7`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{n2}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{n4}{2}}w_1+w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2n3}{3}}w_3+{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{3}}w_4`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(2n3)}{6}}w_5+{\displaystyle \frac{n1)(n2)}{2}}w_6+{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)(n2)}{6}}w_7],`$ (49g)
$`g_8`$ $`=n(n1)[(n2)w_1+w_2+(n1)w_3+n(n1)w_4`$
$`+(n1)^2w_5+(n1)^2w_6+n(n1)^2w_7+n^2(n1)^2w_8].`$ (49h)
## 5 Illustration of the technique: one-loop calculation of the masses

We apply the standard definition of the mass operator, i.e. it is the zero momentum limit of the inverse of the two-point function:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }`$ $`\underset{𝐩0}{lim}\left[G^1(𝐩)\right]_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }`$ (50)
where the connected two-point function $`G`$ is the average
$`\left[G(𝐩)\right]_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }`$ $`\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _𝐩^{\gamma \delta }\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _𝐩^{\gamma \delta }`$ (51)
taken with the statistical weight $`e^{}`$, $`=^{(2)}+^{(3)}`$; see Eqs. (1) and (2). Dyson’s equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ allows us to compute it perturbatively:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }=M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }(\stackrel{~}{𝐩}=0)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }(\stackrel{~}{𝐩}=0),$$
(52)
where the mean-field mass operator $`M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }`$ has been defined in Eqs. (18) and (20), whereas the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contains all the one-particle irreducible graphs to the two-point function, with external lines omitted. Up to leading, one-loop, order it is given as the simple “bubble” diagram:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }(\stackrel{~}{𝐩}=0)=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2z}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^d\stackrel{~}{p}}{(2\pi )^d}W_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha ^{}\beta ^{},\alpha ^{\prime \prime }\beta ^{\prime \prime }}G_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{},\gamma ^{}\delta ^{}}^{(0)}(\stackrel{~}{p})G_{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }\beta ^{\prime \prime },\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\delta ^{\prime \prime }}^{(0)}(\stackrel{~}{p})W_{\gamma \delta ,\gamma ^{}\delta ^{},\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\delta ^{\prime \prime }}\end{array}$$
(53)
where the free propagator $`G^{(0)}`$ is defined by

$$G_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{(0)}(\stackrel{~}{p})\left[M^1(\stackrel{~}{p})\right]_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta },$$
(54)
see Eqs. (18) and (20), and the bare vertices, $`W`$’s, have been introduced in Eqs. (10), (13) and (21).

To compute the replica sum in Eq. (53), we must overcome the problem of having non-diagonal free propagators. This project can be easily accomplished by calculating $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m,n}`$, instead of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }`$, defined as:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m,n}\underset{(\alpha \beta ),(\gamma \delta )}{}\varphi _m^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }\varphi _n^{\gamma \delta },$$
(55)
$`\varphi _m`$ and $`\varphi _n`$ taken from the non-orthogonal basis discussed in Appendix A. Exploiting the completeness of both this basis and its biorthogonal counterpart888What we use in the derivation of this formula is the decomposition of the unit operator: $`\delta _{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{\text{Kr}}=_m\varphi _m^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m^{\gamma \delta }=_m\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _m^{\gamma \delta }`$., we can transform $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m,n}`$ into a representation with diagonal free propagators:

$$G_{m,\stackrel{~}{n}}^{(0)}\underset{(\alpha \beta ),(\gamma \delta )}{}\varphi _m^{\alpha \beta }G_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n^{\gamma \delta }=G_m^{(0)}\delta _{mn}^{\text{Kr}}$$
(56)
(a “tilde” refers always to a member of the reciprocal basis). $`G_m^{(0)}`$, as it is the eigenvalue of the free propagator matrix, can be simply related, through Eq. (54), to one of the three bare masses of Eqs. (28), (29) and (30):

$$G_m^{(0)}(\stackrel{~}{p})=\frac{1}{r_m+\stackrel{~}{p}^2},$$
(57)
$`r_m=r_R`$, $`r_A`$ or $`r_L`$ depending on the subspace $`m`$ belongs to (see Appendix A).

We can now propose a simple graphical representation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m,n}`$ by introducing arrowed lines for the free propagators $`G^{(0)}`$ joining interaction vertices $`W`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}G_m^{(0)}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}.$$

Using the convention of Appendix B concerning the meaning of inward and outward arrows, we can draw for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m,n}`$:

which can be spelled out explicitly as:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m,n}=\frac{1}{2z}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^d\stackrel{~}{p}}{(2\pi )^d}\underset{m^{},m^{\prime \prime }}{}W_{m,m^{},\stackrel{~}{m}^{\prime \prime }}W_{n,m^{\prime \prime },\stackrel{~}{m}^{}}G_m^{}^{(0)}(\stackrel{~}{p})G_{m^{\prime \prime }}^{(0)}(\stackrel{~}{p}).$$
(58)
(Summations are over the set of $`n(n1)/2`$ modes of Appendix A.) Orthogonality of the different subspaces restricts the number of nonzero elements of the matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m,n}`$ to the cases where $`m`$ and $`n`$ belong to the same family R, A or L. To compute the three eigenvalues of the self-energy, we can make the simplest possible choices for $`m`$ and $`n`$, i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mu \nu ),(\mu \nu )}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }_R{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}}\varphi _{(\mu \nu )}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{(\mu \nu )}^{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)^2(n3)}{4}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_R,`$ (59)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mu ),(\mu )}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }_A{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}}\varphi _{(\mu )}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{(\mu )}^{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)(n2)}{4}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_A,`$ (60)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(L),(L)}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }_L{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}}\varphi _{(L)}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{(L)}^{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_L.`$ (61)
(The computation of the scalar products above is relatively easy using the definitions of the basis functions in Appendix A.) An extensive use of the table of cubic vertices $`W_{m,m^{},\stackrel{~}{m}^{\prime \prime }}`$ in Appendix B makes it possible to compute the left-hand sides; the feasibility of the calculation is, however, due to the selection rule we explain in that appendix. The results can be summarized by displaying the eigenmodes of the mass operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, by means of Eq. (52), valid to first order in $`1/z`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ $`=r_R\{[{\displaystyle \frac{n^48n^3+19n^24n16}{(n1)(n2)^2}}g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2(3n^215n+16)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}g_1g_2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n^39n^2+26n22}{2(n1)(n2)^2}}g_2^2]I_{RR}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8(n1)(n4)}{n(n2)^2}}g_3^2I_{RA}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{n(n1)}}g_4^2I_{RL}+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{(n2)^2}}g_5^2I_{AA}\};`$ (62)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ $`=r_A\{{\displaystyle \frac{2(n3)(n4)}{(n2)^2}}g_3^2I_{RR}+{\displaystyle \frac{16n(n3)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}g_5^2I_{RA}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{n(n2)^2}}g_6^2I_{AA}+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{n(n1)(n2)^2}}g_7^2I_{AL}\};`$ (63)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ $`=r_L\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2(n3)}{n1}}g_4^2I_{RR}+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{n(n2)^2}}g_7^2I_{AA}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n^3(n1)^3}}g_8^2I_{LL}\right\}.`$ (64)
To help the reader to understand the structure of the corrections to the masses, we introduced the short-cut notation

