text:
# First order superconducting phase transition in CeCoIn5.

\[Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. LA-UR-016718

## Abstract

We investigated the magnetic field dependence of the superconducting phase transition in heavy fermion CeCoIn5 (T$`{}_{c}{}^{}=2.3`$ K) using specific heat, magneto-caloric effect, and thermal expansion measurements. The superconducting transition becomes first order when the magnetic field is oriented along the 001 crystallographic direction with a strength greater that 4.7 T, and transition temperature below $`T_00.31T_c`$. The change from second order at lower fields is reflected in strong sharpening of both specific heat and thermal expansion anomalies associated with the phase transition, a strong magnetocaloric effect, and a step-like change in the sample volume. The first order superconducting phase transition in CeCoIn5 is caused by Pauli limiting in type-II superconductors, and was predicted theoretically in the mid 1960s. We do not see evidence for the inhomogeneous Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) superconducting state (predicted by an alternative theory also dating back to mid-60’s) in CeCoIn5 with field $`H`$ 001.

\]

The behavior of superconductors in magnetic field has primary scientific and technological importance. It underlies such diverse areas as magnetic imaging, energy transmission and storage, ultrasensitive instrumentation and electronics, and many other fields of technology and medicine. At the same time it reflects a very fundamental property of matter - the behavior of electrons in magnetic field. BCS theory, presented in 1957 (Ref. ), gave microscopic explanation of a number of phenomena observed during the previous half century of research on superconductivity. The theories put forth in the early 1960’s, that addressed the effect of magnetic field on superconductivity, were the first extensions of BCS that made predictions of new phenomena and provided tests of BCS theory’s predictive powers . Magnetic field can suppress superconductivity via two effects: orbital pair breaking of superconducting pairs in the superconducting state and Pauli paramagnetism due to electron spins, which lowers the relative energy of the normal state. It was shown that when the Pauli effect is sufficiently strong relative to the orbital effect, the superconducting phase transition may change from second order (BCS result for zero field) to first order. This is due to competition between two energies basic to the understanding of superconducting and normal states of metals: condensation energy of superconducting pairs and magnetic energy of the normal electron spins due to Pauli paramagnetism. This prediction is very straightforward, and yet eluded confirmation for almost 40 years. This is partly the reason why the experimental observation of the first order superconducting transition became one of the “holy grails” of the superconducting community.

A number of conventional superconductors were proposed as candidates for observation of the first order superconducting transition in magnetic field, due to their high orbital critical field $`H_{c20}`$ (weak orbital pair breaking) and, therefore, relatively strong Pauli limiting effect, in the early and mid-sixties. Experimental search, however, came up with null results . The failure to observe the first order superconducting transition was attributed to high spin-orbit scattering rate in all of the compounds investigated . Here we present specific heat, magnetocaloric, thermal expansion, and magnetostriction data for CeCoIn5 that demonstrate that the superconducting phase transition indeed changes from second to first order at a critical point with temperature $`T_0=0.31T_c`$, in very good agreement with theoretical estimate. Recently, a first order phase transition at low temperature in CeCoIn5 was inferred from the step in thermal conductivity in CeCoIn5 at $`H_{c2}[001]`$, which was suggested to be “likely due to an entropy jump” . Our specific heat data offer a direct and unambiguous proof of the first order phase transition in CeCoIn5 with magnetic field in this orientation.

CeCoIn5 is a recently discovered ambient pressure heavy fermion superconductor  with the record high superconducting transition temperature $`T_c=2.3`$ K for this class of compounds. A number of thermodynamic and spectroscopic measurements indicate spin-singlet, even pairing state, with lines of nodes in the superconducting energy gap . Therefore, the lowest possible symmetry of the superconducting state of CeCoIn5 is d-wave. Recently, Izawa et al.  reported the four-fold modulation of thermal conductivity of CeCoIn5 in magnetic field in support of the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ order parameter, similar to high temperature superconductors.

First order superconducting phase transition in CeCoIn5 occurs in magnetic field close to the superconducting critical field $`H_{c2}=H_{c2}(T=0)=4.95`$ T, with field along the  crystallographic direction. The

change from the second order nature of the transition, observed at zero and low magnetic field, to first order at high field occurs at $`T_00.72\mathrm{K}=0.31T_c`$. We used a variety of techniques to investigate the region of interest of the $`HT`$ phase diagram, including measurements of specific heat at constant magnetic field, magnetocaloric effect, thermal expansion, magnetostriction, and resistivity.

Fig. 1(a) shows specific heat as a function of temperature for several values of magnetic field in the high field region. The data represented with open symbols were collected with the standard heat pulse technique. When the phase transition becomes first order, it sharpens substantially. In this regime the temperature decay method, where specific heat is extracted directly from the temperature trace of the system coming to equilibrium, was particularly useful to resolve the specific heat anomaly (solid symbols). The two data sets for $`H=4.8`$ T, obtained with the temperature decaying down (stars) and up (dots), as well as the data collected with heat pulse method (left open triangles) overlap each other, indicating good internal thermal equilibrium of the cell.

The specific heat anomaly for the second order phase transition (e.g. 4.5 T data) displays a characteristic step at $`T_c`$ (predicted to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }C/C=1.43`$ in the BCS theory), and then gradually drops below $`T_c`$. In CeCoIn5 $`\mathrm{\Delta }C/C`$ drops steadily from the very high value of 4.5 at zero field  to $`1.1`$ at $`H=4.5\mathrm{T}`$. The temperature width of the anomaly at half maximum $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{HM}`$ scaled by $`T_c`$ for 4.5 T is $`w(4.5\mathrm{T})=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{HM}}/\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{c}|_{4.5\mathrm{T}}25`$%.

As we move into the regime of the first order phase transition, the maximum of the specific heat anomaly rises, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Delta }C/C(4.8\mathrm{T})=1.9`$, and it becomes substantially narrower, $`w(4.8\mathrm{T})=6`$%. It should be kept in mind that this sharpening of the anomaly takes place in the region of the phase diagram where the boundary between the normal and superconducting states is crossed at more of a glancing angle during the temperature sweep as $`HH_{c2}`$. As a result, the anomaly should broaden if it remains second order, in contrast to the evolution of the data.

Figure 1(b) shows the entropy $`S`$ of CeCoIn5 as a function of temperature for various values of the magnetic field, obtained from the data in Fig. 1(a). There is a clear difference in the temperature evolution of the entropy for the field below and above $`H_04.7`$ T. Below this field ($`T_c>0.7`$ K) transition manifest itself by a kink in $`S`$. For fields above 4.7 T there is a step-like feature in $`S`$ at $`T_c`$, as expected for a first order phase transition.

To elucidate the low temperature behavior and determine the temperature $`T_0`$ of the critical point (and corresponding field $`H_0`$) at which the superconducting transition changes from second to first order, with higher precision, we studied the phase diagram of CeCoIn5 by sweeping magnetic field. This was done under close to adiabatic (constant entropy) conditions, regulating the bath temperature to be approximately that of the sample, which was weakly thermally coupled to the bath. The behavior of the system is then governed by the magnetocaloric effect.

Figure 2(a) shows several sweeps of magnetic field up and down, starting at different temperatures. Below $`H_0`$ there is a sharp change in temperature as magnetic field crosses the phase boundary. Temperature drops when the phase boundary is crossed as the field is swept up, since the system goes from the low entropy to the high entropy phase, and the temperature has to decrease to keep the entropy constant . The temperature swing is reversed (temperature rises) on the down field sweep. The change in the temperature of the sample after the crossing of the first order phase boundary $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{pb}`$ is a measure of the latent heat associated with transition. $`T_c`$ corresponds to the maximum of the derivative $`\frac{dT}{dH}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{pb}`$ is determined by extrapolations of the fits to the $`H`$ vs. $`T`$ curves outside of the transition region to $`T_c`$. An example of such a procedure is displayed in the inset of Fig. 2(a) for the data with $`T_c=0.41`$ K, where horizontal dotted line segment represents $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{pb}`$. The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{pb}`$ should equal zero

for the second order phase transition. This is indeed observed, within experimental scatter, for the data with $`T_c>T_0`$, illustrated in the inset of Fig. 2(a) for the data with $`T_c`$ = 0.74 K. Figure 2(b) displays the measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{pb}`$ as a function of $`T_c`$. The cross-over from the first order transition with non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{pb}`$ to the second order transition with $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{pb}=0`$ occurs at a sharply defined critical temperature $`T_0=0.72\pm 0.02`$ K, which is indicated by the arrow.

We also observed the change from the second to first order nature of the superconducting transition of CeCoIn5 via thermal expansion measurements, depicted in Fig 3. The coefficient of the thermal expansion, $`\alpha (T)=l^1dl/dT`$, was determined down to 50 mK by utilizing an ultrahigh-resolution capacitive dilatometer with a maximum sensitivity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }l/l10^{11}`$. Thermal expansion along the crystallographic  direction was measured for two different plate-like single crystals in magnetic fields up to 8 T applied along . For one of the crystals isothermal magnetostriction measurements were performed as well at $`T=0.2\text{K}`$ and at $`T=1.5\text{K}`$.

In the low field range $`\mathrm{H}4`$ T a step-like anomaly in $`\alpha `$, indicative of a second-order transition, is observed, which shifts towards lower temperatures upon increasing $`H`$. With increasing fields (see Fig. 3) the signature in $`\alpha `$ sharpens anomalously and becomes peak-like, with extremely high absolute values of $`\alpha `$. This again indicates a change of the nature of the superconducting transition from second order to first order for magnetic field on the order of 4.6 T. A first order transition should result in a jump in the sample length, corresponding to a divergence of $`\alpha `$. Thus the peak-like signature in $`\alpha `$ indicates a broadened first order transition. Additional evidence for this interpretation comes from the isothermal magnetostriction experiments displayed in the inset of Fig. 3. Whereas at $`T=1.5\text{K}`$ the kink in $`\mathrm{\Delta }l/l`$ at $`\mathrm{H}=3.55\text{T}`$ indicates a second-order phase transition, the jump in $`\mathrm{\Delta }l/l`$, observed for $`T=0.2\text{K}`$ at $`\mathrm{H}=4.86\text{T}`$, provides clear evidence for the first-order nature of the transition.

