text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most exciting aspects of present particle physics is the exploration of CP violation through $`B`$-meson decays, allowing us to overconstrain both the sides and the three angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ of the usual non-squashed unitarity triangle of the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix . Besides the “gold-plated” mode $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ , which has recently led to the observation of CP violation in the $`B`$ system , there are many different avenues we may follow to achieve this goal.

In this paper, we first consider $`B\pi K`$ modes , and then focus on the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ system , providing promising strategies to determine $`\gamma `$. In a previous paper , we pointed out that these non-leptonic $`B`$ decays can be characterized efficiently within the Standard Model through allowed regions in the space of their observables. If future measurements should result in values for these quantities lying significantly outside of these regions, we would have an immediate indication for the presence of new physics. On the other hand, a measurement of observables lying inside these regions would allow us to extract values for the angle $`\gamma `$, which may then show discrepancies with other determinations, thereby also indicating new physics. Since penguin processes play a key rôle in $`B\pi K`$, $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ decays, these transitions actually represent sensitive probes for physics beyond the Standard Model .

Besides an update and extended discussion of the allowed regions in observable space of appropriate combinations of $`B\pi K`$ decays, following , the main point of the present paper is a detailed analysis of the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ system in the light of recent experimental data. These neutral $`B`$-meson decays into final CP eigenstates provide a time-dependent CP asymmetry of the following form:

$`a_{\mathrm{CP}}(t){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_q^0(t)f)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B_q^0}(t)f)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_q^0(t)f)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B_q^0}(t)f)}}`$ (1)
$`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_qf)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_qt)+𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_qf)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_qt)}{\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_qt/2)𝒜_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B_qf)\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_qt/2)}}\right],`$
where we have separated, as usual, the “direct” from the “mixing-induced” CP-violating contributions. The time-dependent rates refer to initially, i.e. at time $`t=0`$, present $`B_q^0`$\- or $`\overline{B_q^0}`$-mesons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_q>0`$ denotes the mass difference of the $`B_q`$ mass eigenstates, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ is their decay width difference, which is negligibly small in the $`B_d`$ system, but may be as large as $`𝒪(10\%)`$ in the $`B_s`$ system . The three observables in (1) are not independent from one another, but satisfy the following relation:

$$\left[𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_qf)\right]^2+\left[𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_qf)\right]^2+\left[𝒜_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B_qf)\right]^2=1.$$
(2)
If we employ the $`U`$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions, relating down and strange quarks to each other, the CP-violating observables provided by $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ allow a determination both of $`\gamma `$ and of the $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing phase $`\varphi _d`$, which is given by $`2\beta `$ in the Standard Model . Moreover, interesting hadronic penguin parameters can be extracted as well, consisting of a CP-conserving strong phase, and a ratio of strong amplitudes, measuring – sloppily speaking – the ratio of penguin- to tree-diagram-like contributions to $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The use of $`U`$-spin arguments in this approach can be minimized, if we use $`\varphi _d`$ as an input. As is well known, this phase can be determined from mixing-induced CP violation in $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$,

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S})=\mathrm{sin}\varphi _d,$$
(3)
up to a twofold ambiguity. Using the present world average

$$\mathrm{sin}\varphi _d=0.78\pm 0.08,$$
(4)
which takes into account the most recent results by BaBar  and Belle , as well as previous results by CDF  and ALEPH , we obtain

$$\varphi _d=\left(51_7^{+8}\right)^{}\left(129_8^{+7}\right)^{}.$$
(5)
On the other hand, the $`B_s^0`$$`\overline{B_s^0}`$ mixing phase $`\varphi _s`$, which enters $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_sK^+K^{})`$, is negligibly small in the Standard Model. It should be noted that we have assumed in (3) that new-physics contributions to the $`BJ/\psi K`$ decay amplitudes are negligible. This assumption can be checked through the observable set introduced in .

Whereas $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is already accessible at the $`e^+e^{}`$ $`B`$-factories operating at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, BaBar, Belle and CLEO, the $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ mode can be studied nicely at hadron machines, i.e. at run II of the Tevatron and at the experiments of the LHC era, where the strategy sketched above may lead to experimental accuracies for $`\gamma `$ of $`𝒪(10^{})`$  and $`𝒪(1^{})`$ , respectively. Unfortunately, experimental data on $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ are not yet available. However, since $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ is related to $`B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm `$ through an interchange of spectator quarks, $`SU(3)`$ flavour-symmetry arguments and plausible dynamical assumptions allow us to replace $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ approximately by $`B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm `$, which can already be explored at the $`B`$-factories. A key element of our analysis is the ratio of the CP-averaged $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm `$ branching ratios, which can be expressed in terms of $`\gamma `$ and hadronic penguin parameters. As pointed out in , constraints on the latter quantities can be obtained from this observable, allowing an interesting comparison with theoretical predictions.