$$I_{ss^{}}\frac{1}{z}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^d\stackrel{~}{p}}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{r_s+\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\frac{1}{r_s^{}+\stackrel{~}{p}^2}$$

for the momentum integrals; $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ correspond to one of the subspaces R, A or L. By means of the transformation rules between the $`g`$ and $`w`$ couplings, Eqs. (49a-h), the above equations for the masses can be easily expressed in terms of the $`w`$’s too.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Hungarian Science Fund (OTKA), Grant No. T032424.

## Appendix

## Appendix A A simple non-orthogonal basis

For applying the canonical vertices defined in Eqs. (47) and (48), it is necessary to introduce a basis in each of the subspaces; an obviously nonunique task. The non-orthogonal basis defined below is not only the simplest999This time, simplicity and orthogonality contradict each other. An orthogonal, still rather complicated system was proposed years ago ., but cubic vertices evaluated in this basis will have a remarkable property, a kind of a selection rule involving replica numbers, making computation of Feynmann-graphs feasible (see Appendix B).

A member of this non-orthogonal basis will be denoted by $`\varphi _m^{\alpha \beta }`$, whereas its biorthogonal101010Biorthogonality has the usual definition $`_{(\alpha \beta )}\varphi _m^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m^{}^{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{mm^{}}^{\text{Kr}}`$. counterpart, a member of the reciprocal basis, as $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m^{\alpha \beta }`$, where $`m`$ stands for the modes in the subspaces L, A and R as follows:

* The L subspace is one-dimensional, i.e. $`m(L)`$.
* $`m`$ runs the single replica numbers, except one (which we choose the $`n^{\text{th}}`$), for the $`n1`$-dimensional A space: $`m(\mu )`$, $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},n1`$.
* In case of replicon modes, $`m`$ corresponds to a pair of replicas, $`m(\mu \nu )`$, with $`\mu `$,$`\nu =1,\mathrm{},n1`$ and $`\mu \nu `$. To ensure the correct dimensionality $`n(n3)/2`$ imposed by condition (42), we have to pick out an arbitrarily chosen pair $`(\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu })`$, giving for the number of replicon modes:

$$\frac{(n1)(n2)}{2}1=\frac{n(n3)}{2}.$$

To sum up, there are two types of replicon modes:

$$m\{\begin{array}{cc}(\mu \nu ),\hfill & \mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},n1;\mu ,\nu \overline{\mu }\text{or}\overline{\nu },\hfill \\ (\mu \overline{\mu })\text{or}(\mu \overline{\nu }),\hfill & \mu =1,\mathrm{},n1;\mu \overline{\mu }\text{or}\overline{\nu }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)

In what follows we want to collect the results, omitting any proof.

### L subspace:

$$\varphi _{(L)}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{(L)}=1;\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(L)}^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(L)}=\frac{2}{n(n1)}.$$
(66)
### A subspace:

$$\varphi _{(\mu )}^{\alpha \beta }=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }\alpha ,\beta \mu ,\hfill \\ \frac{n2}{2}\hfill & \text{if }\alpha =\mu \text{ or }\beta =\mu ;\hfill \end{array}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(\mu )}^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{4}{n^2(n2)}\left[\varphi _{(\mu )}^{\alpha \beta }+\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{n1}{}}\varphi _{(\nu )}^{\alpha \beta }\right].$$
(67)
The one-replica objects, introduced in Eq. (41), representing them are

$$\varphi _{(\mu )}^\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }\alpha \mu ,\hfill \\ (n1)\hfill & \text{if }\alpha =\mu ;\hfill \end{array}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(\mu )}^\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }\alpha \mu ,n,\hfill \\ \frac{4}{n(n2)}\hfill & \text{if }\alpha =\mu ,\hfill \\ \frac{4}{n(n2)}\hfill & \text{if }\alpha =n.\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
### R subspace:

$$\varphi _{(\mu \nu )}^{\alpha \beta }=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }\alpha ,\beta \mu ,\nu ,\hfill \\ \frac{n3}{2}\hfill & \text{if there is one common replica index of the}\hfill \\ & \text{two pairs }\alpha ,\beta \text{ and }\mu ,\nu ,\hfill \\ \frac{(n2)(n3)}{2}\hfill & \text{if the two pairs }\alpha ,\beta \text{ and }\mu ,\nu \text{ are identical}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(69)
In the reciprocal basis, we have different forms for the two types of replicon modes defined in Eq. (65):

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(\mu \nu )}^{\alpha \beta }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{(n1)(n2)}\hfill & \text{if }(\alpha \beta )=(\mu \nu )\text{ or }(\overline{\mu }n)\text{ or }(\overline{\nu }n),\hfill \\ \frac{2}{(n1)(n2)}\hfill & \text{if }(\alpha \beta )=(\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu })\text{ or }(\mu n)\text{ or }(\nu n),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise};\hfill \end{array}$$
(70)
$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(\overline{\mu }\mu )}^{\alpha \beta }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{(n1)(n2)}\hfill & \text{if }(\alpha \beta )=(\overline{\mu }\mu )\text{ or }(\overline{\nu }n),\hfill \\ \frac{2}{(n1)(n2)}\hfill & \text{if }(\alpha \beta )=(\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu })\text{ or }(\mu n),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(71)
## Appendix B Vertex rules