How do our experimental results compare with theoretical predictions? Pauli paramagnetism leads to an upper limit for the magnetic field $`H_p=\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\sqrt{2}\mu _B`$, called Clogston paramagnetic limit , which superconductor can support. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the superconducting energy gap, and $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton. Orbital effects of magnetic field also limit $`H_{c2}`$. The relative strength of the orbital pair breaking of magnetic field and Pauli limiting can be characterized by the parameter $`\alpha =\sqrt{2}H_{c20}/H_p`$, introduced by Maki , where $`H_{c20}`$ is an orbital critical field in the absence of the Pauli limiting. Maki’s calculations  show that for $`\alpha 1`$ the second order phase transition between the normal state and Abrikosov vortex state becomes unstable and changes to first order at a higher field, and if orbital effect is neglected ($`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$), this change takes place at the reduced temperature $`t_0=T_0/T_c=0.55`$

Also in the early 60’s, an alternative theory, also based on Zeeman energy of electron spins in magnetic field, suggested that a new spatially inhomogeneous superconducting state, now called the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) state, may be stabilized close to the critical field $`H_{c2}`$ at which superconductivity is suppressed to zero . FFLO state forms a wedge between the normal state and the homogeneous Abrikosov vortex state. The tricritical point where the phase boundaries between the three states meet denotes the point of instability of second order phase transition at low field to the appearance of the FFLO wedge above the critical field within the FFLO scenario. Gruenberg and Gunther  (GG) generalized the FFLO theory and included the orbital effect of magnetic field. The authors conclude that when the orbital pairbreaking effect is sufficiently small ($`\alpha 1.81`$),

FFLO state can exist in a type-II superconductor. They also calculated the dependence of the reduced temperature $`t_0`$ of a tricritical point on the Maki parameter $`\alpha `$. For $`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$ (orbital pair breaking is ignored), $`t_0=0.55`$. Therefore, both Maki and FFLO scenarios give the same instability point for the second order phase transition in this limit.

We do not see evidence for a second phase transition, which should be first order between FFLO state and a vortex state in FFLO scenario. However, we will make an assumption that we can use the result of the GG calculation of the instability point of the second order pase transition for arbitrary $`\alpha `$ within FFLO picture, to represent the instability of the second order phase transition within the Maki’s scenario for arbitrary $`\alpha `$, since both theories give the same result in the limit $`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$, where calculations for Maki’s scenario exist. To estimate $`\alpha `$ for CeCoIn5 we use $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=2.14k_BT_c`$ for a d-wave superconductor and obtain $`H_p=2.25T_c\mathrm{T}/\mathrm{K}=5.2\mathrm{T}`$. The orbital critical field is $`H_{c20}=0.7H_{c2}^{}T_c=13.2\mathrm{T}`$ . We therefore obtain $`\alpha =3.6`$, corresponding to $`t_0=0.35`$ from Fig. 1, curve $`b`$ of Ref. . Alternatively, it is possible to find $`H_p`$ from curve $`a`$ of Fig. 2 of Ref. , which relates $`H_{c2}(T=0)/H_p`$ to $`\alpha =\sqrt{2}H_{c20}/H_p`$. Experimentally determined $`H_{c2}=4.95\mathrm{T}`$, and the only unknown parameter is $`H_p`$. We find $`H_p=5.8\mathrm{T}`$, $`\alpha =3.2`$ and $`t_0=0.33`$. Both values of $`t_0`$ are very close to the value of $`t_0=0.31`$ observed experimentally. This agreement leads us to conclude that the first order phase transition is indeed due to the Pauli paramagnetism, confirming Maki’s prediction of almost 40 years ago .

The FFLO state has also attracted great attention, but its unambiguous observation has not been made. In the last decade the FFLO state was suggested to exist in heavy fermion UPd2Al3 (Ref. ) and CeRu2 (Ref. ), based on thermal expansion and magnetization data, respectively. Subsequent research identified the magnetization feature in CeRu2 as due to the flux motion , and the region of the suggested FFLO state in UPd2Al3 was shown to be inconsistent with theoretical model . Most notably, no indication of the FFLO state was ever observed via specific heat measurement, which is the primary tool for identification of the thermodynamic details of the phase transition. CeCoIn5, according to theory, has all the prerequisite properties for the observation of the FFLO state, including that superconductor must be in clean limit. CeCoIn5 satisfies this requirement as well, with quasiparticle mean free path $`l_{tr}14\xi _0`$ at $`T_c`$ . Within superconducting state thermal conductivity divided by temperature grows by an order of magnitude as temperature is lowered to $`T=0.2T_c`$, and even at 30 mK (1% of $`T_c`$) CeCoIn5 is outside of the impurity band . The agreement between theoretical prediction and experimental observation of the critical point at $`t_0`$ shows that the pertinent physics of electronic spin Zeeman energy and Pauli effect drives the behavior of the system. However, within FFLO picture two transitions are expected: from normal state into FFLO state, likely to be second order, and from FFLO state into a usual Abrikosov vortex state via first order phase transition. We only observe one phase transition in CeCoIn5 with field $`H`$ . Therefore, FFLO state is not present in CeCoIn5, suggesting that FFLO state, if it exists, is much less stable than previously thought.

In summary, the superconducting transition in CeCoIn5 with field $`H[001]`$ becomes first order below $`T_0=0.31T_c`$. This is consistent with long standing theoretical predictions which take into account both orbital and spin interactions of superconducting electrons with magnetic field. We do not observe inhomogeneous superconducting FFLO state proposed theoretically almost 40 years ago . Instead, first order superconducting transition in CeCoIn5 takes place from normal metal into mixed vortex state, in accord with scenario suggested by Maki .

We thank I. Vekhter, L. Boulaevskii, and K. Maki for stimulating discussions. Work at Los Alamos National Laboratory was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

At LEP2 energies, four-fermion final states with two charged leptons and two neutrinos are dominated by the pair production of W bosons. The probability of both W bosons decaying into leptons is about 10%. These events are characterized by an acoplanar pair of charged leptons in the final state . Systematic uncertainties due to colour reconnection, Bose-Einstein correlations and hadronization modeling, which plague the W mass measurement in other channels, are absent. The full reconstruction of the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}^{}\nu ^{}`$ events is not possible due to the presence of at least two unobserved neutrinos in the final state. Therefore the W mass is determined from the energy spectrum of the charged leptons and from an approximate reconstruction of the event referred to as the pseudo-mass method.

This paper presents a measurement of the W mass $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ in the fully leptonic channel with the Opal detector, using an unbinned maximum likelihood fit. The data sample has an integrated luminosity of 667 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ recorded at center-of-mass energies between 183 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and 207 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

A general description of the reconstruction of $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}^{}\nu ^{}`$ events can be found in . The end-points of the leptonic energy spectrum in $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}^{}\nu ^{}`$ events depend on the W mass. Neglecting the masses of the charged leptons and the finite width of the W boson, the energy $`\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the charged leptons can be written in terms of $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ as 111The convention c=1 is used throughout this paper.:

$$\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\sqrt{s}}{4}+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}^{}\sqrt{\frac{s}{16}\frac{\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}^2}{4}}$$
(1)
where $`s`$ is the square of the center-of-mass energy and $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is the angle between the lepton direction measured in the W rest frame and the direction of the W in the laboratory frame. The latter is not known, so the W mass is determined mainly by the endpoints of the distribution, which correspond to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}^{}=\pm 1`$. In practice, however, the end-points of the distribution are smeared considerably by the width of the W boson, by initial state radiation and by the detector resolution. These effects weaken the sensitivity of this variable.

In order to include the information from the angle between the two leptons and the correlation between their energies, a second observable based on an approximate kinematic reconstruction of the event — the so-called pseudo-mass — is used in the analysis. The complete reconstruction of the event would require the determination of the four-momenta of both charged leptons and the two neutrinos, 12 quantities in total assuming the masses are known. The four-momenta of the two charged leptons are measured; therefore, the full reconstruction depends on the determination of the momenta of the two neutrinos. Assuming four-momentum conservation and equal masses for the two W bosons, five more constraints can be obtained. An additional arbitrary constraint is imposed to allow the “reconstruction” of the event. By assuming that both neutrinos are in the same plane as the charged leptons, the kinematics can be solved to yield a W *pseudo-mass*, which is quite sensitive to the true W mass. Due to a twofold ambiguity, two solutions are found for this variable:

$`M_\pm ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(𝐩_{\mathrm{}^{}}+𝐩_{\mathrm{}})^2}}((P𝐩_{\mathrm{}^{}}Q𝐩_{\mathrm{}})(𝐩_{\mathrm{}^{}}+𝐩_{\mathrm{}})`$
$`\pm \sqrt{(𝐩_{\mathrm{}}\times 𝐩_{\mathrm{}^{}})^2[(𝐩_{\mathrm{}^{}}+𝐩_{\mathrm{}})^2(E_{\mathrm{beam}}E_{\mathrm{}})^2(P+Q)^2]}),`$
where

$$P=E_{\mathrm{beam}}E_{\mathrm{}}E_{\mathrm{}}^2+\frac{1}{2}m_{\mathrm{}}^2,Q=E_{\mathrm{beam}}E_{\mathrm{}^{}}𝐩_{\mathrm{}^{}}𝐩_{\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{2}m_{\mathrm{}^{}}^2,$$

$`E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ is the beam energy, $`E_{\mathrm{}},E_{\mathrm{}^{}}`$ are the energies of the two charged leptons, $`m_{\mathrm{}},m_{\mathrm{}^{}}`$ are their masses and $`𝐩_{\mathrm{}},𝐩_{\mathrm{}^{}}`$ are their three-momenta. In the present analysis the charged leptons are considered to be massless particles because the values of the masses are very small in comparison with their energies. The sensitivity of both solutions was studied with Monte Carlo simulations, which showed that only the larger solution, $`M_+`$, is sensitive to $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$. The distribution of this solution shows an edge where the value of the pseudo-mass is close to the true W mass.

