format: text

text:
# Loop effects and non-decoupling property of SUSY QCD in 𝑔𝑏→𝑡𝐻⁻

## I Introduction

Although the Standard Model (SM) is phenomenologically successful, it is arguably an effective theory and new physics must exist at high energy scales. Among all elementary particles predicted by the SM, top quark and Higgs boson may hold the key to new physics since they are most related to the electroweak symmetry breaking. An intensive study of the properties of top quark and Higgs boson will be one of the primary tasks of particle physics in the new millennium.

So far the most intensively studied new physics model is the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) . This model predicts the existence of five Higgs bosons, $`H^0`$, $`h^0`$, $`A^0`$ and $`H^\pm `$, all of which couples to top quark. Compared to the couplings in the SM, the coupling $`tbH^{}`$ is an utterly new coupling. Studies  show that this coupling is sensitive to quantum corrections and may be a good probe of the MSSM. Although this coupling could be measured from top quark decay process $`tH^+b`$ if the charged Higgs is sufficiently light, the direct production of a top quark associated with the charged Higgs boson through the subprocess $`gbtH^{}`$ at hadron colliders will be a good probe for $`tbH^{}`$ coupling . In this work we calculate the one-loop SUSY QCD corrections to this process owing to the following motivations. Firstly, if the charged Higgs boson is heavy, $`m_{H^+}>m_t+m_b`$, as a main charged Higgs production channel, the process $`gbtH^{}`$ will provide sizable cross section at the Tevatron and LHC. The supersymmetric radiative corrections, especially the SUSY-QCD corrections, to this high energy process may be significant, as was found for other similar processes . Secondly, some recent studies  showed that SUSY-QCD may be non-decoupling in some processes involving Higgs bosons. As is well known, the decoupling theorem  states that under certain conditions in a given quantum field theory with light and heavy particles, if the heavy particles are integrated out to all orders in perturbation theory, the remaining effective action to be valid at energies much lower than the heavy particle masses does not show any trace of these heavy particles. If SUSY QCD is non-decoupling in some cases, we need a proper understanding and thus we need to further investigate such non-decoupling property of SUSY QCD. $`gbtH^{}`$ will be an ideal process for this purpose.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II we present the formula for the one-loop SUSY-QCD corrections to the $`gbtH^\pm `$ process. In Section III we scan the parameter space of MSSM to estimate the size of SUSY-QCD corrections. In Section IV we study the decoupling behavior of SUSY QCD. A discussion on how the decoupling and non-decoupling take place is also given. Finally, the conclusions are summarized in Section V.

## II Calculations

The subprocess $`gbtH^{}`$ occurs through both s-channel and t-channel. The tree-level amplitude is given by

$$M_0=M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)},$$
(1)
where $`M_0^{(s)}`$ and $`M_0^{(t)}`$ represent the amplitudes arising from the s-channel diagram shown in Fig. 1$`(a)`$ and the t-channel diagram shown in Fig. 1$`(b)`$, respectively. Their amplitudes can be expressed as

$`M_0^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{igg_sV_{tb}}{\sqrt{2}m_W(\widehat{s}m_b^2)}}\overline{u}(p_t)\left[2\eta _tp_b^\mu P_L+2\eta _bp_b^\mu P_R\eta _t\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_L\eta _b\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_R\right]u(p_b)\epsilon _\mu (k)T_{ij}^a,`$ (2)
$`M_0^{(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{igg_sV_{tb}}{\sqrt{2}m_W(\widehat{t}m_t^2)}}\overline{u}(p_t)\left[2\eta _tp_t^\mu P_L+2\eta _bp_t^\mu P_R\eta _t\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_L\eta _b\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_R\right]u(p_b)\epsilon _\mu (k)T_{ij}^a,`$ (3)
where $`P_{R,L}(1\pm \gamma _5)/2`$, and $`p_t`$, $`p_b`$ and $`k`$ are the momenta of the outgoing top quark, the incoming bottom quark and the incoming gluon, respectively. $`\widehat{s}`$ and $`\widehat{t}`$ are the subprocess Mandelstam variables defined by $`\widehat{s}=(p_b+k)^2=(p_t+p_H^{})^2`$ and $`\widehat{t}=(p_tk)^2=(p_H^{}p_b)^2`$. $`T^a`$ are the $`SU(3)`$ color matrices and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets. The constants $`\eta _{b,t}`$ are defined by $`\eta _b=m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\eta _t=m_t\mathrm{cot}\beta `$.

The one-loop Feynman diagrams of SUSY QCD corrections are shown in Fig. 1$`(c)`$-$`(o)`$. In our calculations we use dimensional regularization to control all the ultraviolet divergences in the virtual loop corrections and we adopt the on-mass-shell renormalization scheme. The renormalization condition for the coupling constant $`g_s`$ is similar to that for the coupling constant $`e`$ in QED, i.e., the coupling of the photon (gluon) to a pair of fermions is required to recover the tree-level result in the limit of zero momentum transfer. This condition yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta g_s}{g_s}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_2^g,`$ (4)
where $`\delta g_s`$ and $`Z_2^g`$ are the renormalization constants defined by $`g_s^0g_s+\delta g_s`$ and $`A_\mu ^0\sqrt{Z_2^g}A_\mu `$ with $`g_s^0`$ denoting bare coupling constant and $`A_\mu ^0`$ bare gluon fields (color index suppressed).

Including the one-loop SUSY QCD corrections, the renormalized amplitude for $`gbtH^{}`$ can be written as

$`M_{ren}`$ $`=`$ $`M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)}+\delta M,`$ (5)
where $`\delta M`$ represents the one-loop SUSY QCD corrections given by

$`\delta M=\delta M^{V_1(s)}+\delta M^{V_2(s)}+\delta M^{s(s)}+\delta M^{box}+\delta M^{V_1(t)}+\delta M^{V_2(t)}+\delta M^{s(t)}.`$ (6)
Here $`\delta M^{V_1(s)}`$, $`\delta M^{V_2(s)}`$ and $`\delta M^{s(s)}`$ represent the renormalized vertex $`gb\overline{b}`$, $`t\overline{b}H^{}`$ and the renormalized propagator in the s-channel diagram, respectively. Similar definitions are for $`\delta M^{V_1(t)}`$, $`\delta M^{V_2(t)}`$ and $`\delta M^{s(t)}`$ in the t-channel diagram. The contribution of the box diagram is denoted by $`\delta M^{box}`$. Each $`\delta M^l`$ can be decomposed as

$`\delta M^l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{igg_s^3T_{ij}^aV_{tb}}{16\sqrt{2}\pi ^2m_W}}C^l\overline{u}(p_t)\{F_1^l\gamma ^\mu P_L+F_2^l\gamma ^\mu P_R+F_3^lp_b^\mu P_L+F_4^lp_b^\mu P_R+F_5^lp_t^\mu P_L+F_6^lp_t^\mu P_R`$ (8)
$`+F_7^l\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_L+F_8^l\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_R+F_9^lp_b^\mu \mathit{}P_L+F_{10}^lp_b^\mu \mathit{}P_R+F_{11}^lp_t^\mu \mathit{}P_L+F_{12}^lp_t^\mu \mathit{}P_R\}u(p_b)\epsilon _\mu (k),`$
where the coefficients $`C^l`$ and the form factors $`F_n^l`$ are given explicitly in Appendix A and B, respectively . We have checked that all the ultraviolet divergences canceled as a result of renormalizability of MSSM.

The amplitude squared is given by

$`\overline{{\displaystyle }}\left|M_{ren}\right|^2=\overline{{\displaystyle }}\left|M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)}\right|^2+2Re\overline{{\displaystyle }}\left[\left(M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)}\right)^{}\delta M\right],`$ (9)
where

$`\overline{{\displaystyle }}\left|M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)}\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2g_s^2|V_{tb}|^2}{N_Cm_W^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{s}m_b^2)^2}}[(\eta _b^2+\eta _t^2)(p_bkp_tk+2p_bkp_bp_tm_b^2p_tkp_tm_b^2p_bp_t)`$ (13)
$`+2m_b^2m_t^2(p_bkm_b^2)]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{t}m_t^2)^2}}[(\eta _b^2+\eta _t^2)(p_bkp_tk+m_t^2p_bkm_t^2p_bp_t)`$
$`+2m_b^2m_t^2(p_tkm_t^2)]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{s}m_b^2)(\widehat{t}m_t^2)}}[(\eta _b^2+\eta _t^2)(2p_bkp_tk+2p_bkp_bp_t`$
$`2(p_bp_t)^2m_b^2p_tk+m_t^2p_bk)+2m_b^2m_t^2(p_tkp_bk2p_bp_t)]\},`$
$`\overline{{\displaystyle }}\left(M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)}\right)^{}\delta M={\displaystyle \frac{g^2g_s^4|V_{tb}|^2}{64N_C\pi ^2m_W^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{12}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{s}m_b^2}}h_n^{(s)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{t}m_t^2}}h_n^{(t)}\right]C^lF_n^l.`$ (14)
Here the color factor $`N_C=3`$, and $`h_n^{(s)}`$ and $`h_n^{(t)}`$ can be found in Appendix A.