For a cubic vertex with $`\varphi =\varphi _m`$, $`\psi =\varphi _m^{}`$ and $`\chi =\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{m^{\prime \prime }}`$ in Eq. (47) ($`m`$, $`m^{}`$ and $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ referring to the modes introduced in Appendix A), a simple graphical representation can be given, namely

inward (outward) arrows correspond to ordinary (reciprocal) basis functions, respectively. Such vertices have the remarkable property, a kind of a selection rule, that the replica numbers attached to the mode $`m^{\prime \prime }`$111111It is a single number $`(\mu )`$ if $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ is an anomalous mode, whereas replicon modes are labeled by a pair of replicas, as explained in Appendix A, $`(\mu \nu )`$ or $`(\mu \overline{\mu })`$. There is, of course, no restriction if $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ is the longitudinal mode. must occur either in $`m`$ or in $`m^{}`$; otherwise the vertex is zero.

Hereinafter we give a list of the nonzero vertices. To confine the extent of the paper, vertices with replicon modes of type-II will also be omitted, although they are available; these vertices are necessary only for a calculation higher order than one-loop. The presentation follows the order introduced in Eq. (48), different symbols are used to indicate different replicas.

### RRR:

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}=2g_1+g_2\end{array}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2(n2)}}(ng_1+g_2)\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2(n2)}}\left[(n1)(n4)g_1+g_2\right]\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(n2)}}\left[(n^29n+12)g_1(n^26n+7)g_2\right]\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(n2)}}\left[2(3n^215n+16)g_1+(n^39n^2+26n22)g_2\right]\end{array}`$

### RRA:

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{2(n1)^2}{n(n2)}}g_3\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}=\end{array}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{(n1)^2(n4)}{n(n2)}}g_3\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{(n1)^2(n3)(n4)}{n(n2)}}g_3\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}=2g_3\end{array}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{n}{n2}}g_3\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n4)}{n2}}g_3\end{array}`$

### RRL:

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{2(n2)}{n}}g_4\end{array}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(n3)}{n}}g_4\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{(n2)^2(n3)}{n}}g_4\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}=2g_4\end{array}`$

### RAA:

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{n2}}g_5\end{array}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{2(n1)}{n2}}g_5\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{2(n1)(n3)}{n2}}g_5\end{array}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{2(n3)}{n2}}g_5\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{2n^2}{(n1)(n2)}}g_5\end{array}`$

### AAA:

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{n2}}g_6\end{array}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}=4g_6\end{array}`$

### AAL:

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{n1}}g_7\end{array}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}=2g_7\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{n2}}g_7\end{array}`$

### LLL:

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{n(n1)}}g_8\end{array}`$


text:
# Implications of the CP asymmetry in semileptonic 𝑩 decay

## I Introduction

The CP asymmetry in semileptonic $`B`$ decays,

$$A_{\mathrm{SL}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{B}{}_{\mathrm{phys}}{}^{0}(t)\mathrm{}^+X]\mathrm{\Gamma }[B_{\mathrm{phys}}^0(t)\mathrm{}^{}X]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{B}{}_{\mathrm{phys}}{}^{0}(t)\mathrm{}^+X]+\mathrm{\Gamma }[B_{\mathrm{phys}}^0(t)\mathrm{}^{}X]},$$
(1)
depends on the relative phase between the absorptive and dispersive parts of the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing amplitude old ,

$$A_{\mathrm{SL}}=\text{Im}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}/M_{12}).$$
(2)
Within the Standard Model (SM), the asymmetry is very small because of two suppression factors. First, the magnitude of the ratio is small, $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}/M_{12}|=𝒪(m_b^2/m_t^2)1`$. Second, the phase is small, $`\mathrm{arg}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}/M_{12})=𝒪(m_c^2/m_b^2)1`$. Since new physics contributions to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ are small, and since $`|M_{12}|`$ is known from the measured value of the mass difference between the neutral $`B`$ mesons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$, the first suppression factor should be valid model independently. In contrast, the second suppression factor could easily be avoided if new physics modifies the phase of $`M_{12}`$. This situation, where new physics could enhance $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ by a factor of $`𝒪(10)`$ makes this asymmetry a sensitive probe of new physics.

Recently, the search for CP violation in semileptonic $`B`$ decays achieved a much improved sensitivity:

$$A_{\mathrm{SL}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(0.4\pm 5.7)\times 10^2\hfill & \text{OPAL }\text{Abbiendi:2000av}\text{,}\hfill \\ (1.4\pm 4.2)\times 10^2\hfill & \text{CLEO }\text{Jaffe:2001hz}\text{,}\hfill \\ (1.2\pm 2.8)\times 10^2\hfill & \text{ALEPH }\text{Barate:2001uk}\text{,}\hfill \\ (0.5\pm 1.8)\times 10^2\hfill & \text{BABAR }\text{Aubert:2002mn}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
The present world average is Nir:2001ge

$$A_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mathrm{exp}}=(0.2\pm 1.4)\times 10^2.$$
(4)
With its experimental accuracy of order one percent, the result (4) puts for the first time meaningful constraints on new physics contributions to $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing. It is our goal in this work to study these implications.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In section II we update the Standard Model prediction for $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$, taking into account the recent measurements of the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ decays. In section III we explain how generic new physics can affect $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$. In section IV we investigate the effects of models of minimal flavor violation. In each of sections II, III and IV we first derive analytic expressions for the asymmetry and then carry out a numerical investigation using the methods of ref. Hocker:2001xe . We give our conclusions in section V.