The pseudo-mass is used here for the first time in determining the W mass in leptonic W-pair decays. It is shown that the correlation between the mass determination from the single lepton energy spectrum and from the pseudo-mass is small, so that the mass measurement can be improved by combining the two methods. For the measurement presented in this paper the total error is dominated by the data statistical error. The largest contributions to the systematic uncertainty in this analysis are due to the uncertainties on the lepton energy which are determined with data and scale with the available statistics. In future experiments with larger statistics it should be possible to reduce both the statistical and systematic uncertainty significantly.

## 2 Detector Description and Event Selection

A detailed description of the Opal detector can be found in . The data sample used for this analysis corresponds to an accepted integrated luminosity of 667 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$, evaluated using small angle Bhabha scattering events observed in the silicon tungsten forward calorimeter.

The selection of the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}^{}\nu ^{}`$ events and the identification of electrons and muons are described in . For this analysis events with two charged leptons are required. In view of the experimental problems associated with reconstructing $`\tau `$-decays, the present analysis is restricted to events which contain at least one W decaying into an electron or a muon for the leptonic energy method (section 3.1.1) and events in which neither of the two W bosons decays into a tau for the pseudo-mass method (section 3.1.2). Table 1 summarizes the signal efficiencies and purities . The dominant background sources are $`\mathrm{We}\nu ,\mathrm{ZZ}`$ and dilepton events. These sources comprise 40%, 30% and 15% of the total background cross-section for the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}^{}\nu ^{}`$ events . A total of 1101 events for the whole range of center-of-mass energies are observed in the data. Table 2 summarizes the observed numbers of events for each center-of-mass energy together with the corresponding integrated luminosities.

### 2.1 Monte Carlo Event Generators

At each center-of-mass energy, samples of signal events were generated with five different W masses: 79.33 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, 79.83 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, 80.33 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, 80.83 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and 81.33 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. In the range of 183–189 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, samples corresponding to the central value of 80.33 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ were generated according to the CC03 222The leading order $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ production diagrams, i.e. the $`t`$-channel $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ exchange and the $`s`$-channel $`\mathrm{Z}^0/\gamma `$ exchange, are referred to as CC03, following the notation of . diagrams with KoralW , $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{ZZ}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{Zee}`$ background events were generated with Pythia  and $`\mathrm{We}\nu `$ with KoralW  . For the other W masses and for center-of-mass energies in the range of 192–207 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ KoralW was used both for the signal and for these four-fermion backgrounds. Other backgrounds were simulated by Radcor  for multi-photon final states, KoralZ  and Bhwide  for dilepton final states and two-photon events were simulated with Vermaseren  and Herwig. Finally Yfsww3  samples were used to perform systematic studies related to photon radiation in $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ events.

### 2.2 Classification of Events

The momentum resolutions obtainable with Opal for electrons and muons differ significantly at high energies. For electrons, the preferred measurement uses the electromagnetic calorimeter energy information which has a resolution of approximately 3% at 45 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, whereas for muons at the same energy, the charged particle momentum determined in the central tracker has a resolution of approximately 8% . Therefore, to maximize the sensitivity of the measurement, electrons and muons are treated separately by defining different classes of events for the leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass analyses, depending upon the identified lepton flavours. Identified taus are rejected since their energy cannot be determined.

In the case of the leptonic energy the information of both charged leptons is used independently. For this variable two different classes are defined: the first class contains leptons identified as electrons and the second class contains leptons identified as muons. To increase the number of leptons used in the analysis, the higher energy identified electrons or muons in events selected as either $`e\nu _e\tau \nu _\tau `$ or $`\mu \nu _\mu \tau \nu _\tau `$ are also used.

For the pseudo-mass three classes of events are defined as follows:

1. Events consisting of two leptons identified as $`e`$.
2. Events consisting of two leptons identified as $`\mu `$.
3. Events consisting of two leptons identified as an $`e`$ and a $`\mu `$.

Table 3 shows the classification of events for the leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass. The number of leptons selected for the leptonic energy method, and the number of events selected for the pseudo-mass method are summarized in Table 2.

## 3 Extraction of the W Mass

### 3.1 Unbinned Maximum Likelihood Method

The extraction of the W mass was performed by a simultaneous maximum likelihood fit to the leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass distributions using the data from center-of-mass energies from 183 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ to 207 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The fit is performed with the following product of likelihood functions:

$$_T=\underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}_{LE}^k\times \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_{PM}^k\right)$$
(3)
where $`k`$ denotes the eight center-of-mass energies included in the fit and $`i`$ runs over the two classes defined for the leptonic energy ($`LE`$) and the three classes defined for the pseudo-mass ($`PM`$).

The leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass distributions obtained from Monte Carlo simulations (including all background sources) are parameterized by appropriate analytic functions,

$$f=f(P_1,\mathrm{},P_N;x),$$
(4)
which depend on $`N`$ parameters, $`P_i`$, and on the variable $`x`$, which stands for either the leptonic energy or the pseudo-mass. For each parameter a linear dependence on $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ is assumed:

$$P_i=b_i^0+b_i^1\times \mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}$$
(5)
The coefficients $`b_i^0`$ and $`b_i^1`$ are obtained by fitting the analytic functions to the leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass spectra generated at different W masses. The coefficient $`b_i^1`$ is included only if it is not compatible with zero within one standard deviation (i.e. its numerical value is larger than the corresponding error); otherwise only a constant term is used. This parameterization is performed independently for each class defined for the sensitive variables. Details of the method are discussed in the following sections.

#### 3.1.1 Parameterization of the Leptonic Energy

The leptonic energy spectrum is fitted with a function $`f_T`$, which is the product of two Fermi functions and a linear function:

$$f_T=f_1\times f_2\times f_3$$
(6)
with

$$f_1=\frac{1}{e^{\frac{xP_1}{P_2}}+1},f_2=P_5(1+P_6\times x),f_3=\frac{1}{e^{\frac{xP_3}{P_4}}+1}.$$
(7)
$`P_1`$ and $`P_3`$ correspond to the points of inflection of the two Fermi functions, $`P_2`$ and $`P_4`$ to their widths, $`P_5`$ is the constant term of the linear function and the slope is proportional to $`P_6`$.

The fit function depends therefore on six parameters. The overall normalization of the spectra can be used to eliminate $`P_5`$. For each set of values of the $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$, $`P_3`$, $`P_4`$ and $`P_6`$ parameters, $`P_5`$ is calculated so that the total function is normalized in the region taken to perform the fit. The lower limit is 10 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ for all center-of-mass energies and the upper limit changes depending on the center-of-mass energy from 80 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ for 183 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ to 100 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ for 207 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The regions at the end-points of the leptonic energy spectrum are sensitive to $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$. In terms of the parameterization these edges correspond to $`P_1`$ and $`P_3`$. These are the only parameters which are expected to change with the W mass while the other parameters, $`P_2`$, $`P_4`$ and $`P_6`$, are more sensitive to the W width and detector resolution effects. This has been confirmed by studying the linear dependence of each parameter on $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$. Figure 1 shows an example of a fit to the leptonic energy distribution. The spectrum is generated from a Monte Carlo sample with a W mass of 80.33 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ at a center-of-mass energy of 189 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

A simultaneous fit of the parameters $`P_1(\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W})`$, $`P_2`$ and $`P_3(\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W})`$, $`P_4`$ and $`P_6`$ with the Monte Carlo samples for different values of $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ is performed. Parameters $`P_2`$, $`P_4`$ and $`P_6`$ are assumed to be independent of $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ and a common value is determined for each of these. $`P_1`$ and $`P_3`$ describe the $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ dependence and a separate value is determined for each generated $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$. Figure 2 shows the fitted parameters $`P_1`$ and $`P_3`$ and the linear dependence on $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ for the case of electrons. These fits are performed independently for each class of events and each center-of-mass energy.

#### 3.1.2 Parameterization of the Pseudo-mass

The analytic function chosen to fit the pseudo-mass spectra is the sum of a Fermi function and a constant function, with four free parameters:

$$f=P_1\left(\frac{1}{e^{\frac{xP_2}{P_3}}+1}+P_4\right).$$
(8)
$`P_1`$, $`P_2`$ and $`P_3`$ are proportional to the amplitude of the curve, to the point of inflection of the slope and to the width respectively and $`P_4`$ is a constant term. As with the lepton energy, one parameter can be eliminated due to the constraint of the overall normalization. This procedure is used to eliminate the parameter $`P_1`$. For each set of values of the $`P_2`$, $`P_3`$, $`P_4`$ parameters, $`P_1`$ is determined to normalize the function within the fit range of 70 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ to 90 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, which is the same for all center-of-mass energies. In terms of the above parameterization, the edge of the pseudo-mass distribution corresponds to $`P_2`$. This is the only parameter which is expected to show a clear dependence on $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$. Figure 3 shows an example of the function fitted to a simulated pseudo-mass distribution. Similar fits are performed for each class of events at all center-of-mass energies considered in the analysis. The edge around the generated W mass can be observed in the figure. The individual linear dependence of each parameter on $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ was studied in the same way as for the leptonic energy. In this case, a simultaneous fit of the parameters $`P_2(\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W})`$, $`P_3`$ and $`P_4`$ with the Monte Carlo samples for the different values of $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ was performed. $`P_3`$ and $`P_4`$ are found to be independent of $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$; therefore a common value was determined for each. $`P_2`$ describes the $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ dependence and an independent value was determined for each generated $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$. Figure 4 shows the fitted values of the $`P_2`$ parameter and its linear dependence on $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ in the case of electron-electron events.