The cross section for the parton process $`gbtH^{}`$ is

$$\widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{s})=_{\widehat{t}_{min}}^{\widehat{t}_{max}}\frac{1}{16\pi \widehat{s}^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}|M_{ren}|^2𝑑\widehat{t},$$
(15)
with

$`\widehat{t}_{max,min}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{m_t^2+m_H^{}^2\widehat{s}\pm \sqrt{[\widehat{s}(m_t+m_H^{})^2][\widehat{s}(m_tm_H^{})^2]}\right\}.`$ (16)
The total hadronic cross section for $`pp(\mathrm{or}p\overline{p})tH^{}+X`$ can be obtained by folding the subprocess cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ with the parton luminosity

$$\sigma (s)=_{\tau _0}^1𝑑\tau \frac{dL}{d\tau }\widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{s}=s\tau ),$$
(17)
where $`\tau _0=(m_t+m_H^{})^2/s`$, and $`s`$ is the $`pp(\mathrm{or}p\overline{p})`$ center-of-mass energy squared. $`dL/d\tau `$ is the parton luminosity given by

$$\frac{dL}{d\tau }=_\tau ^1\frac{dx}{x}[f_g^p(x,Q)f_b^p(\tau /x,Q)+(gb)],$$
(18)
where $`f_b^p`$ and $`f_g^p`$ are the bottom quark and gluon distribution functions in a proton, respectively. In our numerical calculation, we use the CTEQ5L parton distribution functions  with $`Q=m_t+m_H^{}`$.

To show the size of the corrections, we define the relative quantity as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}=\frac{\sigma \sigma _0}{\sigma _0},$$
(19)
where $`\sigma _0`$ is the tree-level cross section.

## III Numerical results

Before performing numerical calculations, we take a look at the relevant parameters involved.

For the SM parameters, we took $`m_W=80.448`$ GeV, $`m_Z=91.187`$ GeV, $`m_t=176`$ GeV, $`m_b=4.5`$ GeV, and used the two-loop running coupling constant $`\alpha _s(Q)`$.

For the SUSY parameters, apart from the charged Higgs mass, gluino mass and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the mass parameters of stops and sbottoms are involved. The mass square matrices of stop and sbottoms take the form ($`q=t`$ or $`b`$

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2& m_qX_q^{}\\ m_qX_q& m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}^2\end{array}\right),$$
(20)
where

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+m_q^2m_Z^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+e_q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)\mathrm{cos}(2\beta ),`$ (21)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{D}}^2+m_q^2+e_qm_Z^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}(2\beta ),`$ (22)
$`X_q`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}A_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta ,\hfill & \mathrm{for}q=t,\hfill \\ A_b\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta ,\hfill & \mathrm{for}q=b.\hfill \end{array}`$ (25)
Here $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^2`$ are soft-breaking mass terms for left-handed squark doublet $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$, right-handed up squark $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ and down squark $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$, respectively. $`A_b(A_t)`$ is the coefficient of the trilinear term $`H_1\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{D}`$ ($`H_2\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{U}`$ ) in soft-breaking terms and $`\mu `$ the bilinear coupling of the two Higgs doublet in the superpotential. Thus the SUSY parameters involved in stop and sbottom mass matrices are

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}},m_{\stackrel{~}{U}},m_{\stackrel{~}{D}},A_t,A_b,\mu ,\mathrm{tan}\beta .`$
The mass square matrices are diagonalized by unitary rotations ($`q=t`$ or $`b`$)

$`R^q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _q& \mathrm{sin}\theta _q\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _q& \mathrm{cos}\theta _q\end{array}\right)`$ (28)
which relates the weak-eigenstates $`(\stackrel{~}{q}_L,\stackrel{~}{q}_R)`$ to the mass eigenstates $`(\stackrel{~}{q}_1,\stackrel{~}{q}_2)`$. Then the stop and sbottom masses as well as the mixing angles are obtained by

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{1,2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}^2\pm \sqrt{\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}^2\right)^2+4m_q^2X_q^2}\right],`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_qX_q}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}^2}}.`$ (30)
To determinate the mixing angles completely, we adopt the convention in  which sets $`\theta _q=\pi /4`$ if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}`$ and shifts $`\pi /2`$ to $`\theta _q`$ if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}>m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}`$. Thus $`\theta _q`$ lies in the range $`\frac{\pi }{4}\theta _q\frac{3}{4}\pi `$.

To find out the size of the one-loop SUSY QCD effects, we performed a scan over the nine-dimensional parameter space: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$, $`A_t`$, $`A_b`$, $`\mu `$, $`tan\beta `$, $`m_H^{}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. In scanning we restricted $`m_H^{}`$, $`A_t`$, $`A_b`$ and $`\mu `$ to the sub-TeV region and required $`m_H^{}>150`$ GeV. Other mass parameters are assumed to be smaller than 5 TeV. In addition, we consider the following experimental constraints:

* $`\mu >0`$ and a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the range $`5\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$, which might be favored by the recent muon $`g2`$ measurement .
* The LEP and CDF lower mass bounds on gluino, stop and sbottom

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}86.4GeV,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}75.0GeV,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}190GeV.`$ (31)

The scan results are plotted in the plane of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ versus $`\theta _b`$ in Fig. 2.

From Fig. 2 one can see that in most parameter space the mixing of sbottoms is small while the one-loop SUSY QCD effect can be quite large. In some part of the parameter space, the correction size can be larger than 20% which cannot be neglected in the study of this process at LHC.

## IV Decoupling property of SUSY QCD

To find out if SUSY QCD is decoupling from the process $`gbtH^{}`$ in the large limit of SUSY mass parameters, we fix the charged Higgs mass as $`m_H^{}=250GeV`$ and consider the following scenarios.

(1) Scenario A: All squark (collectively denoted by $`m_S`$), gluino masses and $`\mu `$ or $`A`$ parameters are of the same size and much heavier than the electroweak scale, i.e.,

$`m_Sm_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mu orA_torA_bm_SM_{EW}`$ (32)
In this case, both mixings in the sbottom and stop sectors reach their maximal values, i.e., $`\theta _t\pm \frac{\pi }{4}`$, $`\theta _b\pm \frac{\pi }{4}`$. As shown in Eqs. (44-49), the couplings $`\alpha _{ij}`$ in the vertex $`H^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$ are proportional to the linear combination of $`\mu +A_b\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mu +A_t\mathrm{cot}\beta `$. Considering that the couplings $`\alpha _{ij}`$ are proportional to $`m_S`$ as $`\mu `$ or $`A_{t,b}`$ gets large as $`m_S`$, and the loop scalar integral functions $`C_0`$ goes to $`1/2m_S^2`$ as $`m_S\widehat{s}`$ (see Eq. (123) and Eq. (B8) in Ref. ), one can infer that the terms $`\alpha _{ij}A_{ij}^{2(L,R)}C_0^6m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ which arise from the vertex correction to $`H^{}tb`$ do not vanish but go to a non-zero constant, showing a clear indication of non-decoupling behavior. In fact, such non-decoupling behavior will happen as long as the gluino mass and $`\mu `$ or $`A`$ parameters are of the same order, not necessarily degenerate. Actually, from the expansions of the three- and four-point loop integrals in the asymptotic large mass limit in Appendix C, one can see this fact.

As illustrative examples, we plot the dependence of the SUSY-QCD correction to $`gbtH^{}`$ on the common SUSY parameter $`m_S`$ in Fig. 3. From this figure one can see that the non-decoupling behavior indeed happens. As for the dependence of the non-decoupling effects on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, it is quite involved and complicated. For the parameter values chosen in our numerical examples, the corrections are enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

(2) Scenario B: The gluino mass and $`\mu `$ are of the same order (collectively denoted by $`m_S`$) and get much larger than squark masses and electroweak scale, i.e.,

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mu m_Sm_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}M_{EW}`$ (33)
To keep stop and sbottom masses from getting large, we can set $`A_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta `$, $`A_b\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In this scenario, no mixings occur in the sbottom and stop sectors. Apart from the vertex correction discussed in Scenario A, the terms such as $`\alpha _{ij}A_{ij}^{2(L,R)}D_0^2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ in the box contribution (see Eq. (106) and (132)) do not vanish either since the four-point integral functions $`D_{(0,1l)}^21/m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2(l=1,2,3)`$ when $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2\widehat{s}`$. So in this case the SUSY QCD is non-decoupling. This differs from Scenario A where $`D_{(0,1l)}1/m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^4`$.

Although the non-decoupling effects can arise from more diagrams in this case, the reason is the same as in Scenario A, i.e., the couplings $`H^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$ are proportional to $`\mu `$. To prove this point fully, now let’s focus our attention on the terms arising from the corrections to the $`gb\overline{b}`$ and $`g\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ vertices which are also likely to give the contributions to non-decoupling effects in both scenarios we discussed. Firstly, for example we consider the term

$$\frac{2}{3}\eta _tC_{24}^13\eta _t\left[m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2C_0^22C_{24}^2+1/2\right]+\frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}\eta _t2\delta Z_R^b$$
(34)
in $`F_3^{1(s)}`$. From Eq. (112), (120),(123),(124), (127) and (128), we draw a conclusion that the term indeed cancels out. Further, it is easy to find that all terms related with $`A_{bi}^2`$ are zero in the asymptotic large mass limit. This is also valid in the Scenario C and Scenario D we will study. Secondly, we exam the terms such as $`\alpha _{ij}A_{ij}^{1(L,R)}D_0^1m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2`$ in Eq. (106). The asymptotic form of the function $`D_0^1`$ in large mass limit is always proportional to $`\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^4}`$ and different from $`D_0^2`$ which is proportional to $`\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2}`$ in the Scenario B. So the terms don’t cause non-decoupling either.

(3) Scenario C: Only the gluino mass is very large than other SUSY parameters and the electroweak scale

In this scenario, to simplify the calculation we assumed $`m_S=m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}=\mu =A_t=A_b=1TeV`$. As shown in Fig. 4, the SUSY-QCD decouples. The reason is the couplings $`\alpha _{ij}`$ in the vertex $`H^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$ are fixed, and in this case the scalar function like $`C_0^6`$ is proportional to $`\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{m_S^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2}\left[1+\frac{\widehat{s}}{2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2}\right]`$ when $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2\widehat{s}`$ (see Eq. (123,137)), thus the SUSY QCD correction goes like $`\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}\mathrm{log}\frac{m_S^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2}`$.