## II $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}}`$ in the Standard Model

### II.1 Analytical Expressions

Using the Standard Model expressions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ Beneke:1996gn ; Beneke:1998sy ; Cahn:1999gx ; Dighe:2001gc  and $`M_{12}`$, one obtains

$$A_{\mathrm{SL}}^0=\kappa \text{Im}\left(\frac{V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}}{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}}\right),$$
(5)
where

$$\kappa =4\pi \frac{m_b^2}{m_W^2}\frac{K_1+K_2}{\overline{\eta }_BS_0(m_t^2/m_W^2)}z,zm_c^2/m_b^2.$$
(6)
This is the leading order result in the limit $`m_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ and $`z1`$. Here $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are Wilson coefficients, $`\overline{\eta }_B`$ is a QCD correction factor and $`S_0`$ is the Inami-Lim function for the box diagram. The CKM dependence can be expressed in terms of the $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ parameters,

$$\text{Im}\left(\frac{V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}}{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}}\right)=\frac{\overline{\eta }}{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}.$$
(7)
Eq. (5) has three types of corrections characterized by small parameters:

$$A_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mathrm{SM}}=A_{\mathrm{SL}}^0\left(1+a_{\mathrm{SL}}^z+a_{\mathrm{SL}}^{1/m_b}+a_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\alpha _s}\right).$$
(8)
The $`m_c^2/m_b^2`$ corrections are given by

$`a_{\mathrm{SL}}^z`$ $`=`$ $`z{\displaystyle \frac{K_2}{K_1+K_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_2K_1}{K_1+K_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}z(32z){\displaystyle \frac{K_2K_1}{K_1+K_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_S}{Q}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(1\overline{\rho })}{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1+2z)[2(1z)^2\sqrt{14z}]1}{3z}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_2K_1}{K_1+K_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_S}{Q}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(K_1+\frac{K_2}{2})[\sqrt{14z}1+4z2z^2]+z(1z)^2(K_2K_1)z\sqrt{14z}(K_1+2K_2)}{3z(K_1+K_2)}}\}.`$
The matrix elements $`Q`$ and $`Q_S`$ can be parameterized as follows:

$`\overline{B}|(\overline{b}_id_i)_{VA}(\overline{b}_jd_j)_{VA}|B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}f_B^2m_B^2B,`$
$`\overline{B}|(\overline{b}_id_i)_{SP}(\overline{b}_jd_j)_{SP}|B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}f_B^2m_B^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2}{(m_b+m_d)^2}}B_S{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}f_B^2m_B^2B_S^{}.`$ (10)
In particular, we have $`Q_S/Q=(5/8)(B_S^{}/B)`$. Some insight into the effect of $`a_{\mathrm{SL}}^z`$ can be gained by evaluating (II.1) to $`𝒪(z^2)`$:

$`a_{\mathrm{SL}}^z`$ $`=`$ $`z\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_2K_1}{K_1+K_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_S^{}}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_2}{K_1+K_2}}\right)`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`z^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K_2K_1}{K_2+K_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_S^{}}{B}}\right)+2{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{\rho }}{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_2K_1}{K_1+K_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_S^{}}{B}}1\right)\right].`$
Note that the terms with CKM dependence that is different from the leading result appear only at $`𝒪(z^2)`$ and are therefore very small.

The $`1/m_b`$ corrections are given by

$`a_{\mathrm{SL}}^{1/m_b}`$ $`=`$ $`2z{\displaystyle \frac{2K_1\left[R_12R_3\right]+K_2\left[R_2+4R_3+2R_4\right]}{(K_1+K_2)Q}}`$
$`+`$ $`4z^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(1\overline{\rho })}{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{K_1\left[2R_1R_26R_3\right]K_2\left[R_2+6R_3+2R_4\right]}{(K_1+K_2)Q}}.`$
The matrix elements $`R_i`$ have the following values within the vacuum insertion approximation:

$`R_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_b}}f_B^2m_B^2,`$
$`R_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_b^2}{m_b^2}}f_B^2m_B^2,`$
$`R_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_b^2}{m_b^2}}f_B^2m_B^2,`$
$`R_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_b^2}{m_b^2}}f_B^2m_B^2.`$ (13)
Note that $`R_1/Q=𝒪\left(m_d/m_b\right)`$ and $`R_{2,3,4}/Q=𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b\right)`$. We can therefore safely neglect terms of order $`zR_1/Q`$ and $`z^2R_{2,3,4}/Q`$. In this approximation we obtain

$$a_{\mathrm{SL}}^{1/m_b}=z\frac{7K_1+3K_2}{2(K_1+K_2)}\frac{1}{B}\frac{m_B^2m_b^2}{m_b^2}.$$
(14)
The $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ corrections have not been fully calculated. They can be divided into penguin corrections and NLO corrections. The penguin terms give

$`a_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mathrm{peng}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K_1^{}+K_2^{}K_3^{}}{K_1+K_2}}`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`z\{{\displaystyle \frac{2K_3^{}K_2^{}}{K_1+K_2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{K_1^{}K_2^{}}{K_1+K_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_S}{Q}}`$
$`+`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{K_1^{}\left[2R_3R_1\right]+6K_2^{}\left[R_2+4R_3+2R_4\right]+4K_3^{}R_2}{(K_1+K_2)Q}}\}.`$
While $`K_{1,2}`$ are combinations of the Wilson coefficients $`C_{1,2}`$, the $`K_{1,2,3}^{}`$ depend also on $`C_{3,4,5,6}`$ which are suppressed by $`\alpha _s/\pi `$:

$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`3C_1^2+2C_1C_2,`$
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`C_2^2,`$
$`K_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2(3C_1C_3+C_1C_4+C_2C_3),`$
$`K_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2C_2C_4,`$
$`K_3^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2(3C_1C_5+C_1C_6+C_2C_5+C_2C_6).`$ (16)
Given that $`K_i^{}/K_j=𝒪(\alpha _s/\pi )`$, we can safely neglect terms of order $`zK_i^{}`$.

The NLO corrections to $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$, that is, corrections to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ of $`𝒪(z\alpha _s)`$, have not been calculated. The challenge lies in the diagrams involving a charm quark, an up quark and a gluon in the intermediate state, which are very sensitive to $`m_c`$, but have only been computed in the $`m_u=m_c`$ limit Beneke:1998sy . Consequently, there is an ambiguity as to which definition of $`m_c`$ is best suited to the evaluation of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$. This is the largest uncertainty at present in the Standard Model prediction for this asymmetry.