### 3.2 Monte Carlo Studies

The correlation between the fitted masses for the leptonic energy and for the pseudo-mass has been determined to be ($`11\pm 1`$)%, considering all center-of-mass energies together. This was evaluated by fitting the W mass separately for the leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass with an ensemble of 90 independent data-sized Monte Carlo subsamples generated with a W mass of 80.33 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The simultaneous fit method has been tested with 2000 data-size experiments derived by resampling from Monte Carlo simulations. The events of these subsamples were picked at random from the full Monte Carlo sample, whose signal part (generated at $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ = 80.33 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$) corresponded to 90 times the data statistics. Multiple draws of the same events were allowed. Figure 5(a) shows the results of the resampling tests fitted with a Gaussian function. The pull distribution is shown in figure 5(b). To compensate for the underestimation of the statistical error by the common fit due to the correlation between the leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass, the errors of the fit used in the pull distribution have been increased by a factor 1.11.

#### 3.2.1 Bias Test

The method presented to extract the W mass is not expected to show any bias. Possible biases due to detector effects are eliminated since these are simulated with Monte Carlo methods. Biases related to the selection of the analytic functions which fit the leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass are negligible as long as the functions fit the variables properly. By using Monte Carlo samples generated with $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ = 79.33, 79.83, 80.33, 80.83 and 81.33 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, the bias and the linearity can be determined. First, the individual relations between the generated and the fitted masses are studied independently for the leptonic energy and for the pseudo-mass. The distributions show slopes and biases compatible with one and zero respectively, $`0.958\pm 0.087`$ and $`0.061\pm 0.054\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the leptonic energy and $`0.952\pm 0.086`$ and $`0.031\pm 0.044\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the pseudo-mass. Second, the relation between the generated and the fitted mass is studied for the simultaneous fit to both the leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass. This relation is shown in Figure 6 and found to be linear in a region of $`\pm `$ 1 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ from the central value of 80.33 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, with a slope of $`0.983\pm 0.063`$ and a bias value of $`0.055\pm 0.031\mathrm{GeV}`$. No corrections are included due to the slope or bias values since there is no evidence of a bias.

## 4 Fit Results and Discussion

The simultaneous fit to the data distribution of the leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass, combining center-of-mass energies from 183 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ to 207 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, gives the following result:

$`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}=80.41\pm 0.41\mathrm{GeV},`$

where the quoted error is statistical only and has been scaled by a factor 1.11 to take into account the correlation between the two variables. The W mass values obtained separately are $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}=80.58\pm 0.52\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the leptonic energy and $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}=80.20\pm 0.61\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the pseudo-mass. Figure 7 shows the comparison between the fit function and the data for the two classes defined for the leptonic energy at a center-of-mass energy of 207 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The poorer resolution of the muon energy compared to the electron energy is visible in the fit functions. The regions around the end-points have sharper edges for electrons than for muons. Figure 8 shows analogous results for the three classes of events defined for the pseudo-mass at all center-of-mass energies. The greater sensitivity of electron-electron events relative to muon-muon or electron-muon events can be observed by comparing the fit functions around 80 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, i.e. in the region sensitive to $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$.

## 5 Systematic Checks and Uncertainties

The study of the systematic uncertainties on the W mass is described in this section and summarized in Table 4. The sources of systematic errors have been studied simultaneously for all center-of-mass energies. The total systematic error is calculated as a quadratic sum of the contributions listed below.

### 5.1 Beam Energy

The average LEP beam energy is currently known with a precision of about $`\pm `$ 20 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$, varying slightly for different center-of-mass energies between 183 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and 207 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. This leads to a systematic uncertainty of 11 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. The RMS spread in the LEP center-of-mass energy is around 240 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$, varying slightly with the center-of-mass energy. The systematic error due to the uncertainty of the beam energy spread is 3 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. In addition the data at average center-of-mass energies of 205 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and 207 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ were taken at a number of discrete energy points in the range of 204.6–206.0 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and 206.2–208.0 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, respectively. This leads to a bias of 12 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ for which the fit result has been corrected. The average difference between the electron and the positron beam energies has negligible impact on the measurement of $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$.

### 5.2 QED Corrections

The systematic error associated with uncertainties in the modeling of the QED corrections is estimated by reweighting events generated with Yfsww3, which has a more complete treatment of $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ QED corrections, according to KoralW probabilities. The corresponding difference of 7 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ is taken as systematic error.

### 5.3 Detector and Resolution Effects

The effects of the detector calibrations and the deficiencies in the Monte Carlo simulation of the detector response are investigated by varying the observed leptonic energy scales in the electromagnetic calorimeter (for the electrons) and in the central tracker (for the muons) over reasonable ranges . The ranges used for the systematic variations depend on the polar angle and are determined from detailed comparisons of data and Monte Carlo utilizing both data recorded at 189–207 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and data collected at $`\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z}`$ during 1998–2001. Due to differences observed in the resolution between the data and the Monte Carlo simulation during these years, correction factors for electron and muon energy are included in the reference samples. The difference between the measured and the generated energy is scaled by a factor 1.07 for the electromagnetic calorimeter and 1.06 for the central tracker.

From the systematic studies of the lepton energy scale, the electromagnetic calorimeter energy scales and the central tracker scale are both known to 0.3%. These scale uncertainties dominate the detector related systematics in the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}^{}\nu ^{}`$ channel. For muons the scale uncertainty is 32 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. In the case of electrons, the scale errors are expected to be uncorrelated between the barrel and endcap regions and therefore the analysis for electrons was performed separately in both regions and combined in quadrature, resulting in an uncertainty of 85 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. The systematic uncertainty due to the non-linearity in the electromagnetic calorimeter and the central tracker is taken into account by varying the energy using a factor which changes linearly from $`0.1`$% to 0.1% in the range 20–70 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The corresponding systematic error is 43 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ for electrons and 33 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ for muons.

The systematic error due to the uncertainties on the resolution is studied with Monte Carlo samples by comparing the fitted W mass with the nominal resolution to that with resolutions changed by 1.10 for electrons (with the information of the electromagnetic calorimeter) and 1.07 for muons (with the information of the central tracker). The corresponding errors are 43 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ and 12 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ respectively.

### 5.4 Background Treatment

The background normalization is varied by $`\pm `$ 5%, which corresponds to the error in the cross section measurement for the leptonic channel. The resulting change in the fitted $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ is 11 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$.

### 5.5 Parameterization of the Sensitive Variables

A total of 152 parameters are obtained for the leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass considering center-of-mass energies from 183 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ to 207 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ for all the defined classes. From these, 56 parameters depend on the mass of the W boson. To check the systematic error associated with the parameterization of the leptonic energy and the pseudo-mass distributions each parameter is varied independently by $`\pm 1\sigma `$. This is repeated for all center-of-mass energies and all classes defined for the leptonic energy and for the pseudo-mass. Adding the resulting changes in quadrature yields a total systematic uncertainty due to the parameterization of 51 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$.

Since the parameterization of the pseudo-mass does not describe a possible fall of the distribution above 85 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ we tried an alternative parameterization by multiplying the standard parameterization by a linear function. This changes the fit result by 4 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$.

### 5.6 Four-Fermion Effects

Using events generated according to the CC03 diagrams instead of the full set of four-fermion diagrams results in a mass bias of 24 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. This has been determined by reweighting events produced with KoralW to the prediction of the CC03 matrix element. The fit result has been corrected for the mass bias due to the use of the CC03 Monte Carlo at center-of-mass of 183 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and 189 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The remaining uncertainty due to the modeling of the four fermion final state is expected to be significantly smaller and has been neglected in the estimation of the total systematic uncertainty.

## 6 Outlook for Future Experiments

This analysis has demonstrated for the first time that the correlation between the two leptons can be used as additional information to the single lepton energy spectra in the determination of the W mass from leptonic W-pair decays. Due to the small correlation between the mass determination from the pseudo-mass and from the lepton energy the uncertainty is reduced significantly by combining the two measurements. The systematic uncertainty could be significantly reduced in future high-statistics experiments. The uncertainties on the energy scale, resolution and linearity are determined with data and scale with the available statistics. The error due to the parameterization depends on the number of available Monte Carlo events and can be kept small by producing sufficiently large samples.

The different sensitivities of the edges of lepton energy distributions and the pseudo-mass to the beam energy result in a reduced systematic error from the uncertainty in the beam energy in this analysis compared to the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ channels . This will be important at future colliders, where the beam energy measurements will be one of the limiting systematic uncertainties.

For the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ channels the hadronisation of the quarks gives rise to an important systematic uncertainty which can only be estimated by the comparison of different hadronisation models. The determination of the W mass in purely leptonic W decays is free from this uncertainty. As discussed, the total error in this channel should be competitive with the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ channels with sufficiently high statistics.

## 7 Summary

The energy of the leptons produced in the reaction $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}^{}\nu ^{}`$ and the pseudo-mass, a variable which is based on an approximate kinematic reconstruction of the event, are used to measure the mass of the W boson. Both variables are combined in a simultaneous unbinned maximum likelihood fit, using data collected at center-of-mass energies between 183 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and 207 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The following result is obtained:

$`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}=80.41\pm 0.41\pm 0.13\mathrm{GeV},`$

where the first uncertainty quoted is statistical and the second is systematic. The result obtained is consistent with previous measurements of $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}`$ .