In the scenario, since $`\widehat{s}`$ can be up to the large collider beam energy squared $`s`$, therefore, not only the logarithmic dependence on the large mass parameter but also the large collider beam energies are responsible for the slow decoupling of the gluino, especially, at LHC, as shown in the figure. This is different from the previous studies in various decays.

(4) Scenario D: Only squark masses are of the same order (collectively denoted by $`m_S`$) and very large than other SUSY parameters and the electroweak scale

As shown in Fig. 5, the SUSY QCD also decouples. In this case, it decouples much faster than in Scenario C where only gluino mass gets large. This can be understood easily because in this case the couplings $`\alpha _{ij}`$ in the vertex $`H^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$ and the mass of gluino are both fixed, so that the SUSY QCD correction goes like $`C_{11}^1\frac{1}{m_S^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2}{m_S^2}`$.

Some remarks on the SUSY QCD correction to the process of $`gbtH^\pm `$ are in order:

* From the above analysis we find that the fundamental reason for such non-decoupling behavior of SUSY QCD in the process $`gbtH^\pm `$ is that some couplings like $`H^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$ are proportional to SUSY mass parameters. This is similar to the non-decoupling property of the heavy top quark in the SM, where the top quark Yukawa couplings are proportional to top quark mass.
* The non-decoupling behavior shown in Fig. 3 is in agreement with previous studies of SUSY-QCD corrections in some decay process. In particular, the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ shown in this figure as a function of the common scale $`m_S`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ looks quite similar to the corresponding corrections in the partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^+t\overline{b})`$, as given in Fig.2 of Ref.. The same kind of similarities are also found between Fig.4 and Fig. 6 of Ref. , and between Fig.5 and Fig.7 of Ref. . Although the processes are different, the fundamental reason for such non-decoupling behavior is the same.
* From Figs. 3-5 one sees that the size of SUSY-QCD corrections can be quite large for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Note that when one-loop effects are too large, higher-level loops must be also calculated. We refer the reader to Ref.  where some techniques of resummation for a better convergence are proposed.
* As shown in Ref. , the genuine QCD corrections to this process is also sizable, which can enhance the production rate by $`40\%80\%`$ when charged Higgs mass and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ vary in the range $`1801000`$ GeV and $`250`$, respectively. It is clear that the SUSY-QCD correction evaluated in this work is comparable in size to the genuine QCD corrections. It is noticeable that the genuine QCD corrections are always positive whereas the SUSY-QCD corrections are negative in most SUSY parameter space.

## V Conclusions

In this work we have evaluated SUSY QCD radiative corrections to the $`gbtH^\pm `$ at Tevatron and LHC. We have found that in some parameter space the one-loop SUSY-QCD correction can be quite large and cannot be neglected. We have discussed in detail on the decoupling behavior of the corrections in the large SUSY mass limit, and found that with fixed gluino mass the one-loop SUSY QCD corrections decouple; while non-decoupling occurs when gluino mass and $`\mu `$ or $`A`$ parameters both get large. The non-decoupling behavior of the SUSY-QCD corrections in the process $`gbtH^{}`$ is similar to the ones found in the literatures for the Higgs particles and top quark decays. We pointed out that such non-decoupling behavior arises from the $`H^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$ vertices which are proportional to SUSY mass parameters, as stated in some previous literatures. Such large non-decoupling effects may play an important role in the indirect search for SUSY from the production of a top quark associated with a charged Higgs boson at Tevatron and LHC.

## Acknowledgment

This work is supported in part by a grant of Chinese Academy of Science for Outstanding Young Scholars.

## VI Appendix A

Here we list the coefficients $`C^l`$, scalar functions $`h_n^{(l)}`$ and the vertex $`V(H^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j)=ig\alpha _{ij}/\sqrt{2}m_W(i,j=1,2)`$ needed in our calculations.

* Coefficients $`C^l`$

$`C^{V(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{s}m_b^2}},C^{V(t)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{t}m_t^2}},`$ (35)
$`C^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{s}m_b^2)^2}},C^{s(t)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{t}m_t^2)^2}},C^{box}=1.`$ (36)
* Scalar functions $`h_n^{(l)}`$

$`h_1^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`4m_t\eta _t(2p_bkp^{(l)}p_b)4m_b\eta _b(p^{(l)}p_t+p_tk),`$ (37)
$`h_3^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta _t(2p_bkp_bp_tm_b^2p_tk2p^{(l)}p_bp_bp_t)+2m_bm_t\eta _b(p_bk2p^{(l)}p_b),`$ (38)
$`h_5^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta _t(m_t^2p_bk2p^{(l)}p_tp_bp_t)+2m_bm_t\eta _b(p_tk2p^{(l)}p_t),`$ (39)
$`h_7^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\eta _t(p^{(l)}p_bp_tkp^{(l)}kp_bp_tp_bkp^{(l)}p_t2p_bkp_tk)4m_bm_t\eta _bp^{(l)}k,`$ (40)
$`h_9^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`4m_t\eta _tp_bk(p_bkp^{(l)}p_b)4m_b\eta _bp^{(l)}p_bp_tk,`$ (41)
$`h_{11}^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`4m_t\eta _tp_bk(p_tkp^{(l)}p_t)4m_b\eta _bp_tkp^{(l)}p_t,`$ (42)
$`h_{2,4,6,8,10,12}^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{1,3,5,7,9,11}^{(l)}(\eta _b\eta _t),`$ (43)
where the index $`l`$ represents the two channels $`s`$ and $`t`$, and $`p^{(s)}=p_b`$, $`p^{(t)}=p_t`$.

* Couplings of $`H^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$

The $`H^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$ interaction terms can be parametrized s

$`_{H^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}m_W}}\alpha _{ij}(i,j=1,2),`$ (44)
where

$`\alpha _{ij}=R_{i1}^tR_{j1}^bg_{LL}+R_{i2}^tR_{j2}^bg_{RR}+R_{i1}^tR_{j2}^bg_{LR}+R_{i2}^tR_{j1}^bg_{RL}`$ (45)
with

$`g_{LL}`$ $`=`$ $`m_W^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}\beta +m_t^2\mathrm{cot}\beta ,`$ (46)
$`g_{RR}`$ $`=`$ $`m_bm_t(\mathrm{tan}\beta +\mathrm{cot}\beta ),`$ (47)
$`g_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`m_b(\mu +A_b\mathrm{tan}\beta ),`$ (48)
$`g_{RL}`$ $`=`$ $`m_t(\mu +A_t\mathrm{cot}\beta ).`$ (49)
## Appendix B

The form factors $`F_n^l`$ raise from the renormalized vertices and propagators of s-channel and t-channel, as well as box diagram given as following.

* The renormalized vertices of s-channel:

$`F_1^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`3\eta _b\{A_{bi}^1m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}p_bkC_0^1+A_{bi}^2m_b[\widehat{s}C_0^1+m_b^2(C_0^1+4C_{11}^1+2C_{21}^1)`$ (52)
$`+2p_bk(C_{11}^1+2C_{12}^1+2C_{23}^1)2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2C_0^11+4C_{24}^1+m_bp_bk(C_0^1+C_{11}^1)]\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}A_{bi}^2\eta _bm_bC_{24}^2{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _tm_b(\delta Z_R^b\delta Z_L^b),`$
$`F_3^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta _t\{[m_b^2(C_{11}^1+C_{21}^1)+p_bk(C_{12}^1+C_{23}^1)+C_{24}^1]+A_{bi}^1m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_b(C_0^1+C_{11}^1)`$ (56)
$`+2A_{bi}^2[C_{24}^1+p_bk(C_{12}^1+C_{23}^1)]\}3\eta _t\{[m_b^2(C_0^2+2C_{11}^2+C_{21}^2)+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2C_0^22C_{24}^2+1/2]`$
$`+2A_{bi}^1m_bm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}(C_0^2+C_{11}^2)+2A_{bi}^2[m_b^2(C_0^2+2C_{11}^2+C_{21}^2)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2C_0^21/2+2C_{24}^2]\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t2\delta Z_R^b,`$
$`F_7^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\eta _t(C_{24}^12A_{bi}^2C_{24}^1){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\eta _t\{m_b^2(C_{21}^2C_0^2)+2p_bk(C_{12}^2+C_{23}^2)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2C_0^2+2C_{24}^21/2`$ (59)
$`2A_{bi}^1m_bm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}C_0^22A_{bi}^2[m_b^2(C_0^2+2C_{11}^2+C_{21}^2)+2p_bk(C_{12}^2+C_{23}^2)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2C_0^21/2+2C_{24}^2]\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t\delta Z_R^b,`$
$`F_{2,4,8}^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{1,3,7}^{V_1(s)}(\eta _t\eta _b,A_{bi}^2A_{bi}^2,RL),`$ (60)
$`F_9^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\eta _b\left[m_b(C_{11}^1+C_{21}^1)+A_{bi}^1m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}(C_0^1+C_{11}^1)+2A_{bi}^2m_b(2C_{12}^1+2C_{23}^1C_{11}^1C_{21}^1)\right]`$ (62)
$`3\eta _b\left[m_b(C_{11}^2+C_{21}^2)+A_{bi}^1m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}C_{11}^2+2A_{bi}^2m_b(C_{11}^2+C_{21}^22C_{12}^22C_{23}^2)\right],`$
$`F_{10}^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_9^{V_1(s)}\left(\eta _b\eta _t,A_{bi}^2A_{bi}^2\right),`$ (63)
where the Feyman integrals are defined as $`C^1C(p_b,k,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}})`$, $`C^2C(p_b,k,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i})`$, $`C^3C(p_t,p_H^{},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j})`$ and

$`F_1^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\alpha _{ij}A_{ij}^{1R}p_bkC_{12}^3,`$ (64)
$`F_2^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^{V_2(s)}\left(RL\right),`$ (65)
$`F_3^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\alpha _{ij}\left[A_{ij}^{1L}m_bC_{12}^3+A_{ij}^{1R}m_t(C_{11}^3C_{12}^3)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}A_{ij}^{2L}C_0^3\right]{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t\left[\delta Z_R^t+\delta Z_L^b+2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_t}{m_t}}\right],`$ (66)
$`F_7^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _{ij}\left[A_{ij}^{1L}m_bC_{12}^3+A_{ij}^{1R}m_t(C_{11}^3C_{12}^3)A_{ij}^{2L}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}C_0^3\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_R^t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_L^b+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_t}{m_t}}\right],`$ (67)
$`F_{4,8}^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{3,7}^{V_2(s)}(RL,\eta _t\eta _b,{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_t}{m_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}}).`$ (68)
Here $`A_{(t,b)i}^1=(1)^i\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{t,b}`$, $`A_{(t,b)i}^2=\frac{1}{2}(1)^i\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{t,b}`$. $`A_{ij}`$ are defined as $`A_{ij}^{1L}=2R_{i2}^tR_{j2}^b`$, $`A_{ij}^{1R}=2R_{i1}^tR_{j1}^b`$, $`A_{ij}^{2L}=2R_{i2}^tR_{j1}^b`$ and $`A_{ij}^{2R}=2R_{i1}^tR_{j2}^b`$.