In our analysis, we shall follow these lines to explore also allowed regions in the space of the CP asymmetries of the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ system, and constraints on $`\gamma `$. To this end, we first use (3) to fix the $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing phase $`\varphi _d`$, yielding the twofold solution (5). For a given value of the mixing-induced CP asymmetry $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$, the ratio of the CP-averaged $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm `$ branching ratios allows us then to determine the direct CP asymmetry $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$. Consequently, measuring these observables, we may extract this angle. Moreover, the corresponding hadronic penguin parameters can be determined as well. On the other hand, if we assume that $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ lies within a certain given range, bounds on $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ and $`\gamma `$ can be obtained, depending on the choice of $`\varphi _d`$. In particular, we may assume that the mixing-induced CP asymmetry $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ is positive or negative, leading to very different situations.

Since experimental data for the direct and mixing-induced CP asymmetries of $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ are already available from the $`B`$ factories, we may now start to fill these strategies with life:111The connection between our notation and those employed in  is as follows: $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=+C_{\pi \pi }^{\mathrm{BaBar}}=𝒜_{\pi \pi }^{\mathrm{Belle}}`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=S_{\pi \pi }^{\mathrm{BaBar}}=S_{\pi \pi }^{\mathrm{Belle}}`$.

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.02\pm 0.29\pm 0.07\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{[27]}\text{)}\hfill \\ 0.94_{0.25}^{+0.31}\pm 0.09\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{[28]}\text{)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.01\pm 0.37\pm 0.07\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{[27]}\text{)}\hfill \\ 1.21_{0.380.16}^{+0.27+0.13}\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{[28]}\text{),}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
yielding the naïve averages

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=0.48\pm 0.21,𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=0.61\pm 0.26.$$
(8)
Unfortunately, the BaBar results, which are an update of the values given in , and those of the first Belle measurement are not fully consistent with one another. In contrast to BaBar, Belle signals large direct and mixing-induced CP violation in $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, and points towards a positive value of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$. As we shall point out in this paper, the following picture arises now: for a positive observable $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$, as indicated by Belle, the solution of $`\varphi _d`$ being in agreement with the “indirect” fits of the unitarity triangle , yielding $`\varphi _d45^{}`$, allows us to accommodate also the corresponding values for $`\gamma `$ around $`60^{}`$, whereas a gap around $`\gamma 60^{}`$ arises for the second solution of $`\varphi _d`$. On the other hand, varying $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ within its whole negative range, $`\gamma `$ remains rather unconstrained in the physically most interesting region. Using the experimental averages given in (8), we obtain $`28^{}<\gamma <74^{}`$ $`(\varphi _d=51^{})`$ and $`106^{}<\gamma <152^{}`$ $`(\varphi _d=129^{})`$. Interestingly, there are some indications that $`\gamma `$ may actually be larger than $`90^{}`$, which may then point towards the unconventional solution of $`\varphi _d=129^{}`$. The negative sign of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ implies that a certain CP-conserving strong phase $`\theta `$ has to lie within the range $`0^{}<\theta <180^{}`$. In the future, improved experimental data will allow us to extract $`\gamma `$ and the relevant hadronic parameters in a much more stringent way .