To summarize, the Standard Model expression for the CP asymmetry in semileptonic $`B`$ decays is given by

$`A_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mathrm{SM}}=`$ $``$ $`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\eta }}{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}}[1+z({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_S^{}}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_2K_1}{K_1+K_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_2}{K_1+K_2}})`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`z^2{\displaystyle \frac{K_2K_1}{K_2+K_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_S^{}}{B}}\right)+2z^2{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{\rho }}{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_2K_1}{K_1+K_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_S^{}}{B}}1\right)`$
$`+`$ $`z{\displaystyle \frac{7K_1+3K_2}{2(K_1+K_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_b^2}{m_b^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K_1^{}+K_2^{}K_3^{}}{K_1+K_2}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\right)].`$
### II.2 Numerical Results

There are a number of input parameters needed to evaluate eq. (17). The ones not discussed explicitly below ($`m_t`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$, $`B_K`$, etc.) are taken from ref. Hocker:2001jb . The $`K`$’s are calculable in perturbation theory and we use their values in the NDR scheme with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}=225`$MeV (which is close to $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.118`$), given in Table XIII of ref. Buchalla:1996vs . This gives the values shown in Table 1. The uncertainty related to these is tiny compared to the ones discussed next, and will be neglected. For the bag parameters we use the unquenched lattice QCD results with two light flavors Yamada:2001xp ; Shoji ; besides the published values we also use $`B_{S_s}/B_{S_d}=1.04(2)`$ Shoji . These results are in good agreement with Becirevic:2001xt . We also use $`f_B=200\pm 30`$MeV Ryan:2001ej , which is consistent with $`f_B\sqrt{(\overline{\eta }_B/\eta _B)B(m_b)}1.15f_B230\pm 30`$MeV used in Hocker:2001jb . Here, and in the definition of $`\kappa `$ in eq. (6), $`\overline{\eta }_B`$ is related to the scale independent $`\eta _B`$ via $`\overline{\eta }_B=\eta _B[\alpha _s(m_b)]^{6/23}\left(1+\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\frac{5165}{3174}\right)`$ Buchalla:1996vs .

At present, the biggest uncertainty in evaluating eq. (17) comes from not knowing the NLO \[$`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$\] corrections. In particular, it results in an ambiguity in the quark mass definitions used. This is not relevant for $`z`$, since $`z`$ is only scheme dependent at NNLO \[$`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$\]. We use $`z=0.085\pm 0.01`$, which takes into account the correlation between $`m_b`$ and $`m_c`$. In $`a_{\mathrm{SL}}^{1/m_b}`$, in eq. (14), we use the pole mass Dighe:2001gc , $`m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}=(4.8\pm 0.1)`$GeV. In the definition of $`B_S^{}`$, in eq. (II.1), it is the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass which enters, and we use the one-loop relation, $`\overline{m}_b(m_b)=m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}\left(1\frac{4\alpha _s}{3\pi }\right)`$. The $`m_b^2`$ factor which enters the definition of $`\kappa `$ in eq. (6) is a large source of uncertainty that will only be reduced when the NLO correction is known, and we choose to use $`\overline{m}_b(m_b)`$. While this choice is somewhat ad hoc, it is motivated by the fact that it is a good approximation in the case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ is known to NLO precision, i.e., in the $`m_u=m_c`$ limit. This is also a conservative choice for constraining new physics in the rest of this paper (since it reduces the SM expectation compared to using $`m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}`$).

In Fig. 1 we show the Standard Model prediction for $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$, using the $`R`$fit approach in the `CkmFitter` package Hocker:2001xe , where theoretical errors are considered as allowed ranges Harrison:1998yr ; Hocker:2001xe .111In this approach, one determines the confidence level (CL) for a particular set of parameter values (e.g., $`\overline{\rho }\overline{\eta }`$, $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$, etc.) to be consistent with both the measurements and the theoretical inputs, the latter being let free to vary within their allowed ranges. For example, the curve in Fig. 1 gives the CL that a certain value of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ is consistent with the theory. But the CL of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ falling within a range is not defined, since that would require all input parameters to be viewed as distributions with probabilistic interpretations. With the above input parameters, the range of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ values with greater than 10% CL is

$$1.28\times 10^3<A_{\mathrm{SL}}<0.48\times 10^3.$$
(18)
The range with greater than 32% CL (that would correspond to a “$`1\sigma `$ range” if the theoretical errors were negligible) is only slightly smaller, $`1.18\times 10^3<A_{\mathrm{SL}}<0.55\times 10^3`$. This indicates that the uncertainty in eq. (18) is dominated by theoretical errors, resulting in the plateau in Fig. 1 with a confidence level near unity. The uncertainty will decrease when the constraints on $`\overline{\eta }`$ improve, the NLO correction to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ is computed, and the $`b`$ quark mass is more precisely determined. We did not assign an error to the assumption of local quark-hadron duality which enters the OPE calculation of the nonleptonic $`B`$ decay rates determining $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$. We may gain confidence that the errors related to this are small if future lattice calculations can account for the $`b`$ hadron lifetimes and, especially, for the $`B_s`$ lifetime difference.

At leading order, corresponding to $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}^0`$ in eq. (5), a constraint $`X_{}<A_{\mathrm{SL}}<X_+`$ with $`X_+>0`$ and $`X_{}<0`$ excludes the interior of two circles, one with radius $`R_+`$ around the point $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })=(1,R_+)`$, and another with radius $`R_{}`$ around the point $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })=(1,R_{})`$. With the above central values of the input parameters, $`R_\pm =\kappa /(2|X_\pm |)6.7\times 10^4/|X_\pm |`$. If $`X_+<0`$ \[$`X_{}>0`$\], then the corresponding excluded region is the outside of a circle of radius $`R_+`$ \[$`R_{}`$\] around the point $`(1,R_+)`$ \[$`(1,R_{})`$\]. Including the terms in $`a_{\mathrm{SL}}^z`$ distorts these circles by making them slightly larger for $`\overline{\rho }<1`$ than for $`\overline{\rho }>1`$, as shown in Fig. 2.