* The renormalized vertices of t-channel:

$`F_1^{V_1(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}A_{ti}^2\eta _tm_tC_{24}^4+3\eta _t\{m_tp_tk(C_0^5+C_{11}^5)+A_{ti}^1m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}p_tkC_0^5`$ (71)
$`A_{ti}^2m_t[\widehat{t}C_0^5+m_t^2(C_0^5+4C_{11}^5+2C_{21}^5)2p_tk(C_{11}^5+2C_{12}^5+2C_{23}^5)2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2C_0^51+4C_{24}^5)]\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _tm_t\left(\delta Z_R^t\delta Z_L^t\right),`$
$`F_5^{V_1(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta _t\{[m_t^2(C_{11}^4+C_{21}^4)p_tk(C_{12}^4+C_{23}^4)+C_{24}^4]+A_{ti}^1m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t(C_0^4+C_{11}^4)`$ (75)
$`+2A_{ti}^2[C_{24}^4+p_tk(C_{12}^4+C_{23}^4)]\}3\eta _t\{m_t^2(C_0^5+2C_{11}^5+C_{21}^5)+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2C_0^52C_{24}^5+1/2`$
$`+2A_{ti}^1m_tm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}(C_0^5+C_{11}^5)2A_{ti}^2[m_t^2(C_0^5+2C_{11}^5+C_{21}^5)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2C_0^51/2+2C_{24}^5]\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t2\delta Z_R^t,`$
$`F_7^{V_1(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\eta _t(C_{24}^4+2A_{ti}^2C_{24}^4)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\eta _t\{m_t^2(C_0^5C_{21}^5)+2p_tk(C_{12}^5+C_{23}^5)+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2C_0^52C_{24}^5+1/2`$ (78)
$`+2A_{ti}^1m_tm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}C_0^52A_{ti}^2[m_t^2(C_0^5+2C_{11}^5+C_{21}^5)2p_tk(C_{12}^5+C_{23}^5)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2C_0^51/2+2C_{24}^5]\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t\delta Z_R^t,`$
$`F_{2,6,8}^{V_1(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{1,5,7}^{V_1(t)}(\eta _t\eta _b,A_{ti}^2A_{ti}^2,RL),`$ (79)
$`F_{11}^{V_1(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\eta _t\left[m_t(C_{11}^4+C_{21}^4)A_{ti}^1m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}(C_0^4+C_{11}^4)2A_{ti}^2m_t(2C_{12}^4+2C_{23}^4C_{11}^4C_{21}^4)\right]`$ (81)
$`+3\eta _t\left[m_t(C_{11}^5+C_{21}^5)+A_{ti}^1m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}C_{11}^5+A_{ti}^22m_t(C_{11}^5+C_{21}^52C_{12}^52C_{23}^5)\right],`$
$`F_{12}^{V_1(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{11}^{V_1(t)}\left(\eta _t\eta _b,A_{ti}^2A_{bi}^2\right),`$ (82)
where the Feyman integrals are defined as $`C^4C(p_t,k,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i})`$, $`C^5C(p_t,k,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}})`$, $`C^6C(p_b,p_H^{},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i})`$ and

$`F_1^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\alpha _{ij}A_{ij}^{1R}p_tkC_{12}^6`$ (83)
$`F_2^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^{V_2(t)}\left(RL\right),`$ (84)
$`F_5^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\alpha _{ij}\left[A_{ij}^{1L}m_b(C_{11}^6C_{12}^6)+A_{ij}^{1R}m_tC_{12}^6A_{ij}^{2L}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}C_0^6\right]{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t\left[\delta Z_R^t+\delta Z_L^b+2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_t}{m_t}}\right],`$ (85)
$`F_7^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _{ij}\left[A_{ij}^{1L}m_b(C_{11}^6C_{12}^6)+A_{ij}^{1R}m_tC_{12}^6A_{ij}^{2L}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}C_0^6\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_R^t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_L^b+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_t}{m_t}}\right],`$ (86)
$`F_{6,8}^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{5,7}^{V_2(t)}(RL,\eta _t\eta _b,{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_t}{m_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}}).`$ (87)
* The renormalized propagator of s-channel:

$`F_1^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _b\left[2m_bp_bk(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^b+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S^b)\right],`$ (88)
$`F_3^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t\left[2\left(\widehat{s}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^b+m_b^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R^b\right)+4m_b^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S^b\right],`$ (89)
$`F_7^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t\left[\widehat{s}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^b+m_b^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R^b+2m_b^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S^b\right],`$ (90)
$`F_{2,4,8}^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{1,3,7}^{s(s)}(\eta _t\eta _b,RL).`$ (91)
* The renormalized propagator of t-channel:

$`F_1^{s(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t\left[2m_tp_tk\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^t+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S^t\right)\right],`$ (92)
$`F_5^{s(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t\left[2\left(\widehat{t}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R^t+m_t^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^t\right)+4m_t^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S^t\right],`$ (93)
$`F_7^{s(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g_s^2}}\eta _t\left[\widehat{t}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R^t+m_t^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^t+2m_t^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S^t\right],`$ (94)
$`F_{2,6,8}^{s(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{1,5,7}^{s(t)}(\eta _t\eta _b,RL).`$ (95)
* Box diagram contribution:

$`F_1^{box}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha _{ij}A_{ij}^{1R}\{9[D_{27}^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_t^2D_{22}^1+m_H^2D_{23}^1)p_tkD_{24}^1+(p_tkp_bk)D_{25}^1`$ (97)
$`+(p_tp_b+p_tkm_t^2)D_{26}^1p_tk(D_{12}^1D_{13}^1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2D_0^1]D_{27}^2\},`$
$`F_3^{Box}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha _{ij}\{9[A_{ij}^{1L}m_bD_{23}^1+A_{ij}^{1R}m_t(D_{23}^1D_{26}^1)A_{ij}^{2L}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}D_{13}^1]`$ (100)
$`+A_{ij}^{1L}m_b(D_{13}^2D_{11}^2D_{21}^2D_{23}^2+2D_{25}^2)A_{ij}^{1R}m_t(D_{13}^2+D_{25}^2D_{23}^2)`$
$`+A_{ij}^{2L}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}(D_0^2+D_{11}^2D_{13}^2)\},`$
$`F_5^{box}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha _{ij}\{9[A_{ij}^{1L}m_b(D_{23}^1D_{26}^1)A_{ij}^{1R}m_t(D_{22}^1+D_{23}^12D_{26}^1)+A_{ij}^{2L}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}(D_{12}^1D_{13}^1)]`$ (102)
$`+A_{ij}^{1L}m_b(D_{23}^2D_{25}^2)A_{ij}^{1R}m_tD_{23}^2+A_{ij}^{2L}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}D_{13}^2\},`$
$`F_7^{box}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\alpha _{ij}\left[A_{ij}^{1L}m_bD_{13}^1+A_{ij}^{1R}m_t(D_{12}^1D_{13}^1)A_{ij}^{2L}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}D_0^1\right],`$ (103)
$`F_9^{box}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha _{ij}A_{ij}^{1R}\left\{9(D_{23}^1D_{25}^1)+D_{13}^2D_{12}^2D_{24}^2D_{23}^2+D_{25}^2+D_{26}^2\right\},`$ (104)
$`F_{11}^{box}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha _{ij}A_{ij}^{1R}\left\{9\left[D_{12}^1D_{13}^1+D_{23}^1+D_{24}^1D_{25}^1D_{26}^1\right]D_{23}^2D_{26}^2\right\},`$ (105)
$`F_{2,4,6,8,10,12}^{box}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{1,3,5,7,9,11}^{box}(RL)`$ (106)
where four-point functions are defined as $`D^1D(k,p_t,p_H^{},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j})`$, $`D^2D(p_b,k,p_H^{},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i})`$. Note in the above formula we take the convention that repeated indices are summed over.

All other form factors $`F_n^l`$ not listed above vanish. Note that the contributions from diagrams Fig. 1(i),1(j) and 1(k) just give the renormalization constant $`\delta Z_2^g`$, which is canceled out by $`\delta g_s`$ due to the renormalization condition in Eq. (4).