## 8 Acknowledgements

We particularly wish to thank the SL Division for the efficient operation of the LEP accelerator at all energies and for their close cooperation with our experimental group. We thank our colleagues from CEA, DAPNIA/SPP, CE-Saclay for their efforts over the years on the time-of-flight and trigger systems which we continue to use. In addition to the support staff at our own institutions we are pleased to acknowledge the
Department of Energy, USA,
National Science Foundation, USA,
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK,
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada,
Israel Science Foundation, administered by the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities,
Minerva Gesellschaft,
Benoziyo Center for High Energy Physics,
Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (the Monbusho) and a grant under the Monbusho International Science Research Program,
Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS),
German Israeli Bi-national Science Foundation (GIF),
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Germany,
National Research Council of Canada,
Research Corporation, USA,
Hungarian Foundation for Scientific Research, OTKA T-029328, T023793 and OTKA F-023259,
Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders, F.W.O.-Vlaanderen, Belgium.


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

Time-dependent CP asymmetry measurements in neutral $`B`$ meson decays provide useful tests for the standard model, which attributes CP violation to a single phase in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. The potential variety of $`B^0`$ and $`B_s`$ decay modes permits one to overconstrain the CKM unitarity triangle involving the three angles $`\alpha =\varphi _2,\beta \varphi _1`$ and $`\gamma =\varphi _3`$ . The observation of CP violation in $`B^0(t)J/\psi K_S`$ , interpreted in terms of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, passed this test successfully. First results of a CP asymmetry measurement in $`B^0(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, consistent with a zero asymmetry, though involving large errors, were reported in . Updates, implying world average asymmetries which are nonzero at about a $`2.3\sigma `$ level, were presented very recently . The two measured quantities, coefficients of terms involving $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$ in the time-dependent asymmetry, were studied recently  as functions of relevant strong and weak phases. It was shown how discrete ambiguities in a strong phase can be resolved in order to learn the weak phase $`\alpha `$.

Approximate flavor SU(3) symmetry of strong interactions can be used to relate a variety of $`B`$ and $`B_s`$ decays to two charmless pseudoscalar mesons . Thus, the process $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is related to $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ in the limit of U-spin symmetry involving an interchange of $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks. This symmetry implies equal CP rate differences in any pair of U-spin related processes , and in particular in this pair of decay modes. The U-spin relation between $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ was used in  to suggest a simultaneous determination of the two weak phases $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ by combining information from the asymmetries in these two processes. By measuring for both channels a $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$ and a $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$ term one has four equations for four unknowns: $`\beta `$ (which can also be considered as given from direct measurements), $`\gamma `$, the ratio of penguin to tree amplitudes in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, and the relative strong phase between these two amplitudes. It was noted  that factorized U-spin breaking effects cancel in the double ratio of penguin to tree amplitudes and in the difference between the two relative strong phases occuring in the two processes. This reduces the intrinsic theoretical uncertainty of this method.

Several earlier suggestions for measuring weak phases in $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ were made in , by combining this decay within flavor SU(3) with information from other processes, involving $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0,B_sK^{}\pi ^+,B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$. Usually, these methods require some assumption about SU(3) breaking. Also, as a result of the large number of required measurements, which are expressed in terms of trigonometric functions of strong and weak phases, one encounters several discrete ambiguities in the solutions for weak phases.

In the present paper we wish to re-examine more carefully the simplest among all these suggestions , which does not require full SU(3) but only isospin symmetry. The method is based primarily on the time-dependent rate of $`B_s(t)K^+K^{}`$ and its charge-conjugate, normalized by the time-integrated rate of $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0`$. We will also include effects due to a lifetime difference between neutral $`B_s`$ mass eigenstates which were neglected in .

A major purpose of this study will be to show how to resolve certain discrete ambiguities in strong and weak phases in order to determine unambiguously the weak phase $`\gamma `$. One of the outputs of the above measurements is the ratio of tree to penguin amplitudes in $`B_sK^+K^{}`$. This ratio is related by U-spin to the corresponding ratio in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, for which some information already exists. We will use this information to demonstrate the sensitivity of this method.

We introduce notations for $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ and $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0`$ in Sec. II, where we explain some necessary assumptions and ways of testing these assumptions. The general time-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s(t)K^+K^{})`$, normalized by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_sK^0\overline{K}^0)`$, involves four measurable quantities $`R_{KK},C_{KK},S_{KK}`$ and $`D_{KK}`$, for which expressions are derived in Sec. III in terms of a ratio of tree to penguin amplitude, a strong phase difference and the weak phase $`\gamma `$. We discuss the resolution of ambiguities associated with the strong phase. Solutions for $`\gamma `$ in terms of the measurables are studied in Sec. IV in order to evaluate the sensitivity of the method. We conclude in Sec. V.

## II Notation and assumptions

In Ref. , studying $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ in terms of tree and penguin amplitudes,

$$A(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(|T|e^{i\delta _T}e^{i\gamma }+|P|e^{i\delta _P}),$$
(1)
we used the convention in which top quark contributions 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. The $`V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}`$ piece of the penguin operator is included in the tree amplitude. We adopt the same convention for $`B_sK^+K^{}`$, such that

$$A(B_sK^+K^{})=(|T^{}|e^{i\delta _T^{}}e^{i\gamma }|P^{}|e^{i\delta _P^{}}).$$
(2)
In the U-spin symmetry limit one has

$$\frac{|T^{}|}{|T|}=\frac{V_{ub}^{}V_{us}}{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}}=\frac{\lambda }{1\lambda ^2/2},\frac{|P^{}|}{|P|}=\frac{V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}}{V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}}=\frac{1\lambda ^2/2}{\lambda },\delta _T^{}=\delta _T,\delta _P^{}=\delta _P,$$
(3)
where $`\lambda =0.22`$ .

We note in passing that Eq. (2) by itself is a general expression of the decay amplitude in the CKM framework, and involves no assumption. The amplitude for $`\overline{B}_sK^+K^{}`$ is simply obtained by changing the sign of the weak phase $`\gamma `$.

The amplitude for $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0`$ will be assumed to have the simple form

$$A(B_sK^0\overline{K}^0)=|P^{}|e^{i\delta _P^{}}.$$
(4)
The QCD penguin terms in $`B_s`$ decays to charged and neutral kaons are equal by isospin. However, the form (4) which assumes equal overall penguin contributions in the two processes and no tree amplitude (with weak phase $`\gamma `$) in $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0`$, involves two approximations. First, we neglect a small color-suppressed electroweak penguin contribution in $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ . Using factorization, such contributions are estimated to be at a level of a few percent . Tests for the magnitude of the electroweak penguin contribution in $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ were proposed in . In Eq. (4) one also disregards the possibility of enhanced rescattering effects in $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0`$, typically of order $`|V_{ub}^{}V_{us}/V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}|2\%`$ without such enhancement. Such enhanced effects could, in principle, induce a sizable term with phase $`\gamma `$. One test for such a term would be observing a CP asymmetry between this process and its change conjugate. Other indirect tests involve rate measurements of hadronic decays such as $`B_s\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^0K^+K^{}`$, which are very rare in the absence of rescattering .

Since in the above approximation $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0`$ involves a single weak phase, we expect no CP asymmetry in this decay. We denote by $`R_{KK}`$ the ratio of charge averaged rates for $`B_s(\mathrm{or}\overline{B}_s)K^+K^{}`$ and $`B_s(\mathrm{or}\overline{B}_s)K^0\overline{K}^0`$,

$$R_{KK}\frac{(B_sK^+K^{})+(\overline{B}_sK^+K^{})}{(B_sK^0\overline{K}^0)+(\overline{B}_sK^0\overline{K}^0)}.$$
(5)
The time-dependent decay rate of $`B_s|_{\mathrm{initial}}K^+K^{}`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s(t)K^+K^{})e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_st}\times [\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_st/2)D_{KK}\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_st/2)`$
$`+C_{KK}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_st)S_{KK}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_st)],`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(\mathrm{\Gamma }_H+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)/2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_sm_Hm_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ are the mass and width differences between the two $`B_s`$ mass eigenstates. In the standard model one expects $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s>0`$, and estimates imply that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s/\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ can be as large as about 15$`\%`$ . An expression similar to (II), in which the $`C_{KK}`$ and $`S_{KK}`$ terms occur with opposite signs, describes the rate of $`\overline{B}_s|_{\mathrm{initial}}K^+K^{}`$.

The coefficients $`C_{KK},S_{KK}`$ and $`D_{KK}`$, obeying

$$C_{KK}^2+S_{KK}^2+D_{KK}^2=1,$$
(7)
are defined by

$$C_{KK}\frac{1|\lambda _{KK}|^2}{1+|\lambda _{KK}|^2},S_{KK}\frac{2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}(\lambda _{KK})}{1+|\lambda _{KK}|^2},D_{KK}\frac{2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(\lambda _{KK})}{1+|\lambda _{KK}|^2},$$
(8)
where

$$\lambda _{KK}\frac{A(\overline{B}_sK^+K^{})}{A(B_sK^+K^{})}.$$
(9)
A very small overall phase from $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixing, $`\mathrm{arg}(V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}/V_{cb}^{}V_{cs})^2\lambda ^2`$, was neglected.

Defining $`\delta ^{}\delta _P^{}\delta _T^{}`$, where we use a convention in which $`\pi \delta ^{}\pi `$, one finds

$$\lambda _{KK}=\frac{1|T^{}/P^{}|e^{i(\delta ^{}+\gamma )}}{1|T^{}/P^{}|e^{i(\delta ^{}\gamma )}}.$$
(10)
This expression simplifies to a pure phase in the two special cases when $`\delta ^{}=0`$ or $`\pi `$

$$\lambda _{KK}=e^{2i\zeta },\zeta =\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{|T^{}/P^{}|\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{1|T^{}/P^{}|\mathrm{cos}\gamma }(\delta ^{}=0)\\ \mathrm{arctan}\frac{|T^{}/P^{}|\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{1+|T^{}/P^{}|\mathrm{cos}\gamma }(\delta ^{}=\pi ).\end{array}$$
(11)
In such cases $`C_{KK}=0,S_{KK}=\mathrm{sin}2\zeta ,D_{KK}=\mathrm{cos}2\zeta `$.