In Fig. 2, the left plot shows the constraint that the present data on $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$, eq. (4), provide on the $`\overline{\rho }\overline{\eta }`$ plane. The right plot shows the constraint that would follow from a hypothetical future value $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}=(1\pm 3)\times 10^3`$. We chose the central value to be within the SM allowed range and the error to represent an experimental accuracy that may be achievable with 500 fb-1 data expected by 2005 at the $`B`$ factories, using a simple statistical scaling of the BABAR result Aubert:2002mn , which is based on 20 fb-1 data and is the most precise one in eq. (3). The dark shaded regions contain the points with confidence levels above 90%, and include the best fit points. The dark and medium shaded regions together contain the “one sigma” allowed regions with CL above 32%. The dark-, medium-, and light-shaded regions together contain all points with CL higher than 10%. Thus, the white regions have at most 10% CL. The small diagonally hatched areas show the SM allowed region (points with greater than 10% CL). The horizontally stripped regions contain the points with CL above 10% for a hypothetical “perfect” measurement of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}=+0.002`$ (left plot) and $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}=0.001`$ (right plot). These illustrate the significance of the present theoretical errors in interpreting the experimental results, and the importance of reducing them by determining $`m_b`$ and $`z`$ more precisely and especially by completing the NLO calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$.

One sees that within the next few years $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ will not be a useful constraint on $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ in the context of the Standard Model if the experimental result remains consistent with the SM prediction. However, as we discuss it next, it is a sensitive probe of new physics, and already provides interesting constraints on certain models.

## III $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}}`$ with New Physics

### III.1 Analytical Expressions

We investigate $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ in models of new physics Sanda:1997rh ; Randall:1998te ; Cahn:1999gx ; Barenboim:1999in  with the following two features:

(i) The $`3\times 3`$ CKM matrix is unitary.

(ii) Tree level processes are dominated by the SM.

The second feature means that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, and the new physics effects modify only $`M_{12}`$. Then, quite generally, these effects can be parameterized by two new parameters, $`\theta _d`$ and $`r_d`$, defined through

$$M_{12}=r_d^2e^{2i\theta _d}M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}.$$
(19)
This modification involves well-known consequences for the mass difference between the neutral $`B`$ mesons,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_B=r_d^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_B)^{\mathrm{SM}},$$
(20)
and for the CP asymmetry in charmonium-containing $`bc\overline{c}s`$ decays, which is denoted throughout this paper by $`a_{\psi K}`$,

$$a_{\psi K}=\mathrm{sin}(2\beta +2\theta _d).$$
(21)
For the CP asymmetry in semileptonic decays, the modification from the Standard Model value depends on both $`r_d^2`$ and $`2\theta _d`$:

$$A_{\mathrm{SL}}=\text{Re}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}{M_{12}}\right)^{\mathrm{SM}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _d}{r_d^2}+\text{Im}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}{M_{12}}\right)^{\mathrm{SM}}\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta _d}{r_d^2}.$$
(22)
The first term has been previously investigated. Since $`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}/M_{12})^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is larger than $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ by a factor of order $`m_b^2/m_c^2`$, it could give an asymmetry that is an order of magnitude larger than the Standard Model prediction. This would happen if the new physics contribution to $`M_{12}`$ has a large new phase ($`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _d\ll ̸1`$). The second term is suppressed by $`m_c^2/m_b^2`$ compared to the first one, however, one might expect it to be enhanced in the region $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _d0`$ and $`r_d^21`$, corresponding to cancelling contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ from the Standard Model and from new physics. However, we find that this term plays a numerically negligible role as long as the error of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ is much larger than the SM expectation.

Our purpose is to find the constraints on $`r_d^2`$ and $`2\theta _d`$ from the present measurements of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$. We need therefore to evaluate $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}/M_{12})^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. In ref. Dighe:2001gc  one can find the $`m_c^2/m_b^2`$, $`1/m_b`$, penguin and NLO QCD corrections. Given the present experimental accuracy, it is sufficient for our purposes to include only corrections of order 10%, that is, $`𝒪(z)`$ and $`𝒪(1/m_b)`$ corrections:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}{M_{12}}}\right)^{\mathrm{SM}}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi m_b^2}{3m_W^2\overline{\eta }_BS_0(m_t^2/m_W^2)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}(K_2K_1){\displaystyle \frac{B_S^{}}{B}}+(K_1+{\displaystyle \frac{K_2}{2}})`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{K_1}{2}}K_2){\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_b^2}{m_b^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B}}3z(K_1+K_2){\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{\rho }i\overline{\eta }}{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}}].`$
There are four parameters related to flavor violation that are relevant to our discussion here: the CKM parameters $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ and the new physics parameters of eq. (19) $`r_d^2`$ and $`2\theta _d`$. There are also four critical constraints: $`|V_{ub}|`$ from charmless semileptonic $`B`$ decays (these are tree level processes and therefore, by assumption, unaffected by the new physics), $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ of eq. (20), $`a_{\psi K}`$ of eq. (21), and $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ of eq. (22). In the next subsection we study the consistency of these four measurements and their combined constraints on the model parameters. Note that we cannot use the measured value of $`ϵ_K`$ and the lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ since they may involve additional parameters.

### III.2 Numerical Results

Fig. 3 shows the allowed range of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ for arbitrary $`r_d`$ and $`\theta _d`$ using the constraints from $`|V_{ub}|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$, and $`a_{\psi K}`$. To evaluate eq. (23), we used the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ $`b`$ quark mass in the overall factor, as in sec. II.B. The black curve superimposed in Fig. 3 shows the confidence level corresponding to the measured value of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ in eq. (4). In the presence of new physics that can be parameterized by $`r_d`$ and $`\theta _d`$, the range of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ with greater than 10% CL is $`0.4\times 10^2<A_{\mathrm{SL}}<3.9\times 10^2`$, whereas the measurement in eq. (4) implies $`2.1\times 10^2<A_{\mathrm{SL}}<2.5\times 10^2`$ at the same CL. Clearly, the recent measurements of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ are sensitive enough to probe new physics, and already constrain the $`r_d^22\theta _d`$ parameter space.

It is interesting to note that if $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ is negative, as in the SM, then new physics that can be parameterized by $`r_d`$ and $`\theta _d`$ can only enhance it by a factor of few. However, if new physics makes $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ positive, then it can be enhanced by more than an order of magnitude. The reasons for this situation are explained below.