Following a different avenue, implications of the measurements of the CP asymmetries of $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ were also investigated by Gronau and Rosner in . The main differences to our analysis are as follows: in , the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ observables are expressed in terms of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, the “tree” amplitude $`T_{\pi \pi }`$ is estimated using factorization and data on $`B\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$, and the “penguin” amplitude $`P_{\pi \pi }`$ is fixed through the CP-averaged $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm K`$ branching ratio with the help of $`SU(3)`$ flavour-symmetry and plausible dynamical assumptions. In contrast, we express the observables in terms of $`\gamma `$ and the general $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing phase $`\varphi _d`$, which is equal to $`2\beta `$ in the Standard Model, and use the ratio of the CP-averaged $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm `$ branching ratios as an additional observable to deal with the penguin contributions, requiring also $`SU(3)`$ flavour-symmetry and plausible dynamical assumptions. We prefer to follow these lines, since we have then not to make a separation between tree and penguin amplitudes, which is complicated by long-distance contributions, and have not to use factorization to estimate the overall magnitude of the tree-diagram-dominated amplitude $`T_{\pi \pi }`$; factorization is only used in our approach to take into account $`SU(3)`$-breaking effects. As far as the weak phases are concerned, we prefer to use $`\gamma `$ and $`\varphi _d`$, since the results for the former quantity can then be compared directly with constraints from other processes, whereas the latter can anyway be determined straighforwardly from mixing-induced CP violation in $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ up to a twofold ambiguity, also if there should be CP-violating new-physics contributions to $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing. This way, we obtain an interesting link between the two solutions for $`\varphi _d`$ and the allowed ranges for $`\gamma `$, as we have noted above.

It should be emphasized that the parametrization of the CP-violating $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ observables in terms of $`\gamma `$ and $`\varphi _d`$ is actually more direct than the one in terms of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, as the appearance of $`\alpha `$ is due to the elimination of $`\gamma `$ with the help of the unitarity relation $`\gamma =180^{}\alpha \beta `$. If there were negligible penguin contributions to $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, mixing-induced CP violation in this channel would allow us to determine the combination $`\varphi _d+2\gamma `$, which is equal to $`2\alpha `$ in the Standard Model. On the other hand, in the presence of significant penguin contributions, as indicated by experimental data, it is actually more advantageous to keep $`\varphi _d`$ and $`\gamma `$ in the parametrization of the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ observables. Moreover, we may then also investigate straightforwardly the impact of possible CP-violating new-physics contributions to $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing, which may yield the unconventional value of $`\varphi _d=129^{}`$. These features will become obvious when we turn to the details of our approach.

Another important aspect of our study is an analysis of the decay $`B_sK^+K^{}`$, which is particularly promising for hadronic $`B`$ experiments. Using the experimental results for the ratio of the CP-averaged $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm `$ branching ratios, we obtain a very constrained allowed region in the $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_sK^+K^{})`$$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_sK^+K^{})`$ plane within the Standard Model. If future measurements should actually fall into this very restricted target range in observable space, the combination of $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ with $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ through the $`U`$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions allows a determination of $`\gamma `$, as we have noted above. On the other hand, if the experimental results should show a significant deviation from the Standard-Model range in observable space, a very exciting situation would arise immediately, pointing towards new physics.

The outline of this paper is as follows: in Section 2, we first turn to the allowed regions in observable space of $`B\pi K`$ decays, and give a new kind of contour plots, allowing us to read off directly the preferred ranges for $`\gamma `$ and strong phases from the experimental data. In Section 3, we then discuss the general formalism to deal with the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ system, and show how constraints on the relevant penguin parameters can be obtained from data on $`B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm `$. The implications for the allowed regions in observable space for the decays $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ will be explored in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. In our analysis, we shall also discuss the impact of theoretical uncertainties, and comment on certain simplifications, which could be made by using a rather moderate input from factorization. Finally, we summarize our conclusions and give a brief outlook in Section 6.

## 2 Allowed Regions in $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ Observable Space

### 2.1 Amplitude Parametrizations and Observables

The starting point of analyses of the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ system is the isospin flavour symmetry of strong interactions, which implies the following amplitude relations:

$$\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}$$

$$\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{|}𝑻\mathbf{+}𝑪\mathbf{|}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_{𝑻\mathbf{+}𝑪}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{+}𝑷_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐰}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{+}𝒒_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐰}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(9)
Here $`𝑻`$ and $`𝑪`$ denote the strong amplitudes describing colour-allowed and colour-suppressed tree-diagram-like topologies, respectively, $`𝑷_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐰}}`$ is due to colour-allowed and colour-suppressed EW penguins, $`𝜹_{𝑻\mathbf{+}𝑪}`$ is a CP-conserving strong phase, and $`𝒒_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐰}}`$ denotes the ratio of EW to tree-diagram-like topologies. A relation with an analogous phase structure holds also for the “mixed” $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{+}`$ system. Because of these relations, the following combinations of $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ decays were considered in the literature to probe $`𝜸`$:

* The “mixed” $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝑲`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$ system .
* The “charged” $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝑲`$, $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$ system .
* The “neutral” $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝑲`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$ system .