The renormalization constants appearing in the above form factors are given by

$`\delta Z_L^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2C_F}{16\pi ^2}}\left\{m_t[2m_t{\displaystyle \frac{B_1}{p_t^2}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}A_{ti}^1{\displaystyle \frac{B_0}{p_t^2}}]\right|{}_{p_t^2=m_t^2}{}^{}+(12A_{ti}^2)B_1\}(p_t^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}^2),`$ (107)
$`\delta Z_L^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2C_F}{16\pi ^2}}\left\{m_b[2m_b{\displaystyle \frac{B_1}{p_b^2}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}A_{bi}^1{\displaystyle \frac{B_0}{p_b^2}}]\right|{}_{p_b^2=m_b^2}{}^{}+(12A_{bi}^2)B_1\}(p_b^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}^2),`$ (108)
$`\delta Z_R^t`$ $`=`$ $`\delta Z_L^t(A_{ti}^2A_{ti}^2),`$ (109)
$`\delta Z_R^b`$ $`=`$ $`\delta Z_L^b(A_{bi}^2A_{bi}^2),`$ (110)
$`\delta m_t/m_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2C_F}{16\pi ^2}}(B_1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_t}}A_{ti}^1B_0)(p_t^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}^2),`$ (111)
$`\delta m_b/m_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2C_F}{16\pi ^2}}(B_1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_b}}A_{bi}^1B_0)(p_b^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}^2),`$ (112)
where the color factor $`C_F=4/3`$. The renormalized self energy contributions from quarks as follows

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2C_F}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_t}}A_{ti}^1\left[B_0(m_t^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}^2)B_0(\widehat{t},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}^2)\right],`$ (113)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2C_F}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_b}}A_{bi}^1\left[B_0(m_b^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}^2)B_0(\widehat{s},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}^2)\right],`$ (114)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2C_F}{16\pi ^2}}(12A_{ti}^2)B_1(\widehat{t},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}^2)\delta Z_L^t,`$ (115)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2C_F}{16\pi ^2}}(12A_{ti}^2)B_1(\widehat{s},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}^2)\delta Z_L^b,`$ (116)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R^t`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^t(A_{ti}^2A_{ti}^2),`$ (117)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R^b`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^b(A_{bi}^2A_{bi}^2).`$ (118)
## Appendix C

In this appendix we give the expansions of the scalar loop integrals in the asymptotic large mass limit. The definitions and conventions of the Feynman loop integral functions can be found in . The integrals are performed in $`4ϵ`$ dimension and the divergent contributions are regularized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(2/ϵ)\gamma _E+\mathrm{log}(4\pi )log(m_h^2/\mu _0^2)`$ with $`m_h`$ being the corresponding mass of the heavy particle in the loops and $`\mu _0`$, the regularization scale.

Under the assumption of $`m_h^2=max(m_k^2)p_ip_j(i,j=1,2;k=1,2,3)`$, we consider special cases used in our calculations. For the two-point function $`B_1(p^2,m_h^2,m_l^2)`$, we obtain

$`B_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{3\delta }{2(1\delta )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta \delta ^2}{(1\delta )^2}}\mathrm{log}\delta \}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m_h^2}}\right)`$ (119)
where $`\delta =m_l^2/m_h^2`$. Therefore, the asymptotic form can be expressed as

$$B_1=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}+\frac{p^2}{12m_h^2},\hfill & \delta 1,\hfill \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}+\frac{3}{4}+\frac{p^2}{3m_h^2},\hfill & \delta 0,\hfill \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{p^2}{6m_h^2},\hfill & \delta \mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(120)
Note in the case $`\delta \mathrm{}`$, $`m_h`$ in Eq. (120) should be replaced by $`m_l`$.

For the three-point function $`C_{(0,24)}(p_1,p_2,m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)`$ we expand them as follows:

* Case A: $`m_h=m_1,m_l^2=m_2^2=m_3^2\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_m^2`$

$`C_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_h^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\delta )^2}}\mathrm{ln}\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m_h^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta +5}{4(1\delta )^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta +1}{2(1\delta )^4}}\mathrm{ln}\delta \right]+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}{m_h^2}}\right)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^4}{m_h^4}}\right)\right\},`$ (121)
$`C_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{3\delta }{8(1\delta )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta \delta ^2}{4(1\delta )^2}}\mathrm{ln}\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{24m_h^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2+5\delta \delta ^2}{(1\delta )^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6\delta }{(1\delta )^4}}\mathrm{ln}\delta \right]+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}{m_h^2}}\right)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^4}{m_h^4}}\right)`$ (122)
where $`p=p_1+p_2`$. In asymptotic large mass limit we obtain

$$C_0=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2m_h^2}\left[1+\frac{p^2}{12m_h^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}{m_h^2}\right)+𝒪\left(\frac{p^4}{m_h^4}\right)\right],\hfill & \delta 1,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{m_h^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_l^2}{m_h^2}\left[1+\frac{p^2}{2m_h^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}{m_h^2}\right)+𝒪\left(\frac{p^4}{m_h^4}\right)\right],\hfill & \delta 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(123)
$$C_{24}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{p^2}{48m_h^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}{m_h^2}\right)+𝒪\left(\frac{p^4}{m_h^4}\right),\hfill & \delta 1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{3}{8}+\frac{p^2}{12m_h^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}{m_h^2}\right)+𝒪\left(\frac{p^4}{m_h^4}\right),\hfill & \delta 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(124)
* Case B: $`m_l=m_1,m_h=m_2=m_3`$

$`C_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_h^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{(1\delta )^2}}\mathrm{ln}\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m_h^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+5\delta }{4(1\delta )^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2+2\delta }{2(1\delta )^4}}\mathrm{ln}\delta \right]+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^4}{m_h^4}}\right)\right\},`$ (125)
$`C_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{13\delta }{8(1\delta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{4(1\delta )^2}}\mathrm{ln}\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{24m_h^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{15\delta 2\delta ^2}{(1\delta )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{6\delta ^2}{(1\delta )^4}}\mathrm{ln}\delta \right]+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^4}{m_h^4}}\right).`$ (126)
The asymptotic form is given by

$$C_0=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2m_h^2}\left[1+\frac{p^2}{12m_h^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{p^4}{m_h^4}\right)\right],\hfill & \delta 1,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{m_h^2}\left[1+\frac{p^2}{4m_h^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{p^4}{m_h^4}\right)\right],\hfill & \delta 0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(127)
$$C_{24}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{p^2}{48m_h^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{p^4}{m_h^4}\right),\hfill & \delta 1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{1}{8}+\frac{p^2}{24m_h^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{p^4}{m_h^4}\right),\hfill & \delta 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(128)
For the four-point functions $`D_{0,1k}(p_1,p_2,p_3,m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2,m_4^2)`$ with the assumption of $`m_h^2=max(m_k^2)p^2=max(p_ip_j)(i,j=1,2,3;k=1,2,3,4)`$, we consider two special cases used in our calculations

* Case A: $`m_h=m_1,m_l=m_2`$

$`D_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_h^2m_l^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\delta }{2(1\delta )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{(1\delta )^3}}\mathrm{ln}\delta +𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{m_h^2}}\right)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m_h^2}}\right)\right\},`$ (129)
$`D_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_h^2m_l^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2+5\delta \delta ^2}{4(1\delta )^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\delta }{(1\delta )^4}}\mathrm{ln}\delta +𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}{m_h^2}}\right)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m_h^2}}\right)\right\},`$ (130)
$`D_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}D_{11},D_{13}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}D_{11}`$ (131)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2=max(|m_2^2m_3^2|,|m_2^2m_4^2|,|m_3^2m_4^2|)`$. In asymptotic large mass limit we obtain

$$D_{(0,11,12,13)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{12},\frac{1}{24})\frac{1}{m_h^4}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{p^2}{m_h^2}\right)\right],\hfill & \delta 1,\hfill \\ (\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{6})\frac{1}{m_h^2m_l^2}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{p^2}{m_h^2}\right)\right],\hfill & \delta 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(132)
* Case B: $`m_h=m_1=m_2,m_l^2=m_3^2=m_4^2\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_m^2`$

$`D_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_h^4}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1\delta )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\delta }{(1\delta )^3}}\mathrm{ln}\delta +𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}{m_h^2}}\right)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m_h^2}}\right)\right\},`$ (133)
$`D_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_h^4}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{9+3\delta }{4(1\delta )^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^22\delta 2}{2(1\delta )^4}}\mathrm{ln}\delta +𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}{m_h^2}}\right)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m_h^2}}\right)\right\},`$ (134)
$`D_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_h^4}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{5+\delta }{2(1\delta )^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+2\delta }{(1\delta )^4}}\mathrm{ln}\delta +𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}{m_h^2}}\right)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m_h^2}}\right)\right\},`$ (135)
$`D_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_{12}.`$ (136)
In asymptotic large mass limit we obtain

$$D_{(0,11,12,13)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{12},\frac{1}{24})\frac{1}{m_h^4}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{m_h^2}\right)+𝒪\left(\frac{p^2}{m_h^2}\right)\right],\hfill & \delta 1,\hfill \\ (1,1,1,\frac{1}{2})\frac{1}{m_h^4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_l^2}{m_h^2}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}{m_h^2}\right)+𝒪\left(\frac{p^2}{m_h^2}\right)\right],\hfill & \delta 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(137)


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The observation of CP violation in decays of $`B`$ mesons to $`J/\psi `$ and neutral kaons  has inaugurated a new era in the study of matter-antimatter asymmetries. Previously, such asymmetries had been manifested only in the decays of neutral kaons and in the baryon asymmetry of the Universe. CP violation in $`B`$ and neutral kaon decays is described satisfactorily in terms of phases in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix, but the baryon asymmetry of the Universe apparently requires sources of CP violation beyond the CKM phases. There is thus great interest in testing the self-consistency of the CKM description through a variety of processes.