The top left plot in Fig. 4 shows the confidence levels of $`r_d^2`$ and $`2\theta _d`$ from the measurements of $`|V_{ub}|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$, and $`a_{\psi K}`$. The ranges with greater than 10% CL are

$$0.2<r_d^2<6.4,0.4<2\theta _d<3.6.$$
(24)
The errors are again dominated by theoretical ranges, except for the upper bound on $`r_d^2`$. Consequently, the ranges with greater than 32% CL, $`0.2<r_d^2<5.2`$ and $`0.3<2\theta _d<3.5`$, only differ significantly from eq. (24) in $`(r_d^2)_{\mathrm{max}}`$. This plot makes it clear why new physics can enhance much more a positive $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ value than a negative one. First, since $`a_{\psi K}>0`$ is firmly established, the maximal allowed magnitude of $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _d`$ is larger for positive values than it is for negative ones Eyal:1999ii . Second, the correlations between the three constraints are such that while maximal positive $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _d`$ and minimal $`r_d^2`$ are allowed simultaneously, this is not the case for negative $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _d`$. The top right plot shows the present constraints on the $`r_d^22\theta _d`$ plane, including also the measurement of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$. The measurement of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ has an noticeable impact: in particular, the lowest values of $`r_d^2`$ (around 0.2) are now disfavored, and almost the entire $`r_d^20.5`$ region is no longer among the best-fit points. The bottom left plot show the constraints that would follow from a hypothetical future value, $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}=(1\pm 3)\times 10^3`$. Such a measurement would be able to exclude a large part of the $`r_d^2<1`$ parameter space (i.e., cancelling contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ from the SM and new physics), except if $`2\theta _d`$ were near $`0`$ or $`\pi `$. This plot is rather insensitive to the expected reduction of the error of $`a_{\psi K}`$ by itself, while additional improvements in $`|V_{ub}|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ will make a significant difference. This is shown in the bottom right plot, where reduced errors about the present central values in $`|V_{ub}|`$ (10%), $`f_B`$ (10 MeV) and $`a_{\psi K}`$ (0.04) are also assumed.

### III.3 The $`𝑩_𝒔`$ system

Similar analyses will become possible in the future for the $`B_s`$ system. Within the SM, the semileptonic asymmetry in $`B_s`$ decays is suppressed even more strongly than the asymmetry in $`B_d`$ decays. (For the sake of clarity, we now call the respective asymmetries $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}^s`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}^d`$.) While the $`m_c^2/m_t^2`$ suppression factor in eq. (6) is common to both, the CKM dependence is different. For $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}^d`$ it is given by eq. (7), which is a factor of order unity. In contrast, for $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}^s`$ it is given by $`\text{Im}\left(\frac{V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}}{V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}}\right)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}2\beta _s`$. In Fig. 5 we give the CL for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _s`$ within the SM. We learn that the range of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _s`$ with greater than 10% CL is

$$0.026<\mathrm{sin}2\beta _s<0.048,$$
(25)
Consequently, $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}^s`$ is unobservably small in the SM.

Defining $`M_{12}^sr_s^2e^{2i\theta _s}(M_{12}^s)^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, the present lower bound from the LEP/SLD/CDF combined amplitude fit (corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}>15.0\text{ps}^1`$) implies

$$r_s^2>0.6,$$
(26)
whereas there is no constraint on $`\theta _s`$ yet. These parameters can be determined in the future in the following ways: (i) A measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ will constrain $`r_s^2`$. (ii) A measurement of the CP asymmetry in $`B_s\psi \varphi `$ or $`\psi \eta ^{()}`$ will constrain $`\mathrm{sin}2(\beta _s+\theta _s)`$. If the asymmetry is much larger than the SM range, it practically determines $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _s`$. (iii) A measurement of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}^s`$ will be proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _s/r_s^2`$ and will give a consistency check on the interpretation of the previous two measurements. The values of the four parameters $`r_d^2`$, $`2\theta _d`$, $`r_s^2`$ and $`2\theta _s`$ provide an excellent probe of the flavor and CP structure of new physics.

## IV $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}}`$ with Minimal Flavor Violation

### IV.1 Analytical Expressions

Minimal flavor violation (MFV) is the name given to a class of new physics models that do not have any new operators beyond those present in the Standard Model and in which all flavor changing transitions are governed by the CKM matrix with no new phases beyond the CKM phase Ciuchini:1998xy ; Ali:1999we ; Buras:2000dm ; Buras:2000xq ; Buras:2001af ; Buras:2001pn ; Bergmann:2001pm . Examples include the constrained minimal supersymmetric Standard Model and the two Higgs doublet models of types I and II. In these models, the SM predictions for some flavor changing processes remain unchanged, while other are modified but in a correlated way. The new physics contributions that are relevant to our discussion depend on a single new parameter, $`F_{tt}`$, that is real but could have either sign. These models can be viewed as special cases of sec. III — the correspondence is $`r_d^2=|F_{tt}|/S_0`$ and $`2\theta _d=0(\pi )`$ for $`F_{tt}>0(<0)`$ — with the additional constraints, (ii) and (v) below:

(i) Semileptonic $`B`$ decays depend on $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ in the same way as in the Standard Model.

(ii) The ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ depends on $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|`$ in the same way as in the Standard Model.

(iii) The CP asymmetry $`a_{\psi K}`$ depends on the sign of $`F_{tt}`$ Buras:2001af :

$$a_{\psi K}=\mathrm{sign}(F_{tt})\mathrm{sin}2\beta .$$
(27)
(iv) The mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ depends on $`|F_{tt}|`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_B=(\mathrm{\Delta }m_B)^{\mathrm{SM}}\frac{|F_{tt}|}{S_0}.$$
(28)
(The QCD correction in MFV models may differ from $`\eta _B`$, but the modification is the same for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_{d,s}}`$ and for the top contribution to $`ϵ_K`$, so it can be absorbed in $`F_{tt}`$ Buras:2000xq .)

(v) The Standard Model contribution to $`ϵ_K`$ that is proportional to Im\[$`(V_{ts}V_{td}^{})^2`$\] is multiplied by $`F_{tt}`$ while the other contributions remain unchanged:

$$ϵ_K=ϵ_{tt}^{\mathrm{SM}}F_{tt}+ϵ_{ct}^{\mathrm{SM}}+ϵ_{cc}^{\mathrm{SM}}.$$
(29)
The constraints on $`\overline{\rho }`$, $`\overline{\eta }`$ and $`F_{tt}`$ from these processes have been analyzed in a number of papers (see, for example, Buras:2000dm ; Bergmann:2001pm ). In this section we present the MFV predictions for $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$.