Interestingly, already CP-averaged $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ branching ratios may lead to non-trivial constraints on $`𝜸`$ . In order to go beyond these bounds and to determine $`𝜸`$, also CP-violating rate differences have to be measured. To this end, it is convenient to introduce the following sets of observables :

$$\mathbf{\left\{}\begin{array}{c}𝑹\\ 𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\text{BR}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\frac{𝝉_{𝑩^\mathbf{+}}}{𝝉_{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}}$$
(10)
$$\mathbf{\left\{}\begin{array}{c}𝑹_𝐜\\ 𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝐜\end{array}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(11)
$$\mathbf{\left\{}\begin{array}{c}𝑹_𝐧\\ 𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝐧\end{array}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\text{BR}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\text{BR}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(12)
where the $`𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ are ratios of CP-averaged branching ratios and the $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ represent CP-violating observables. In Tables 1 and 2, we have summarized the present status of these quantities implied by the $`𝑩`$-factory data. The averages given in these tables were calculated by simply adding the errors in quadrature.

The purpose of the following considerations is not the extraction of $`𝜸`$, which has been discussed at length in , but an analysis of the allowed regions in the $`𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$$`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ planes arising within the Standard Model. Here we go beyond our previous paper  in two respects: first, we consider not only the mixed and charged $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ systems, but also the neutral one, as advocated in . Second, we include contours in the allowed regions that correspond to given values of $`𝜸`$ and $`𝜹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$, thereby allowing us to read off directly the preferred ranges for these parameters from the experimental data. The “indirect” fits of the unitarity triangle favour the range

$$\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟕𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}$$
(13)
which corresponds to the Standard-Model expectation for this angle . Since the CP-violating parameter $`𝜺_𝑲`$, describing indirect CP violation in the neutral kaon system, implies a positive value of the Wolfenstein parameter $`𝜼`$ ,222For a negative bag parameter $`B_K`$, which appears unlikely to us, negative $`\eta `$ would be implied . we shall restrict $`𝜸`$ to $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$.

To simplify our analysis, we assume that certain rescattering effects  play a minor rôle. Employing the formalism discussed in  (for an alternative description, see ), it would be possible to take into account also these effects if they should turn out to be important. However, both the presently available experimental upper bounds on $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑲𝑲`$ branching ratios and the recent theoretical progress due to the development of the QCD factorization approach  are not in favour of large rescattering effects.

Following these lines, we obtain for the charged and neutral $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ systems

$`𝑹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{}𝒒\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathbf{+}𝒗^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (14)
$`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜸\mathbf{,}`$ (15)
where $`𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ denotes a CP-conserving strong phase difference between tree-diagram-like and penguin topologies, $`𝒓_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ measures the ratio of tree-diagram-like to penguin topologies, $`𝒒`$ corresponds to the electroweak penguin parameter appearing in (9), and

$$𝒗\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒒\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{+}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{.}$$
(16)
A detailed discussion of these parametrizations can be found in . Using the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ flavour symmetry to fix $`\mathbf{|}𝑻\mathbf{+}𝑪\mathbf{|}`$ through $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ , we arrive at

$$𝒓_𝐜\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}}{𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}}\mathbf{\right|}\frac{𝒇_𝑲}{𝒇_𝝅}\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}}{\sqrt{\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}}}$$
(17)
$$𝒓_𝐧\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}}{𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}}\mathbf{\right|}\frac{𝒇_𝑲}{𝒇_𝝅}\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}}{\sqrt{\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(18)
where the ratio $`𝒇_𝑲\mathbf{/}𝒇_𝝅`$ of the kaon and pion decay constants takes into account factorizable $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking corrections. In , also non-factorizable effects were investigated and found to play a minor rôle. In Table 3, we collect the present experimental results for $`𝒓_𝐜`$ and $`𝒓_𝐧`$ following from (17) and (18), respectively. The electroweak penguin parameter $`𝒒`$ can be fixed through the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ flavour symmtery  (see also ), yielding

$$𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.71}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{0.38}}{𝑹_𝒃}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(19)
with

$$𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝀}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}}{𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.38}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.08}\mathbf{.}$$
(20)
Taking into account factorizable $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ breaking, the central value of $`\mathbf{0.71}`$ is shifted to $`\mathbf{0.68}`$. For a detailed analysis within the QCD factorization approach, we refer the reader to .