In the next section we will study the dependence of the measurables defined in Eqs. (5) and (8) on $`|T^{}/P^{}|,\delta ^{}`$ and $`\gamma `$.

## III Dependence of observables on $`\delta ^{}`$ and $`\gamma `$

Expressions for $`R_{KK},C_{KK},S_{KK}`$ and $`D_{KK}`$ in terms of $`|T^{}/P^{}|,\delta ^{}`$ and $`\gamma `$ are readily derived:

$`R_{KK}`$ $`=`$ $`12|T^{}/P^{}|\mathrm{cos}\delta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\gamma +|T^{}/P^{}|^2,`$ (12)
$`C_{KK}`$ $`=`$ $`2|T^{}/P^{}|\mathrm{sin}\delta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\gamma /R_{KK},`$ (13)
$`S_{KK}`$ $`=`$ $`[2|T^{}/P^{}|\mathrm{cos}\delta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\gamma |T^{}/P^{}|^2\mathrm{sin}2\gamma ]/R_{KK},`$ (14)
$`D_{KK}`$ $`=`$ $`[12|T^{}/P^{}|\mathrm{cos}\delta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\gamma +|T^{}/P^{}|^2\mathrm{cos}2\gamma ]/R_{KK}.`$ (15)
There are some interesting differences between the present case of $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ and that of $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ discussed in Ref. .

1. Assuming $`\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{sin}\delta ^{})=\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{sin}\delta )`$, the quantities $`C_{KK}`$ and $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ are opposite in sign. In the U-spin symmetry limit, the corresponding CP rate differences are equal in magnitude and have opposite signs.
2. In contrast to the case of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$, which measures $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ in the limit $`|P/T|0`$, there is no term independent of the ratio of the smaller amplitude to the larger amplitude; $`S_{KK}`$ vanishes in the limit $`|T^{}/P^{}|0`$.
3. Whereas $`D_{\pi \pi }`$ is expected to be large and negative, $`D_{KK}`$ is predicted to be large and positive. Its maximal value is +1.
4. While one expects $`R_{\pi \pi }>1`$ for $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma >0`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\delta 1`$, one expects $`R_{KK}<1`$ for $`\mathrm{cos}\delta ^{}1`$.
5. All equations involve only the CKM phase $`\gamma `$, while for $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ the relations are not as simple because they contain both $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ (or $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$.) This should not be considered a disadvantage, since $`\beta `$ is known rather precisely from direct measurements.

The first three expressions for $`R_{KK},C_{KK}`$ and $`S_{KK}`$ agree with results obtained in  using different notations. One may regard these three equations as specifying the three unknowns $`|T^{}/P^{}|,\delta ^{}`$ and $`\gamma `$. The quadratic equations for $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$ and the trigonometric expressions in terms of strong and weak phases yield solutions which involve several discrete ambiguities.

Whereas the magnitude of $`D_{KK}`$ is specified by $`C_{KK}`$ and $`S_{KK}`$, which are likely to be more easily measured, its sign could in principle resolve some of these ambiguities. $`D_{KK}`$ may change sign as a function of $`\delta ^{}`$ and $`\gamma `$ if $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$ is sufficiently large. For instance, in  this ratio was taken to be $`8/9`$, which would permit a change of sign in $`D_{KK}`$. As we will show now, there exists already indirect information on $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$ from nonstrange $`B`$ decays which implies $`|T^{}/P^{}|=0.184\pm 0.043`$, which is much smaller than assumed in . With such a small value of $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$, $`D_{KK}`$ must be positive and large in the CKM framework. A negative value would signify new physics.

Using Eq. (3), we find to leading order in $`\lambda ^2`$,

$$\frac{|T^{}|}{|P^{}|}=\frac{\lambda ^2}{1\lambda ^2}\frac{|T|}{|P|}.$$
(16)
This relation, which is precise in the U-spin symmetry limit, may be affected by U-spin breaking. However, as noted in , such effects are expected to be small in the ratio of ratios $`|T^{}/P^{}|:|T/P|`$ if one assumes approximate factorization. We will neglect nonfactorizable corrections in our evaluation of $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$. The ratio $`|P/T|`$ was estimated in Refs.  and , applying SU(3) with SU(3) breaking to experimental data on $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ (a process dominated by the penguin amplitude), and applying data on $`B\pi l\nu `$ related to the tree amplitude in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ in the factorization approximation. We shall use the result of Ref. , $`|P/T|=0.276\pm 0.064`$. Ref. , based on explicit calculations in QCD-improved factorization, found a very similar value $`|P/T|=0.285\pm 0.076`$. Thus, we find from Eq. (16)

$$\frac{|T^{}|}{|P^{}|}=0.184\pm 0.043.$$
(17)
As mentioned, this value allows only positive values of $`D_{KK}`$, which cannot provide new information for reducing discrete ambiguities.

Let us discuss ambiguities related to the strong phase $`\delta ^{}`$, which can be positive or negative, and can lie either in the range $`0<|\delta ^{}|\pi /2`$ or in $`\pi /2<|\delta ^{}|\pi `$. Calculations based on QCD-improved factorization  may indicate that this phase (related by U-spin to the phase $`\delta \delta _P\delta _T`$ defined in (1)) is small and has a definite sign; a value $`\delta 10^{}`$ is found in Ref. . Other perturbative QCD calculations  imply a larger negative phase $`\delta `$; correspondingly, Ref.  finds $`\delta ^{}27^{}`$ when the phase is expressed in our convention. It will be important to check these predictions.

In order to resolve ambiguities in $`\delta ^{}`$, we note that $`R_{KK},S_{KK}`$ and $`D_{KK}`$ are even in $`\delta ^{}`$ while $`C_{KK}`$ is odd in $`\delta ^{}`$. First, consider $`R_{KK}`$. Since current constraints on CKM parameters  imply $`\gamma <\pi /2`$ or $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma >0`$, a value $`R_{KK}<1`$ would imply $`\mathrm{cos}\delta ^{}>0`$, namely $`0<|\delta ^{}|<\pi /2`$. Furthermore, a value of $`R_{KK}`$ below 1 permits one to set a significant bound on $`\gamma `$ which is independent of $`\delta ^{}`$ ,

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma R_{KK}.$$
(18)
Second, consider $`C_{KK}`$. Within the CKM framework $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma >0`$. Therefore, a nonzero measurement of $`C_{KK}`$ will specify the sign of $`\delta ^{}`$. There exists an absolute bound on $`C_{KK}`$, $`|C_{KK}|2|T^{}/P^{}|/(1+|T^{}/P^{}|^2)`$, which becomes stronger for a given value of $`\gamma `$:

$$|C_{KK}|\frac{2|T^{}/P^{}||\mathrm{sin}\gamma |}{\sqrt{(1+|T^{}/P^{}|^2)^24|T^{}/P^{}|^2\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma }}.$$
(19)
Examining $`S_{KK}`$, we note that its dominant term is $`2|T^{}/P^{}|\mathrm{cos}\delta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$. Hence, neglecting the term quadratic in $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$, $`S_{KK}0`$ for $`0<|\delta ^{}|\pi /2`$, and $`S_{KK}<0`$ for $`\pi /2<|\delta ^{}|\pi `$, which resolves the same ambiguity in $`\delta ^{}`$ as in $`R_{KK}`$. In this approximation, $`R_{KK}S_{KK}`$ is bound by $`|R_{KK}S_{KK}|2|T^{}/P^{}||\mathrm{sin}\gamma |`$ for a given value of $`\gamma `$.

## IV Solutions for $`\gamma `$

Combining the equations for $`R_{KK}`$ and $`C_{KK}`$, one can eliminate the strong phase $`\delta ^{}`$

$$R_{KK}=1+|T^{}/P^{}|^2\pm \sqrt{4|T^{}/P^{}|^2\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma (R_{KK}C_{KK})^2\mathrm{cot}^2\gamma }.$$
(20)
This equation can be inverted to obtain a quadratic equation for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma `$ in terms of $`R_{KK}`$ and $`C_{KK}`$ :

$`4|T^{}/P^{}|\mathrm{sin}\gamma =`$
$`\pm \{[(1+|T^{}/P^{}|)^2R_{KK}(1+C_{KK})][R_{KK}(1C_{KK})(1|T^{}/P^{}|)^2]\}^{1/2}`$
$`\pm \{[(1+|T^{}/P^{}|)^2R_{KK}(1C_{KK})][R_{KK}(1+C_{KK})(1|T^{}/P^{}|)^2]\}^{1/2}.`$ (21)
As mentioned, only positive solutions of $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$ apply within the CKM framework.

While the value of $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$ in Eq. (17) was obtained indirectly from nonstrange $`B`$ decays, a direct cross check in $`B_sK\overline{K}`$ can be achieved by using information from $`S_{KK}`$. One obtains

$$R_{KK}(1+S_{KK}\mathrm{cot}\gamma )=1|T^{}/P^{}|^2\mathrm{cos}2\gamma .$$
(22)
Alternatively, neglecting the term in $`S_{KK}`$ quadratic in $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$, one gets a useful approximation,

$$4|T^{}/P^{}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma R_{KK}^2(C_{KK}^2+S_{KK}^2).$$
(23)
Graphical solutions of Eqs. (20) and (22) can be used to demonstrate the sensitivity of the extracted value of $`\gamma `$ to the measured quantities. In Fig. 1 we use these two equations to plot $`R_{KK}`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$ for several values of $`R_{KK}C_{KK}`$ and for several values of $`R_{KK}S_{KK}`$. For $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$ we adopt the central value in Eq. (17), $`|T^{}/P^{}|=0.184`$. Figs. 2 and 3 show the effects of varying $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$ by $`\pm 1\sigma `$.