One key test of the CKM picture involves the decays $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The time-dependence of $`B^0|_{\mathrm{initial}}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0|_{\mathrm{initial}}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ involves quantities $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ which are, respectively, coefficients of terms involving $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$, and which depend in different ways on strong and weak phases. The BaBar Collaboration reported the first measurement of these quantities , recently updated to $`S_{\pi \pi }=0.05\pm 0.37\pm 0.07`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }=0.02\pm 0.29\pm 0.07`$ . The Belle Collaboration reports $`S_{\pi \pi }=1.21_{0.270.13}^{+0.38+0.16}`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }=0.94_{0.25}^{+0.31}\pm 0.09`$ , using BaBar’s sign convention for $`C_{\pi \pi }`$. The averages are $`S_{\pi \pi }=0.66\pm 0.26`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }=0.49\pm 0.21`$.

Both model-independent considerations  and explicit calculations in QCD-improved factorization  indicate that a crude measurement of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ around zero implies a significant restriction on CKM parameters if the strong phase difference $`\delta `$ between two amplitudes contributing to $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is small ($`\delta 10^{}`$ in ; see, however, .) The quantity $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ provides information on $`\delta `$ if the phase and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ are both near zero, but a discrete ambiguity allows the phase to be near $`\pi `$ instead.

In the present paper we re-examine the decays $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ to extract the maximum amount of information directly from data rather than relying on theoretical calculations of strong phases. We find that if $`\mathrm{sin}\delta `$ is small one can resolve a discrete ambiguity between $`\delta 0`$ and $`\delta \pi `$ by comparing the measured branching ratio of $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (averaged over $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$) with that predicted in the absence of the penguin amplitude. The latter can be obtained using information on the semileptonic process $`B\pi l\nu `$ assuming factorization for color-favored processes, which appears to hold well under general circumstances .

We find that with data foreseen within the next two years it should be possible to reduce theoretical and experimental errors to the level that a clear-cut choice can be made between the theoretically-favored prediction of small $`\delta `$ and the possibility of $`\delta \pi `$, assuming that the parameter $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ describing direct CP violation in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ remains consistent with zero. If $`C_{\pi \pi }\mathrm{sin}\delta `$ is found to be non-zero, direct CP violation will have been demonstrated in $`B`$ decays, a significant achievement in itself. The sign of $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ will then determine the sign of $`\delta `$. While the discrete ambiguity between $`\delta `$ and $`\pi \delta `$ then becomes harder to resolve, its effect on CKM parameters becomes less important.

We recall notation for $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays in Sec. II. The dependence of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ on weak and strong phases is exhibited in Sec. III. It is seen that when $`|C_{\pi \pi }|`$ is maximal, there is little effect of any discrete ambiguity, since the strong phase $`\delta `$ is close to $`\pm \pi /2`$, while when $`C_{\pi \pi }0`$ the discrete ambiguity between $`\delta 0`$ and $`\delta \pi `$ results in very different inferred weak phases. The use of the flavor-averaged $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ branching ratio to resolve this ambiguity is discussed in Sec. IV, while the CKM parameter restrictions implied by the observed $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ range are compared in Sec. V for $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta =\pi `$.

One more observable, which we call $`D_{\pi \pi }`$, obeys $`S_{\pi \pi }^2+C_{\pi \pi }^2+D_{\pi \pi }^2=1`$, so its magnitude is fixed by $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$, but its sign provides new information. In principle, it is measurable in the presence of a detectable width difference between neutral $`B`$ meson mass eigenstates, as is shown in Sec. VI. However, we find that the sign of $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ is always negative for the allowed range of CKM parameters, and does not help to resolve the discrete ambiguity. A positive value of $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ would signify new physics. We conclude in Sec. VII.

## II Notation

We use the same notation as in Ref. , to which the reader is referred for details. We define $`T`$ to be a color-favored tree amplitude in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`P`$ to be a penguin amplitude . Using standard definitions of weak phases (see, e.g., ) $`\alpha =\varphi _2`$, $`\beta =\varphi _1`$, and $`\gamma =\varphi _3`$, the decay amplitudes to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ are

$$A(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(|T|e^{i\delta _T}e^{i\gamma }+|P|e^{i\delta _P}),$$

$$A(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(|T|e^{i\delta _T}e^{i\gamma }+|P|e^{i\delta _P}),$$
(1)
where $`\delta _T`$ and $`\delta _P`$ are strong phases of the tree and penguin amplitudes, and $`\delta \delta _P\delta _T`$. Our convention will be to take $`\pi \delta \pi `$.

The coefficients of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m_dt`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_dt`$ measured in time-dependent CP asymmetries of $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ states produced in asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ are

$$S_{\pi \pi }\frac{2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}(\lambda _{\pi \pi })}{1+|\lambda _{\pi \pi }|^2},C_{\pi \pi }\frac{1|\lambda _{\pi \pi }|^2}{1+|\lambda _{\pi \pi }|^2},$$
(2)
where

$$\lambda _{\pi \pi }e^{2i\beta }\frac{A(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{A(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})}.$$
(3)
In addition we may define the quantity

$$D_{\pi \pi }\frac{2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(\lambda _{\pi \pi })}{1+|\lambda _{\pi \pi }|^2},$$
(4)
for which it is easily seen that

$$S_{\pi \pi }^2+C_{\pi \pi }^2+D_{\pi \pi }^2=1,\mathrm{implying}S_{\pi \pi }^2+C_{\pi \pi }^21.$$
(5)
The significance of $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ will be discussed in Sec. VI.

When $`\delta =0`$ or $`\pi `$ the quantity $`\lambda _{\pi \pi }`$ becomes a pure phase:

$$\lambda _{\pi \pi }=e^{2i\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}},\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}=\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ,$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{|P/T|\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{1+|P/T|\mathrm{cos}\gamma }(\delta =0)\\ \mathrm{arctan}\frac{|P/T|\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{1|P/T|\mathrm{cos}\gamma }(\delta =\pi ).\end{array}$$
(7)
In such cases $`S_{\pi \pi }=\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}})`$, $`D_{\pi \pi }=\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}})`$.

The expressions (1) employ the phase convention in which top quarks are integrated out in the short-distance effective Hamiltonian and the unitarity relation $`V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}+V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}=V_{tb}^{}V_{td}`$ is used, with the $`V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}`$ piece of the penguin operator included in the tree amplitude . Using these expressions and substituting $`\alpha =\pi \beta \gamma `$, we then may write

$$\lambda _{\pi \pi }=e^{2i\alpha }\left(\frac{1+|P/T|e^{i\delta }e^{i\gamma }}{1+|P/T|e^{i\delta }e^{i\gamma }}\right).$$
(8)
The consequences of assuming $`\delta `$ small, as predicted in Ref. , were explored in Refs. . In the former, it was shown that even an earlier crude measurement  of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$, taken at $`1\sigma `$, drastically reduced the allowed CKM parameter space. In the latter, where a slightly different convention for penguin amplitudes was used, it was shown how to use $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ to determine weak and strong phases.

One needs a value of $`|P/T|`$ to apply these expressions to data. In Refs.  and  $`|P|`$ was estimated using experimental data on $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ (a process dominated by the penguin amplitude aside from small annihilation contributions) and flavor SU(3) including SU(3) symmetry breaking, while $`|T|`$ was estimated using factorization and data on $`B\pi l\nu `$. We shall use the result of Ref. , $`|P/T|=0.276\pm 0.064`$. Ref.  found $`0.285\pm 0.076`$, which included an estimate of annihilation, and Ref.  obtained $`0.26\pm 0.08`$, based on a different phase convention for the penguin amplitude, without including SU(3) breaking effects. The individual amplitudes of Ref. , in a convention in which their square gives a $`B^0`$ branching ratio in units of $`10^6`$, are $`|T|=2.7\pm 0.6`$ and $`|P|=0.74\pm 0.05`$. We shall make use of them in Sec. IV.

It is most convenient to express $`S_{\pi \pi }`$, $`C_{\pi \pi }`$, and $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ in terms of $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\delta `$, using $`\gamma =\pi \alpha \beta `$, since when $`P=0`$ one has $`S_{\pi \pi }=\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ and $`D_{\pi \pi }=\mathrm{cos}2\alpha `$. The value of $`\beta `$ is fairly well known as a result of the recent measurements by BaBar  and Belle : $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.78\pm 0.08`$, $`\beta =(26\pm 4)^{}`$. Defining

$$\overline{}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})[(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})+(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})]/2,$$
(9)
$$R_{\pi \pi }\frac{\overline{}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\overline{}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})|_{\mathrm{tree}}}=12|P/T|\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta )+|P/T|^2,$$
(10)
explicit expressions for $`S_{\pi \pi },C_{\pi \pi }`$, and $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ are then

$$S_{\pi \pi }=[\mathrm{sin}2\alpha +2|P/T|\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )\mathrm{cos}\delta |P/T|^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta ]/R_{\pi \pi }$$
(11)
$$C_{\pi \pi }=[2|P/T|\mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\beta )\mathrm{sin}\delta ]/R_{\pi \pi },$$
(12)
$$D_{\pi \pi }=[\mathrm{cos}2\alpha 2|P/T|\mathrm{cos}(\beta \alpha )\mathrm{cos}\delta +|P/T|^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta ]/R_{\pi \pi }.$$
(13)
The quantity $`R_{\pi \pi }`$ itself will be used in Sec. IV to resolve a discrete ambiguity, while the usefulness of the sign of $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ will be described in Sec. VI.

Note that $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ is odd in $`\delta `$ while $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ are even in $`\delta `$. Within the present CKM framework one has $`0<\alpha +\beta <\pi `$, implying $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\beta )>0`$, so that a measurement of non-zero $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ will specify the sign of $`\delta `$ (predicted in some theoretical schemes ).