We may now use (14) to eliminate $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ in (15):

$$𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathbf{+}𝒗^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{}𝒒\mathbf{\right)}}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜸\mathbf{,}$$
(21)
allowing us to calculate $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ for given $`𝑹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ as a function of $`𝜸`$; if we vary $`𝜸`$ between $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, we obtain an allowed region in the $`𝑹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$$`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ plane. This range can also be obtained by varying $`𝜸`$ and $`𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ directly in (14) and (15), with $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$.

A similar exercise can also be performed for the mixed $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ system. To this end, we have just to make appropriate replacements of variables in (14) and (15). Since electroweak penguins contribute only in colour-suppressed form to the corresponding decays, we may use $`𝒒\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in this case to a good approximation. Moreover, we have $`𝒓_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathbf{}𝒓`$, where the determination of $`𝒓`$ requires the use of arguments related to factorization  to fix the colour-allowed amplitude $`\mathbf{|}𝑻\mathbf{|}`$, or the measurement of $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ , which is related to $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$ through the $`𝑼`$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions. The presently most refined theoretical study of $`𝒓`$ can be found in , using the QCD factorization approach. In our analysis, we shall consider the range $`\mathbf{0.14}\mathbf{}𝒓\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.26}`$. Since we have to make use of dynamical arguments to fix $`𝒒`$ and $`𝒓`$ in the case of the mixed $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ system, it is not as clean as the charged and neutral $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ systems.

### 2.2 Numerical Analysis

In Figs. 1 and 2, we show the allowed regions in observable space of the charged and neutral $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ systems, respectively. The crosses correspond to the averages of the experimental results given in Tables 1 and 2, and the elliptical regions arise, if we restrict $`𝜸`$ to the Standard-Model range specified in (13). The labels of the contours in (c) refer to the values of $`𝜸`$ for $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and those of (d) to the values of $`\mathbf{|}𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathbf{|}`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Looking at these figures, we observe that the experimental data fall pretty well into the regions, which are implied by the Standard-Model expressions (14) and (15). However, the data points do not favour the restricted region, which arises if we constrain $`𝜸`$ to its Standard-Model range (13). To be more specific, let us consider the contours shown in (c) and (d), allowing us to read off the preferred values for $`𝜸`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}\mathbf{|}`$ directly from the measured observables. In the charged $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ system, the $`𝑩`$-factory data point towards values for $`𝜸`$ larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and $`\mathbf{|}𝜹_𝐜\mathbf{|}`$ smaller than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. In the case of the neutral $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ system, the data are also in favour of $`𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, but prefer $`\mathbf{|}𝜹_𝐧\mathbf{|}`$ to be larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. These features were also pointed out in ; in Figs. 1 and 2, we can see them directly from the data points. If future measurements should stabilize at such a picture, we would have a very exciting situation, since values for $`𝜸`$ larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ would be in conflict with the Standard-Model range (13), and the strong phases $`𝜹_𝐜`$ and $`𝜹_𝐧`$ are expected to be of the same order of magnitude; factorization would correspond to values around $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. A possible explanation for such discrepancies would be given by large new-physics contributions to the electroweak penguin sector . However, it should be kept in mind that we may also have “anomalously” large flavour-symmetry breaking effects. A detailed recent analysis of the allowed regions in parameter space of $`𝜸`$ and $`𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ that are implied by the present $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ data can be found in , where also very restricted ranges for $`𝑹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ were obtained by contraining $`𝜸`$ to its Standard-Model expectation. Another $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ study was recently performed in , where the $`𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{)}}`$ were calculated for given values of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{)}}`$ as functions of $`𝜸`$, and were compared with the present $`𝑩`$-factory data.

In Fig. 3, we show the allowed region in observable space of the mixed $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ system. Here the crosses represent again the averages of the experimental $`𝑩`$-factory results. Since the expressions for $`𝑹`$ and $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ are symmetric with respect to an interchange of $`𝜸`$ and $`𝜹`$ for $`𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the contours for fixed values of $`𝜸`$ and $`𝜹`$ are identical in this limit. Moreover, we obtain the same contours for $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸`$. The experimental data fall well into the allowed region, but do not yet allow us to draw any further conclusions. In the charged and neutral $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ systems, the situation appears to be much more exciting.