The curves in Figs. 1–3 indicate that $`\gamma `$ can be specified by measurements of $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$, $`R_{KK}`$, $`S_{KK}`$, and $`C_{KK}`$. The equations are overconstrained, allowing the elimination of some discrete ambiguities. Usually, measurements of $`R_{KK}`$ and $`C_{KK}`$ are seen to leave a twofold ambiguity in the solution for $`\gamma `$ within the physical CKM range, $`0<\gamma <\pi /2`$, and another twofold ambiguity outside this range. This fourfold ambiguity is resolved by $`S_{KK}`$.

As an example, assume that $`|T^{}/P^{}|=0.184`$, and let us imagine that we observe $`R_{KK}=0.8`$ and $`|R_{KK}C_{KK}|=0.1`$. Acceptable solutions are $`\gamma \gamma _122^{}`$, $`\gamma _247^{}`$, $`\pi \gamma _1`$, and $`\pi \gamma _2`$. These values correspond, respectively, to $`R_{KK}S_{KK}0.07,0.22,0.07,0.22`$. Thus, even given perfect measurements of (say) $`R_{KK}`$ and $`C_{KK}`$, one will need to determine $`R_{KK}S_{KK}`$ to an accuracy of $`\pm 0.05`$ or better in order either to resolve the discrete ambiguity or to encounter an inconsistency. For $`|T^{}/P^{}|=0.141`$ these measurements of $`R_{KK}`$ and $`C_{KK}`$ lead to no solution of $`\gamma `$, and for $`|T^{}/P^{}|=0.227`$ the ambiguity in $`\gamma `$ can be resolved with a less accurate measurement of $`S_{KK}`$. This indicates that at least several hundred flavor tagged $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ decays would be needed for the present method to be useful. This estimate ignores background and resolution factors. A less optimistic estimate is based on extrapolation of the BaBar result for $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ , in which a sample of 65 flavor tagged events led to errors of about $`\pm (0.5,0.6)`$ in $`(C_{\pi \pi },S_{\pi \pi })`$. If these errors scale as the inverse square root of the number of events, it may be necessary to obtain several thousand tagged $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ decays to achieve errors of $`\pm 0.05`$ in $`C_{KK}`$ and $`S_{KK}`$.

Equations (20) and (22) can be used to obtain both $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$ and $`\gamma `$. Eliminating $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$, one expresses $`\gamma `$ in terms of measurable quantities,

$`R_{KK}S_{KK}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}4\gamma (R_{KK}1)\mathrm{sin}2\gamma `$ (24)
$`\pm `$ $`\mathrm{cos}2\gamma \sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^22\gamma +4(R_{KK}1)\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma (R_{KK}C_{KK})^2},`$
while $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$ can be obtained from (22). Eq. (24) provides the essence of this method of determining $`\gamma `$. Although the $`\pm `$ sign in this equation seems to indicate a possible discrete ambiguity in the solution for $`\gamma `$, we have shown in the above numerical examples that the three observables $`R_{KK},C_{KK}`$ and $`S_{KK}`$ determine the weak phase in a unique manner. This follows from the requirement that $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$ lies in the range (17).

Since the direct asymmetry $`C_{KK}`$ occurs quadratically in Eq. (24), $`\gamma `$ is relatively insensitive to small values of this observable. Small values correspond to small values of $`\delta ^{}`$ as predicted in . The quantity $`R_{KK}`$, defined in (5), is the ratio of two charged averaged rates, the measurements of which do not require flavor tagging of neutral $`B_s`$ mesons. The error in this quantity is expected to be much smaller than in the mixing induced asymmetry $`S_{KK}`$, which requires both flavor tagging and time-dependence. Therefore, for small values of $`R_{KK}C_{KK}`$, the dominant uncertainty in $`\gamma `$ originates in the error of $`S_{KK}`$.

As an illustrative example, suppose $`R_{KK}=0.85\pm 0.05`$, $`R_{KK}C_{KK}0.1`$, and $`R_{KK}S_{KK}=0.25\pm 0.05`$. We find that $`\gamma `$ is indeed insensitive to $`R_{KK}C_{KK}`$. The lowest value $`\gamma =50^{}`$ is attained when $`R_{KK}=0.8`$ and $`R_{KK}S_{KK}=0.25`$, while the highest value $`\gamma =70^{}`$ is attained when $`R_{KK}=0.9`$ and $`S_{KK}=0.35`$. It can be checked that the values of $`|T^{}/P^{}|`$ for these solutions are within the allowed range. Thus, an error on $`\gamma `$ of $`\pm 10^{}`$, following from an error of $`\pm 0.05`$ in $`R_{KK}S_{KK}`$, requires a sample of several hundred $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ decays. A realistic number of required flavor tagged events, including background and resolution factors, is more like a few thousand. Plans to measure $`B_s(t)K^+K^{}`$ at the Tevatron Run II, with a comparable precision in $`S_{KK}`$, are described in Ref. .

## V Conclusions

We have discussed time-dependent observables in the decay $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ in a manner parallel to that  for $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. Measurements based on the $`B_s`$ decay alone (when combined with a measurement of the rate for $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0`$) suffice to specify both the weak phase $`\gamma `$ and the strong phase $`\delta ^{}`$ which is the difference between the penguin and tree strong phases. The measurements are capable of resolving several discrete ambiguities. In order to achieve an error on $`\gamma `$ of $`\pm 10^{}`$, it will be necessary to obtain a sample of several thousand flavor tagged $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ decays.

This method does not require full flavor SU(3) or discrete U-spin but only isospin symmetry. We neglected two small contributions, a color-suppressed penguin amplitude in $`B_sK^+K^{}`$, and rescattering effects in $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0`$, as well as a small phase in $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixing. Each of these terms is expected to introduce an uncertainty in $`\gamma `$ of only a few percent.

The observable $`D_{KK}`$, whose measurement depends on the observability of the width difference between the strange $`B`$ mass eigenstates, is predicted to be large and positive. (Its maximum value is $`+1`$.) Any deviation from this prediction would be evidence for physics beyond the standard Kobayashi-Maskawa picture of CP violation.

## Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the US - Israel Binational Science Foundation through Grant No. 98-00237. The research of J. L. R. was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy through Grant No. DE FG02 90ER40560, while that of M. G. – by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.


text:
# CP-Violation in Kaluza-Klein and Randall-Sundrum Theories

## 1 Introduction and Conclusion

If our present research direction of the string and D-brane is right, the unification of various forces should be, effectively at some scale, explained by some higher-dimensional theory. Then it is quite sure that the real world of 4 dimensions should be some approximation of the higher dimensional one. It is realized by the procedure called dimensional reduction. There are two representative and contrastive approaches, that is, the Kaluza-Klein and the Randall-Sundrum theories. In the former case, the reduction is achieved by the compactification of the extra space, while in the latter one it is done by the localization of the configuration along the extra dimension(s). The two approaches look to have both advantages and disadvantages in the phenomenological application. Here we treat them in a comparative way and examine their 4 dimensional(D) reduction properties.

We will present the higher dimensional approach to the CP-violation mechanism. As was stressed by Thirring for the KK model, the CP-violation naturally occurs also in the RS model.

## 2 Fermions in Kaluza-Klein Theory

Let us first review the 5D Kaluza-Klein theory. This serves as the preparation for the same treatment of the Randall-Sundrum theory in the next section. The 5D space-time manifold is described by the 4D coordinates $`x^a`$ ($`a=0,1,2,3`$) and an extra coordinate $`y`$. We also use the notation ($`X^m`$)=($`x^a,y`$), ($`m=0,1,2,3,5`$). With the general 5D metric $`\widehat{g}_{mn}`$$`ds^2=\widehat{g}_{mn}(X)dX^mdX^n`$ , we assume the $`S^1`$ compactification condition for the extra space: $`\widehat{g}_{mn}(x,y)=\widehat{g}_{mn}(x,y+2\pi /\mu )`$ , where $`\mu ^1`$ is the radius of the extra space circle. We specify the form of the metric as

$`ds^2=g_{ab}(x)dx^adx^b+\mathrm{e}^{\sigma (x)}(dyfA_a(x)dx^a)^2,`$ (1)
where $`g_{ab}(x),A_a(x)`$ and $`\sigma (x)`$ are the 4D metric, the U(1) gauge field and the dilaton field respectively. $`f`$ is a coupling constant. This specification is based on the following additional assumptions: 1. $`y`$ is a space coordinate; 2. The geometry is invariant under the U(1) symmetry, $`yy+\mathrm{\Lambda }(x),A_a(x)A_a(x)+\frac{1}{f}_a\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We take $`\sigma (x)=0`$ in (1) for simplicity.

We take the Cartan formalism to compute the geometric quantities. The basis {$`\widehat{\theta }^\mu `$} ($`\mu =0,1,2,3,5`$ are the local Lorentz (tangent) frame indices) of the cotangent manifold($`T_p^{}M`$) and the fünf-bein $`\widehat{e}_m^\mu `$ are obtained as

$`\widehat{\theta }^\alpha =\theta ^\alpha =e_a^\alpha dx^a,\widehat{\theta }^5=dyfA_adx^a,A_\alpha e_\alpha ^aA_a,`$
$`(\widehat{e}_m^\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e_a^\alpha & 0\\ fA_a& 1\end{array}\right),(\widehat{e}_\mu ^m)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e_\alpha ^a& 0\\ fA_\alpha & 1\end{array}\right),`$ (6)
where $`\theta ^\alpha `$ and $`e_a^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$) are the 4D part of $`\widehat{e}_m^\mu `$ and $`\widehat{\theta }^\mu `$ respectively. The first Cartan’s structure equation gives the connection 1-form $`\widehat{\omega }_\nu ^\mu `$,

$`\widehat{\omega }_5^5=0,\widehat{\omega }_\alpha ^5={\displaystyle \frac{f}{2}}F_{\alpha \beta }\theta ^\beta ,`$
$`\widehat{\omega }_\beta ^\alpha =\omega _\beta ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{f}{2}}F_\beta ^\alpha \widehat{\theta }^5,F_{\alpha \beta }e_\alpha ^ae_\beta ^bF_{ab},`$ (7)
where $`\omega _\beta ^\alpha `$ is the 4D part.