We shall concentrate for the most part on a range of CKM parameters allowed by fits to weak decays, disregarding the possibility of new physics effects. Aside from the constraints associated with $`S_{\pi \pi }`$, it was found in Ref.  (quoting  and ; see also ) that $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha =0.24\pm 0.72`$, implying $`\alpha =(97_{21}^{+30})^{}`$, which we shall take as the “standard-model” range.

One could regard the three equations for $`R_{\pi \pi }`$, $`S_{\pi \pi }`$, and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ as specifying the three unknowns $`|P/T|`$, $`\delta `$, and $`\alpha `$ (given the rather good information on $`\beta `$). In what follows we shall, rather, use the present constraints on $`|P/T|`$ mentioned above, first concentrating on what can be learned from $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ alone and then using the information on $`R_{\pi \pi }`$ both as a consistency check and to resolve discrete ambiguities. The information provided by the sign of $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ will be treated separately.

## III Dependence of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ on $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$

We display in Fig. 1 the values of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ for $`\alpha `$ roughly in the physical region, with $`\pi \delta \pi `$. For any fixed $`\alpha `$, the locus of such points is a closed curve with the points $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta =\pm \pi `$ corresponding to $`C_{\pi \pi }=0`$ and with $`C_{\pi \pi }(\delta )=C_{\pi \pi }(\delta )`$. A large negative value of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$, as seems to be indicated by the Belle measurement , favors large values of $`\alpha `$. Negative values of $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ imply a negative $`\delta `$. The sum of squares of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ is always bounded by 1, and one can show that for any value of $`\delta `$ and $`\alpha +\beta `$ one has $`|C_{\pi \pi }|2|P/T|/(1+|P/T|^2)`$. For a given value of $`\alpha +\beta `$ the bound is stronger:

$$|C_{\pi \pi }|\frac{2|P/T||\mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\beta )|}{\sqrt{(1+|P/T|^2)^24|P/T|^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\alpha +\beta )}}.$$
(14)
The corresponding plot for (mostly) unphysical values of $`\alpha `$ is shown in Fig. 2. If desired, one may map negative values of $`\alpha `$ into the interval $`[0,\pi ]`$ by the replacement $`\alpha \alpha +\pi `$, $`\delta \delta \pm \pi `$, which leaves all expressions invariant. The conventional physical region is bounded by $`0\alpha \pi \beta `$.

The closed curves in Fig. 1 have considerable dependence on $`\delta `$ for $`\alpha `$ around $`\pi /2`$. One can show that $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ becomes independent of $`\delta `$ when $`\mathrm{cos}2\alpha =|P/T|^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$. Since $`|P/T|^2`$ is small, these points are $`\alpha \pi /4,3\pi /4`$. At such critical values of $`\alpha `$ the curves degenerate into vertical lines. For $`\alpha =\pi \beta `$, one has $`\gamma =0`$, $`C_{\pi \pi }=0`$, $`S_{\pi \pi }=\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$, and the curves collapse to a point.

The curves in Figs. 1 and 2 were plotted for the central values $`\beta =26^{}`$, $`|P/T|=0.28`$. Their dependence on $`\pm 1\sigma `$ variations of $`\beta `$ is quite mild for $`\alpha `$ in the physical region, while they are more sensitive to $`\pm 1\sigma `$ excursions of $`|P/T|`$, as shown in Fig. 3.

Let us imagine a measurement of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ which reduces present errors by a factor of $`\sqrt{3}`$. Given that the present measurements are based on around a total of 100 fb-1, one could envision such an improvement when both BaBar and Belle report values based on 150 fb-1. Then the size of the error ellipse associated with $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ will be small in comparison with that of the closed curves for $`\alpha `$ in the vicinity of $`90^{}`$, and measurement of these quantities could provide useful information were it not for the fact that every point in the $`S_{\pi \pi },C_{\pi \pi }`$ plane corresponds to several pairs $`\alpha ,\delta `$. The most important of these pairs occurs when both values of $`\alpha `$ are in the physical region but one corresponds to a certain value of $`\delta `$ and the other (roughly) to $`\pi \delta `$. This discrete ambiguity is most severe (corresponding to the most widely separated values of $`\alpha `$) when $`C_{\pi \pi }=0`$, corresponding to $`\delta =0`$ or $`\pi `$. For example, in Fig. 1, $`S_{\pi \pi }=C_{\pi \pi }=0`$ corresponds to both $`\alpha 76^{}`$ (when $`\delta =0`$) and to $`\alpha 105^{}`$ (when $`\delta =\pi `$). These values of $`\alpha `$ are separated by nearly $`30^{}`$. We shall see in the next section how a measurement of the branching ratio $`\overline{}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ can help resolve this ambiguity.

Measuring a nonzero value for $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ determines the sign of $`\delta `$, but leaves an ambiguity between $`\delta `$ and $`\pi \delta `$. The corresponding ambiguity in determining $`\alpha `$ becomes smaller when $`\delta `$ moves away from 0 and $`\pi `$. For maximal direct CP violation, corresponding to $`|\delta |=\pi /2`$, one has $`\mathrm{sin}\delta =\pm 1`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\delta =0`$, and no discrete ambiguity. These cases correspond to the envelope of the curves in Figs. 1–3, joining the points labeled with $`+`$ ($`\delta =\pi /2`$) or $`\times `$ ($`\delta =\pi /2`$).

## IV Information from decay rate

The quantity $`R_{\pi \pi }`$, defined in Eq. (10), can help resolve the discrete ambiguity between $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta =\pi `$ in the case $`C_{\pi \pi }=0`$, where such an ambiguity is most serious. It has been frequently noted  that the central value of this quantity is less than 1, suggesting the possibility of destructive interference between tree and penguin amplitudes. With the estimate $`|T|=2.7\pm 0.6`$ mentioned above, and with the experimental average  of CLEO, Belle, and BaBar branching ratios equal to $`\overline{}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(4.6\pm 0.8)\times 10^6`$, we have $`R_{\pi \pi }=0.63\pm 0.30`$, which lies suggestively but not conclusively below 1. A value of $`R_{\pi \pi }<1`$ would imply $`\mathrm{cos}\delta <0`$ within the CKM framework, since all currently allowed values of $`\gamma `$ correspond to $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma >0`$. Furthermore, a value of $`R_{\pi \pi }`$ below 1 permits one to set a bound on $`\alpha +\beta `$ or on $`\gamma `$, which is independent of $`\delta `$,

$$R_{\pi \pi }=1+(|P/T|+\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}\gamma )^2\mathrm{cos}^2\delta \mathrm{cos}^2\gamma \mathrm{sin}^2\gamma ,$$
(15)
similar to the Fleischer-Mannel bound in $`BK\pi `$ . At the $`1\sigma `$ level, this already implies $`\gamma 71^{}`$ in the CKM framework. In a more general framework, $`\gamma 109^{}`$ is also allowed.

We show in Fig. 4 the dependence of $`R_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`\alpha `$ on $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ for the extreme cases $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta =\pi `$. For reference we also exhibit the curves for $`|\delta |=\pi /2`$. As mentioned, only $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ depends on the sign of $`\delta `$. Also shown are experimental points corresponding to present ranges of $`R_{\pi \pi },\alpha `$, and $`S_{\pi \pi }`$. If errors on $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ are reduced by about a factor of $`\sqrt{3}`$, and on $`R_{\pi \pi }`$ by a factor of about three, as would be possible with a sample of 150 fb-1 for each experiment, one can see a constraint emerging which would favor one or the other choices for $`\delta `$. We discussed reduction of errors on $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ already. The corresponding reduction for $`R_{\pi \pi }`$ requires reduction of errors on $`|T|^2`$ and $`\overline{}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ from their present values of 44% and 17%, respectively, each to about 10%, which was shown in Ref.  to be possible with 100 fb-1.

## V Comparison with CKM parameters determined by other means

In Ref.  we compared the region of CKM parameters allowed by data on various weak transitions with that implied by the first observed range of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$  and $`|P/T|`$ for the case $`\delta =0`$. In Fig. 5 we reproduce that plot, corresponding to present $`1\sigma `$ limits on $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`|P/T|`$ values in the range $`0.21|P/T|0.34`$, along with the case $`\delta =\pi `$.

The case $`\delta =\pi `$ is seen to exclude a large region of the otherwise-allowed parameter space, while $`\delta =0`$ is compatible with nearly the whole otherwise-allowed range. Of course this does not permit a distinction at present between the two solutions, but it illustrates the potential of improved data. Turning things around, the examples in Fig. 5 corresponding to $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta =\pi `$ illustrate the importance of excluding one of these two values by means of the ratio $`R_{\pi \pi }`$. Values $`0<|\delta |<\pi `$ with $`C_{\pi \pi }0`$ correspond to constraints intermediate between those for $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta =\pi `$.

The present $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ constraints differ from those in Refs.  based on the earlier BaBar data , which were consistent (as are the present BaBar data ) with vanishing $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$. In that case $`\delta 0`$ led to a significant restriction in the $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ plane, permitting only low values of $`\rho `$, while $`\delta \pi `$ would have been consistent with nearly the whole allowed $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ region (as well as with the present data on $`R_{\pi \pi }`$).

## VI Information from width difference

The quantity $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ appears with equal contributions in the time-dependent decay rates of $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0`$ to a CP-eigenstate, when the width difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ between neutral $`B`$ mass eigenstates is non-zero ,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{})e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_dt}[\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_dt/2)D_{\pi \pi }\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_dt/2)$$

$$+C_{\pi \pi }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_dt)S_{\pi \pi }\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_dt)].$$
(16)
Width difference effects in the $`B_s`$$`\overline{B}_s`$ system were investigated some time ago in time-dependent $`B_s`$ decays . The feasibility of measuring corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ effects in $`B^0`$ decays, expected to be much smaller but having a well-defined sign $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d>0)`$ in the CKM framework, was studied very recently . While a measurement of $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is unfeasible in near-future experiments because of the very small value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d<1\%`$), we will discuss the theoretical consequence of such a measurement. This brief study and its conclusion seem to be generic to a broad class of processes, including the U-spin related decay $`B_s(t)K^+K^{}`$ , in which width difference effects are much larger .