Let us now turn to the main aspect of our analysis, the $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ system. In our original paper , we have addressed these modes only briefly, giving in particular a three-dimensional allowed region in the space of the CP asymmetries $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. Here we follow , and use the CP-averaged $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$ branching ratio as an additional input to explore separately the allowed regions in the space of the CP-violating $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ observables, as well as contraints on $`𝜸`$. The experimental situation has improved significantly since  and  were written, pointing now to an interesting picture, although the uncertainties are still too large to draw definite conclusions. However, these uncertainties will be reduced considerably in the future due to the continuing efforts at the $`𝑩`$ factories. Once the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ mode is accessible at hadronic $`𝑩`$ experiments, more refined studies will be possible. In the LHC era, the physics potential of the $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ system can then be fully exploited. In this paper, we point out that the Standard-Model range in $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ observable space is very constrainted, thereby providing a narrow target range for these experiments.

## 3 Basic Features of the $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ System and the Connection with $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$

### 3.1 Amplitude Parametrizations and Observables

The decay $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ originates from $`\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒅}`$ quark-level transitions. Within the Standard Model, it can be parametrized as follows :

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left(}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖\mathbf{+}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^𝒖\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^𝒄\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒕^{\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^𝒕\mathbf{,}$$
(22)
where $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖`$ is due to “current–current” contributions, the amplitudes $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^𝒋`$ describe “penguin” topologies with internal $`𝒋`$ quarks ($`𝒋\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒕\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{)}`$, and the

$$𝝀_𝒋^{\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑽_{𝒋𝒅}𝑽_{𝒋𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}$$
(23)
are the usual CKM factors. Employing the unitarity of the CKM matrix and the Wolfenstein parametrization , generalized to include non-leading terms in $`𝝀\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.222}`$ , we arrive at

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝓒\mathbf{\left(}𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{}𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(24)
where

$$𝓒\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟑}𝑨𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{\left(}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖\mathbf{+}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^{𝒖𝒕}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(25)
with $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^{𝒖𝒕}\mathbf{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^𝒕`$, and

$$𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑹_𝒃}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^{𝒄𝒕}}{𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖\mathbf{+}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^{𝒖𝒕}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(26)
The quantity $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^{𝒄𝒕}`$ is defined in analogy to $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^{𝒖𝒕}`$, $`𝑨\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{/}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.832}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.033}`$, and $`𝑹_𝒃`$ was already introduced in (20). The “penguin parameter” $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$ measures – sloppily speaking – the ratio of the $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ “penguin” to “tree” contributions.

Using the Standard-Model parametrization (24), we obtain

$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒅\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜽\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜸}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒅\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{+}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}`$ (27)
$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒅\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒅\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{+}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}`$ (28)
where $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷`$ can be determined with the help of (3), yielding the twofold solution given in (5). Strictly speaking, mixing-induced CP violation in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ probes $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}\mathit{\varphi }_𝑲`$, where $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝑲`$ is related to the weak $`𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing phase and is negligibly small in the Standard Model. However, due to the small value of the CP-violating parameter $`𝜺_𝑲`$ of the neutral kaon system, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝑲`$ can only be affected by very contrived models of new physics .

In the case of $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, we have

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝝀}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}𝓒^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left[}𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜽^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(29)
where

$$𝓒^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟑}𝑨𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{\left(}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^{𝒖𝒕^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right)}$$
(30)
and

$$𝒅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜽^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑹_𝒃}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^{𝒄𝒕^{\mathbf{}}}}{𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^{𝒖𝒕^{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{\right)}$$
(31)
correspond to (25) and (26), respectively. The primes remind us that we are dealing with a $`\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒔}`$ transition. Introducing

$$\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\frac{𝒅^{\mathbf{}}}{\mathit{ϵ}}\text{with}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(32)
we obtain

$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜸}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}`$ (33)
$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}`$ (34)
where the $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing phase

$$\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜼$$
(35)
is negligibly small in the Standard Model. Using the range for the Wolfenstein parameter $`𝜼`$ following from the fits of the unitarity triangle  yields $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. Experimentally, this phase can be probed nicely through $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$, which allows an extraction of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$ also if this phase should be sizeable due to new-physics contributions to $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing .

It should be emphasized that (27), (28) and (33), (34) are completely general parametrizations of the CP-violating $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ observables, respectively, relying only on the unitarity of the CKM matrix. If we assume that $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$ is negligibly small, as in the Standard Model, these four observables depend on the four hadronic parameters $`𝒅`$, $`𝜽`$, $`𝒅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝜽^{\mathbf{}}`$, as well as on the two weak phases $`𝜸`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$. Consequently, we have not sufficient information to determine these quantities. However, since $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ is related to $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ through an interchange of all down and strange quarks, the $`𝑼`$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions implies

$$𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}\mathbf{=}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜽^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{.}$$
(36)
Making use of this relation, the parameters $`𝒅`$, $`𝜽`$, $`𝜸`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ can be determined from the CP-violating $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ observables . If we fix $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ through (3), the use of the $`𝑼`$-spin symmetry in the extraction of $`𝜸`$ can be minimized. Since $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$ and $`𝒅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜽^{\mathbf{}}}`$ are defined through ratios of strong amplitudes, the $`𝑼`$-spin relation (36) is not affected by $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking corrections in the factorization approximation , which gives us confidence in using this relation.

### 3.2 Constraints on Penguin Parameters

In order to constrain the hadronic penguin parameters through the CP-averaged $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ branching ratios, it is useful to introduce the following quantity :

$$𝑯\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathit{ϵ}}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝓒^{\mathbf{}}}{𝓒}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}}{𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}}\frac{𝚽\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑲\mathbf{/}𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{,}𝑴_𝑲\mathbf{/}𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{)}}{𝚽\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝝅\mathbf{/}𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{,}𝑴_𝝅\mathbf{/}𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{)}}\frac{𝝉_{𝑩_𝒔}}{𝝉_{𝑩_𝒅}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(37)
where

$$𝚽\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{,}𝒚\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\sqrt{\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{+}𝒚\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{}𝒚\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}}$$
(38)
denotes the usual two-body phase-space function. The branching ratio BR$`\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ can be extracted from the “untagged” $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ rate , where no rapid oscillatory $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔𝒕`$ terms are present . In the strict $`𝑼`$-spin limit, we have

$$\mathbf{|}𝓒^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{|}𝓒\mathbf{|}\mathbf{.}$$
(39)
Corrections to this relation can be calculated using “factorization”, which yields

$$\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝓒^{\mathbf{}}}{𝓒}\mathbf{\right|}_{\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒇_𝑲}{𝒇_𝝅}\frac{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔𝑲}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{;}\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅𝝅}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{;}\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(40)
where the form factors $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔𝑲}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{;}\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅𝝅}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{;}\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ parametrize the hadronic quark-current matrix elements $`\mathbf{}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒖\mathbf{)}_{𝐕\mathbf{}𝐀}\mathbf{|}𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒖\mathbf{)}_{𝐕\mathbf{}𝐀}\mathbf{|}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$, respectively . Employing (24) and (29) gives

$$𝑯\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒅\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{+}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathit{ϵ}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{ϵ}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{+}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{.}$$
(41)
Let us note that there is also an interesting relation between $`𝑯`$ and the corresponding direct CP asymmetries :

$$𝑯\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒅\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜽}{𝒅^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right)}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathit{ϵ}}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(42)
Relations of this kind are a general feature of $`𝑼`$-spin-related $`𝑩`$ decays .

As can be seen in (41), if we use the $`𝑼`$-spin relation (36), $`𝑯`$ allows us to determine

$$𝑪\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸$$
(43)
as a function of $`𝒅`$ :

$$𝑪\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒂\mathbf{}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒃𝒅}\mathbf{,}$$
(44)
where

$$𝒂\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯}{𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}\text{and}𝒃\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}𝑯}{𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{.}$$
(45)
Since $`𝑪`$ is the product of two cosines, it has to satisfy the relation $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑪\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, implying the following allowed range for $`𝒅`$:

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}\sqrt{𝑯}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\sqrt{𝑯}}\mathbf{}𝒅\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}\sqrt{𝑯}}{\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\sqrt{𝑯}\mathbf{|}}\mathbf{.}$$
(46)
An alternative derivation of this range, which holds for $`𝑯\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathit{ϵ}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑𝟕𝟐}`$, was given in .

### 3.3 Connection with $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$

As we have already noted, experimental data on $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ are not yet available. However, since $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$ differ only in their spectator quarks, we have