The dependence of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ on new contributions is simple. Since for the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing amplitude one has $`M_{12}=(M_{12})^{\mathrm{SM}}F_{tt}/S_0`$, while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ is not modified, we obtain:

$$A_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mathrm{MFV}}=A_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mathrm{SM}}\frac{S_0}{F_{tt}}.$$
(30)
Thus the size of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ may be different from the Standard Model.

As concerns the sign of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$, one might naively think that it could be opposite to the Standard Model prediction, since $`\mathrm{sign}(A_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mathrm{MFV}})\mathrm{sign}(F_{tt})`$. However, this is not the case, because $`\mathrm{sign}(A_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mathrm{SM}})=\mathrm{sign}(\overline{\eta })`$, and so

$$\mathrm{sign}(A_{\mathrm{SL}}^{\mathrm{MFV}})=\mathrm{sign}(\overline{\eta }F_{tt}).$$
(31)
The product $`\overline{\eta }F_{tt}`$ (in combination with the upper bound on $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ which implies $`\overline{\rho }<1`$) determines, however, also the sign of $`a_{\psi K}`$:

$$\mathrm{sign}(a_{\psi K}^{\mathrm{MFV}})=\mathrm{sign}(\overline{\eta }F_{tt}),$$
(32)
and is therefore experimentally determined to be positive. We conclude that there can be no sign difference between the SM and MFV predictions for $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$. In other words, if $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ is experimentally found to be positive, both the Standard Model and the MFV models will be excluded.

### IV.2 Numerical Results

The shaded region in the left plot in Fig. 6 shows the confidence levels of $`F_{tt}`$ obtained from the above constraints. The range of $`F_{tt}`$ with greater than 10% CL is

$$7.3<F_{tt}<2.4\text{and}1.2<F_{tt}<7.3.$$
(33)
The range corresponding to greater than 32% CL is $`4.3<F_{tt}<2.7`$ and $`1.4<F_{tt}<5.1`$. This implies, using eq. (30) and $`S_0(m_t^2/m_W^2)2.4`$, that the magnitude of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ can hardly be enhanced compared to the SM, as it is shown in the right plot in Fig. 6. The range of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ values with greater than 10% CL in MFV models is

$$1.77\times 10^3<A_{\mathrm{SL}}<0.33\times 10^3,$$
(34)
while the greater than 32% CL range is $`1.48\times 10^3<A_{\mathrm{SL}}<0.43\times 10^3`$. Thus, a measurement of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ significantly above the SM prediction would exclude both the Standard Model, and models with minimal flavor violation.

The existence of the $`F_{tt}<0`$ solution is sensitive to the value of $`f_B`$ (this was first pointed out in Ref. Buras:2001af ). This is shown by the curves superimposed on the left plot in Fig. 6, corresponding to $`f_B=170\pm 10`$MeV (dashed), $`f_B=190\pm 10`$MeV (dash-dotted), and $`f_B=210\pm 10`$MeV (dotted). If future unquenched lattice calculations obtain $`f_B`$ above $`200`$MeV with small error, then the confidence level of the $`F_{tt}<0`$ solution is reduced, and this solution practically disappears if $`f_B=210\pm 10`$MeV or larger. Note also that if the value of $`f_B`$ decreases then the CL of the $`F_{tt}<0`$ solution increases, while that of the $`F_{tt}>0`$ solution is reduced. For example, for $`f_B=170\pm 10`$MeV, both solutions have about equal CL, and if $`f_B=160\pm 10`$MeV then the CL of the $`F_{tt}>0`$ solution is hardly above 50%.

Fig. 7 shows the allowed range of $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ in MFV models. In agreement with Fig. 6, it can be seen that the $`\overline{\eta }<0`$ solution is less favored than the allowed $`\overline{\eta }>0`$ region.

## V Conclusions

We investigate $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$, the CP asymmetry in semileptonic $`B`$ decays, in three theoretical frameworks.

Within the Standard Model, we improve previous predictions by including corrections of order $`m_c^2/m_b^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ \[see eq. (17)\]. This leaves the NLO corrections, of order $`\alpha _s`$, as the largest source of uncertainty. Our improved calculation gives that the allowed range of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$, corresponding to greater than 10% CL, is: $`1.3\times 10^3<A_{\mathrm{SL}}<0.5\times 10^3`$. The smallness of the asymmetry means that even with improved statistics in the $`B`$ factories, no useful constraints on the CKM matrix will arise within the next few years.

Within models of minimal flavor violation, a mild enhancement of the asymmetry is possible, $`1.8\times 10^3<A_{\mathrm{SL}}<0.3\times 10^3`$. This is again too small to be observed in the near future. Conversely, if the asymmetry is measured with a value that is much larger than the SM range, MFV will be excluded. Moreover, within MFV models, the SM relation, sign($`A_{\mathrm{SL}})=`$sign($`a_{\psi K})`$, is maintained; a measurement of a positive $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ would therefore exclude both the SM and MFV.

The recent measurements of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ do already have meaningful consequences in probing less constrained extensions of the SM, where there are new sources of flavor and CP violation. In particular, in models where the new effects can be neglected in tree-level decays but are significant in flavor changing neutral current processes, the four observables — $`|V_{ub}|`$ from charmless semileptonic $`B`$ decay rates, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$, $`a_{\psi K}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ — depend on four parameters: the two CKM parameters $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ and the two new parameters $`r_d^2`$ and $`2\theta _d`$ \[see eq. (19)\]. In this framework, $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ makes an impact in constraining the allowed range in the $`r_d^22\theta _d`$ plane, especially in the region of small $`r_d^2`$ and large $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _d`$. In this region, there is strong cancellation between the SM and the new contributions to $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing, which minimizes the magnitude of the dispersive part and maximizes the relative phase between the dispersive and absorptive parts. Under these circumstances, $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ is much enhanced and opposite in sign to the Standard Model prediction. The recent experimental results disfavor such a possibility (see Fig. 3).

We conclude that improved bounds on $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ will further constrain new physics contributions to $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing. If a sizable value of $`A_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ is measured in the near future, not only the Standard Model but also its extensions with minimal flavor violation will be excluded.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Gerhard Buchalla, Bob Cahn, François Le Diberder, Uli Nierste, and especially Andreas Höcker for helpful discussions. Z.L. was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098. Y.N. is supported by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.