The 5D Dirac equation is generally given by

$`\left\{\gamma ^\mu \widehat{e}_\mu ^m{\displaystyle \frac{}{X^m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(\widehat{\omega }^\sigma )_{\mu \nu }\gamma _\sigma [\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]\widehat{m}\right\}\widehat{\psi }=0.`$ (8)
The spin connection above $`(\widehat{\omega }^\sigma )_{\mu \nu }`$ is defined by $`\widehat{\omega }_\nu ^\mu =(\widehat{\omega }_\lambda )_\nu ^\mu \widehat{\theta }^\lambda `$. The 5D Dirac matrix $`\gamma ^\mu `$ satisfies $`\{\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu \}=2\widehat{\eta }^{\mu \nu },\widehat{\eta }^{\mu \nu }=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1,1)`$. For simplicity we switch off the 4D gravity: $`e_a^\alpha \delta _a^\alpha ,\omega _\beta ^\alpha 0`$. The parameter $`\widehat{m}`$ is the 5D fermion mass. In the present case, using (6) and (7), the eq.(8) says

$`\{\gamma ^a(_a+fA_a_5)+\gamma ^5_5`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f}{16}}F_{ab}\gamma ^5[\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b]\widehat{m}\}\widehat{\psi }=0.`$ (9)
We consider the following form of the fermion: $`\widehat{\psi }(x,y)=\mathrm{e}^{i(\varphi \gamma _5+\mu y)}\psi (x)`$ . Here we regard the fermion as a KK-massive mode. The angle parameter $`\varphi `$ is chosen as

$`(i\gamma _5\mu +\widehat{m})\mathrm{e}^{2i\varphi \gamma _5}=\sqrt{\widehat{m}^2+\mu ^2}M,\mathrm{tan}2\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\widehat{m}}}.`$ (10)
Then (9) reduces to

$`\{\gamma ^a(_a+ieA_a)M+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16M}}(\widehat{m}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mu }}ie\gamma _5)F_{ab}\gamma ^5[\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b]\}\psi =0,`$ (11)
where $`ef\mu `$ is the electric coupling constant. We notice, in this expression, the electric and magnetic moments appear.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}}{M\mu }}eF_{ab}\overline{\psi }\gamma ^5[\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b]\psi ,{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}eF_{ab}\overline{\psi }[\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b]\psi .`$ (12)
The first term violate the CP symmetry. Note that the second term usually appear, in the 4D QED, as the quantum effects.

Let us do the order estimation. From the reduction of $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}^{grav}=\frac{1}{G_5}d^5X\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{R}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G_5}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mu }}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}(R\frac{f^2}{4}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{})},`$ (13)
we know $`G_5\mu G,f^2/G_5\mu 1`$ , where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant. This gives $`f\sqrt{G}=10^{19}\text{GeV}^1`$. On the other hand, we know $`e=\mu f10^1`$. Hence we obtain $`\mu 10^1f^110^{18}\text{GeV}`$. Assuming $`\widehat{m}\mu `$, we can estimate the electric and magnetic couplings as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}}{M\mu }}e{\displaystyle \frac{e}{M}}10^{19}\text{GeV}^110^{32}\text{e cm},`$ (14)
which is far below the experimental upper bound of the neutron electric dipole moment $`6.3\times 10^{26}`$e cm.

## 3 Fermions in Randall-Sundrum Geometry

We consider the following 5D space-time geometry.

$`ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma (y)}\eta _{ab}dx^adx^b+dy^2=\widehat{g}_{mn}dX^mdX^n,`$
$`\mathrm{}<y<+\mathrm{},\mathrm{}<x^a<+\mathrm{},`$ (15)
where $`\sigma (y)`$ is regarded as a scale factor field. $`(\eta _{ab})=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. When the geometry is AdS5, $`\sigma (y)=c|y|,c>0`$. Such a situation, in the present case, occurs in the asymptotic region of the extra space $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$. The 1-form $`\widehat{\theta }^\mu `$, the fünf-bein $`\widehat{e}_m^\mu `$ and the connection 1-form $`\widehat{\omega }_\nu ^\mu `$ are given by

$`\widehat{\theta }^\alpha =\mathrm{e}^\sigma \eta _a^\alpha dx^a,\widehat{\theta }^5=dy,`$
$`(\widehat{e}_m^\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\sigma \eta _a^\alpha & 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),(\widehat{e}_\mu ^m)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\sigma \eta _\alpha ^a& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (20)
$`\widehat{\omega }_5^5=0,\widehat{\omega }_5^\alpha =\widehat{\omega }_5^\alpha =\sigma ^{}\theta ^\alpha ,`$
$`\widehat{\omega }_\alpha ^5=\widehat{\omega }_\alpha ^5=\sigma ^{}\theta _\alpha ,\widehat{\omega }_\beta ^\alpha =0,`$ (21)
where $`\sigma ^{}=\frac{d\sigma }{dy}`$.

As the fermion model, the (5D) Dirac theory (8), $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}^{Dirac}`$, is not accepted physically because the fermion configuration does not localize (around $`y=0`$) in the extra space. Nature requires the Yukawa interaction between the 5D fermion and the 5D Higgs.

Hence we examine the fermion behavior under the Yukawa coupling with the Higgs scalar: $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}=\sqrt{\widehat{g}}(^{Dirac}+^Y),^Y=ig_Y\overline{\widehat{\psi }}\widehat{\psi }\mathrm{\Phi },`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the 5D(bulk) Higgs scalar field and $`g_Y`$ is the Yukawa coupling. This reduces to

$`i\mathrm{e}^\sigma \{\gamma ^a_a+2\mathrm{e}^\sigma (\sigma ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_y)\gamma _5g_Y\mathrm{e}^\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }\}\widehat{\psi }=0.`$ (22)
A solution of the right chirality zero mode: $`\widehat{\psi }(x,y)=\psi _R^0(x)\eta (y),\gamma _5\psi _R^0=+\psi _R^0,\gamma ^a_a\psi _R^0=0`$ , is obtained by

$`_y\eta =(2\sigma ^{}g_Y\mathrm{\Phi }(y))\eta .`$ (23)
In the far region, the solution behaves as $`\eta (y)=\text{const}\times \mathrm{e}^{(g_Yv_02\omega )|y|}`$ , which shows the exponentially damping for the large yukawa coupling $`g_Y>2\omega /v_0`$. ($`\omega `$ and $`v_0`$ is the asymptotic values of $`\sigma ^{}(y)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$. ) This is called massless chiral fermion localization. In the near region, $`\eta (y)=\text{const}\times \mathrm{e}^{\frac{k}{2}(g_Yv_02\omega )y^2}`$ , which shows the Gaussian damping. ($`1/k`$ is the thickness parameter of the wall. )

Now we analyze the 5D QED, $`^{QED}=e\overline{\widehat{\psi }}\gamma ^\mu \widehat{e}_\mu ^m\widehat{\psi }A_m`$, with the Yukawa interaction in RS geometry: $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}(^{Dirac}+^{EM}+^{QED}+^Y),^{EM}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{g}^{mn}\widehat{g}^{kl}F_{mk}F_{nl}`$ . We assume, as in the previous paragraph, $`\widehat{g}^{mn}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are the brane background obtained from the gravitational and Higgs systems: $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}(^{grav}+^S)`$.

Let us examine the bulk quantum effect. It induces the 5D effective action $`S_{eff}`$ which reduces to the 4D action in the thin wall limit. From the diagram of Fig.1(left), we expect

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{eff}^{(1)}}{\delta A^\mu (X)}}<J_\mu >e^2g_Yϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma \tau }\mathrm{\Phi }F^{\nu \lambda }F^{\sigma \tau }.`$ (24)
Then the effective action is integrated as

$`S_{eff}^{(1)}e^2g_Y{\displaystyle d^5Xϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma \tau }\mathrm{\Phi }A^\mu F^{\nu \lambda }F^{\sigma \tau }}.`$ (25)
In the thin wall limit we may approximate as $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(y)v_0ϵ(y)`$ where $`ϵ(y)`$ is the step function. Under the U(1) gauge transformation $`\delta A^\mu =^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`S_{eff}^{(1)}`$ changes as

$`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }S_{eff}^{(1)}e^2g_Yv_0{\displaystyle d^5Xϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma \tau }ϵ(y)^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }F^{\nu \lambda }F^{\sigma \tau }}`$
$`=e^2g_Yv_0{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)F^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }},`$ (26)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }F^{\gamma \delta }`$. In the above we assume that the boundary term vanishes. Callan and Harvey interpreted this result as the ”anomaly flow” between the boundary (our 4D world) and the bulk.

Through the analysis of the induced action in the bulk, we can see the ”dual” aspect of the 4D QED.

Another interesting bulk quantum effect is given by Fig.1(right). The induced effective action $`S_{eff}^{(2)}`$ is expected to satisfy

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{eff}^{(2)}}{\delta F^{\mu \nu }}}<J_{\mu \nu }>e^2g_Yϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma \tau }^\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\widehat{\psi }}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\sigma \tau }\widehat{\psi }.`$ (27)
Then $`S_{eff}^{(2)}`$ is obtained as, in the thin wall limit,

$`S_{eff}^{(2)}e^2g_Yϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma \tau }{\displaystyle d^5X^\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }F^{\mu \nu }\overline{\widehat{\psi }}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\sigma \tau }\widehat{\psi }}`$
$`=e^2g_Yv_0ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{\displaystyle d^4xF^{\alpha \beta }\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{\gamma \delta }\psi }.`$ (28)
This term is the ”dual” of the magnetic moment term of (12). It is a CP-violating term. The coupling depends on the vacuum expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.