In the absence of $`P`$, one just has $`S_{\pi \pi }=\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )`$, $`D_{\pi \pi }=\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha )`$, so the two quantities are out of phase with respect to one another by $`\pi /4`$ in $`\alpha `$. This reduces part of the ambiguity in determining $`\alpha `$ from the mixing-induced asymmetry. The same is true when $`\delta =0`$ or $`\pi `$, since then $`\alpha `$ is replaced by $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as noted in the previous section.

The dependences of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ on $`\delta `$ for fixed $`\alpha `$ also are out of phase with respect to one another, in the following sense. When $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ is most sensitive to $`\delta `$, $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ is least sensitive, and vice versa. One can show, for example, that $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ is completely independent of $`\delta `$ when

$$\mathrm{sin}2\alpha =|P/T|^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta ,$$
(17)
which corresponds, since $`|P/T|^2`$ is small, to values of $`\alpha `$ near 0, $`\pi /2`$, and $`\pi `$. Recall that the corresponding values for $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ were near $`\pi /4`$ and $`3\pi /4`$. Conversely, whereas $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ is maximally sensitive to $`\delta `$ near $`\alpha =\pi /2`$, $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ is maximally sensitive to $`\delta `$ near $`\alpha =\pi /4`$ and $`3\pi /4`$.

In the absence of the penguin amplitude $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ would just be $`\mathrm{cos}2\alpha `$. Since $`\alpha `$ is not too far from $`\pi /2`$ in its currently allowed range, $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ remains negative in this entire range also in the presence of the penguin amplitude. Positive values of $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ are obtained for values of $`\alpha `$ which are excluded in the CKM framework. For the values $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta =\pi `$, when $`C_{\pi \pi }=0`$, one has $`D_{\pi \pi }=(1S_{\pi \pi }^2)^{1/2}`$. For these values of $`\delta `$, $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ is seen in Fig. 1 to lie in the range $`1.0<S_{\pi \pi }1.0`$, implying $`1.0D_{\pi \pi }0`$. Since in the standard model one expects $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ to be negative, positive $`D_{\pi \pi }`$, obtained for unphysical values of $`\alpha `$, would signify new physics.

## VII Conclusions

We have investigated the information about the weak phase $`\alpha `$ and the strong phase $`\delta `$ between penguin ($`P`$) and tree ($`T`$) amplitudes which can be obtained from the quantities $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ measured in the time-dependent decays $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. One has a number of discrete ambiguities associated with the mapping $`(S_{\pi \pi },C_{\pi \pi })(\alpha ,\delta )`$. These appear to be most severe when $`C_{\pi \pi }0`$, since very different values of $`\alpha `$ can be associated with $`\delta 0`$ and $`\delta \pi `$. We have shown that under such circumstances these ambiguities are resolved by sufficiently accurate measurements of the ratio $`R_{\pi \pi }`$ of the flavor-averaged $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ branching ratio to its predicted value due to the tree amplitude alone. At present this ratio appears to be less than 1, but with large errors. Reduction of present errors on $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ by a factor of $`\sqrt{3}`$ and on $`R_{\pi \pi }`$ by a factor of three will have significant impact on these phase determinations. If a non-zero value of $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ is found, the discrete ambiguity becomes less important, vanishing altogether when $`|\delta |=\pi /2`$.

A small value of $`R_{\pi \pi }`$, around its present central value, would favor $`\delta =\pi `$ over $`\delta =0`$, as shown in Fig. 4(a). A large negative value of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$, as indicated by the Belle measurement , favors large values of $`\alpha `$, in particular if $`\delta \pi `$. This is demonstrated in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4(b). Correspondingly, Fig. 5 shows that low values of $`\rho `$ are excluded in the latter case. This figure, drawn also for the case $`\delta =0`$, illustrates the important role of the measurement of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ and the knowledge of $`\delta `$ in determining the CKM parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$.

Another parameter, called $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ here, equal to $`\pm (1S_{\pi \pi }^2C_{\pi \pi }^2)^{1/2}`$, is measurable in principle in time-dependent $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays if effects of the difference between widths of mass eigenstates can be discerned. The sign of $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ is enough to resolve a discrete ambiguity between values of $`\alpha `$ expected in the standard model (corresponding to $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ negative) and unphysical $`\alpha `$ (corresponding to $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ positive).

As has been noted previously , there are hints of destructive tree-penguin interference in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, which may be difficult to reconcile with the favored range of CKM parameters without invoking large values of $`\delta `$. If this interesting situation persists, one may for the first time encounter an inconsistency in the CKM description of CP violation, which often assumes small strong phases. Improved time-dependent measurements of $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ will be of great help in resolving this question. Given that Standard Model fits  prefer $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma >0`$, a value of $`R_{\pi \pi }`$ significantly less than 1 in the absence of any other evidence for large $`\delta `$ also could call into question the applicability of factorization to $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ . More accurate measurements of the spectrum in $`B\pi l\nu `$  and more accurate tests of factorization in other color-favored processes  will help to check this possibility.

## Acknowledgments

We thank the CERN Theory Group and the organizers of the CERN Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle for hospitality during part of this work. The research of J. L. R. was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy through Grant No. DE FG02 90ER40560. This work was partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and by the US - Israel Binational Science Foundation through Grant No. 98-00237.


text:
# Solar-Like Oscillations in 𝛽 Hydri: Evidence for Short-Lived High-Amplitude Oscillations

## 1. Introduction

As reported by Bedding et al. (2001) and Carrier et al. (2001), we have made a clear detection of excess power from Doppler observations of the G2 subgiant $`\beta `$ Hyi. We observed this star with the UCLES echelle spectrograph on the 3.9-m Anglo-Australian Telescope, using an iodine absorption cell as a velocity reference, and also with the CORALIE spectrograph on the 1.2-m Leonard Euler Swiss telescope at La Silla. In both sets of data we see a clear excess of power centred at 1.0 mHz, with peak amplitudes of about 0.5 m s<sup>-1</sup>, in agreement with expectations for this star. The time series of velocity measurements from UCLES is shown in Fig. 1.

## 2. Excess power

We have compared the amount of excess power in the UCLES and CORALIE power spectra, as follows. We first converted both to power density by multiplying the power (in (m s$`{}_{}{}^{1})^2`$) by the effective timespan of the observations (see Appendix A.1 of Kjeldsen & Bedding, 1995 and Section 5 of Kjeldsen et al., 1999). We calculated this effective timespan by integrating under the (weighted) spectral window. The timespans were 34.9 hr for the UCLES data and 58.1 hr for the CORALIE data. We then calculated the mean power density in the range 700–1300 $`\mu `$Hz and subtracted the contribution from noise. The latter was estimated from the mean power density in the frequency range 1900–2200 $`\mu `$Hz.

The resulting values for the mean excess in power density are 0.0066 and 0.0054 (m s$`{}_{}{}^{1})^2/\mu `$Hz, respectively for the UCLES and CORALIE observations. The agreement between these values (better than 20%) is good confirmation that both systems were measuring the same power excess.

We also checked the effect of deliberately shifting the relative time stamps of the two series. The amplitudes of the strongest ten or so peaks in the combined power spectrum are maximized when this shift is zero and become significantly reduced when the offset exceeds one minute. This gives strong evidence that highest peaks in the combined power spectrum have a stellar origin.

## 3. Starquakes ?

An unusual feature of the UCLES power spectrum of (Fig. 2 of Bedding et al., 2001) is a region at the centre of the power excess (1.0 mHz) where the power is everywhere greater than zero. One would expect the power spectrum of a series of discrete long-lived sinusoids to fall to zero between the peaks, not to produce a hump of entirely non-zero power. This hump is more obvious when seen in amplitude (square root of power), as shown here in the upper panel of Fig. 2. There is a region $``$80 $`\mu `$Hz wide over which the amplitude stays well above zero.

Even more striking is the appearance of the phase (lower panel of Fig. 2.) The phase is coherent over the region in question, which implies that this hump arises from a specific location in the time domain. That location can easily be calculated from the phase, and turns out to correspond to $`t_{\mathrm{event}}=879,000`$ s (using the zero point of time as defined in the caption to Fig. 1). We see in Fig. 1 that this part of the velocity series shows clear $`17`$-minute variations, which must be the cause of the non-zero hump. Could this simply be the chance superposition of several modes that happened to be in phase at that time ? That would not produce the non-zero hump, as we have verified with simulations. As far as we can tell, such a hump can only be produced by a short-lived variation that does not continue throughout the whole time series.

We have re-calculated the Fourier spectrum after removing a 10000-s region centred on $`t_{\mathrm{event}}`$ (73 points, indicated by the thick line in Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 3, this removes the non-zero hump and destroys the phase coherence, confirming that we have identified the correct region of the time series.

Without further evidence, we are left with a puzzle. The UCLES velocities appear to show a short-lived episode of large-amplitude oscillation that we are tempted to describe as a starquake. No similar events are seen in the CORALIE data. If confirmed as a feature of subgiants, this would be bad news for asteroseismology, since they would make it harder to measure accurate mode frequencies.

## References

Bedding, T.R., Butler, R.P., Kjeldsen, H., et. al. 2001, ApJ, 549, L105

Carrier, F., Bouchy, F., Kienzle, F., et al. 2001, A&A, 378, 142

Kjeldsen, H. & Bedding, T.R. 1995, A&A, 293, 87

Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T.R., Frandsen, S., & Dall, T.H. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 579