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}$$
(47)
$$\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\frac{𝝉_{𝑩_𝒔}}{𝝉_{𝑩_𝒅}}\mathbf{,}$$
(48)
and obtain

$$𝑯\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathit{ϵ}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒇_𝑲}{𝒇_𝝅}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{7.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{2.9}\hfill & \text{(CLEO }\text{[32]}\text{)}\hfill \\ \mathbf{9.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.5}\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{[27]}\text{)}\hfill \\ \mathbf{8.5}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{3.7}\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{[34]}\text{),}\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
yielding the average

$$𝑯\mathbf{=}\mathbf{8.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.6}\mathbf{,}$$
(50)
which has been calculated by simply adding the errors in quadrature. Clearly, the advantage of (49) is that it allows us to determine $`𝑯`$ from the $`𝑩`$-factory data, without a measurement of $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$. On the other hand – in contrast to (37) – this relation relies not only on $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ flavour-symmetry arguments, but also on a certain dynamical assumption. The point is that $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ receives also contributions from “exchange” and “penguin annihilation” topologies, which are absent in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$. It is usually assumed that these contributions play a minor rôle . However, they may be enhanced through certain rescattering effects . The importance of the “exchange” and “penguin annihilation” topologies contributing to $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ can be probed – in addition to (47) and (48) – with the help of $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$. The naïve expectation for the corresponding branching ratio is $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}`$; a significant enhancement would signal that the “exchange” and “penguin annihilation” topologies cannot be neglected. At run II of the Tevatron, a first measurement of $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ will be possible.

In Fig. 4, which is an update of a plot given in , we show the dependence of $`𝑪`$ on $`𝒅`$ arising from (44) for various values of $`𝑯`$. Because of possible uncertainties arising from non-factorizable corrections to (40) and the dynamical assumptions employed in (48), we consider the range

$$𝑯\mathbf{=}\mathbf{7.5}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{3.5}\mathbf{,}$$
(51)
which is more conservative than (50). The “circle” and “square” in Fig. 4 represent the predictions for $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$ presented in  and , which were obtained within the QCD factorization  and perturbative hard-scattering (or “PQCD”)  approaches, respectively. The “error bars” correspond to the Standard-Model range (13) for $`𝜸`$, whereas the circle and square are evaluated for $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. The shaded region in Fig. 4 corresponds to a variation of

$$𝝃\mathbf{}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{/}𝒅$$
(52)
within $`\mathbf{[}\mathbf{0.8}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{1.2}\mathbf{]}`$ for $`𝑯\mathbf{=}\mathbf{7.5}`$. As noted in , the impact of a sizeable phase difference

$$𝚫𝜽\mathbf{}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜽\mathbf{,}$$
(53)
representing the second kind of possible corrections to (36), is very small in this case.

Looking at Fig. 4, we observe that the experimental values for $`𝑯`$ imply a rather restricted range for $`𝒅`$, satisfying $`\mathbf{0.2}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Moreover, the curves are not in favour of an interpretation of the QCD factorization and PQCD predictions for $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$ within the Standard Model. In the latter case, the prediction is somewhat closer to the “experimental” curves. This feature is due to the fact that the CP-conserving strong phase $`𝜽`$ may deviate significantly from its trivial value of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ in PQCD, $`𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐐𝐂𝐃}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, which is in contrast to the result of QCD factorization, yielding $`𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃𝐅}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟓}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$. As a result, the PQCD approach may accommodate large direct CP violation in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, up to the $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ level , whereas QCD factorization prefers smaller asymmetries, i.e. below the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ level . In a recent paper , it was noted that higher-order corrections to QCD factorization in $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲\mathbf{,}𝝅𝝅`$ decays may enhance the corresponding predictions for the CP-conserving strong phases, thereby also enhancing the direct CP asymmetries. Let us also note that the authors of , investigating the impact of “charming” penguins on the QCD factorization approach for $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲\mathbf{,}𝝅𝝅`$ modes, found values for $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ as large as $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{)}`$.

Interestingly, the Belle measurement given in (6) is actually in favour of large direct CP violation in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$. Since we restrict $`𝜸`$ to the range $`\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{]}`$ in our analysis, the negative sign of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ implies

$$\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{<}𝜽\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}$$
(54)
as can be seen in (27). Interestingly, $`𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$ is consistent with this range, i.e. the sign of the prediction for $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ agrees with the one favoured by Belle, whereas $`𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃𝐅}}`$ lies outside, yielding the opposite sign for the direct CP asymmetry.

Another interesting observation in Fig. 4 is that the theoretical predictions for the hadronic parameter $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$ could be brought to agreement with the experimental curves for values of $`𝜸`$ larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ . In this case, the sign of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸`$ becomes negative, and the circle and square in Fig. 4 move to positive values of $`𝑪`$. Arguments for $`𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ using $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑷𝑷`$, $`𝑷𝑽`$ and $`𝑽𝑽`$ decays were also given in . Moreover, as we have seen in Subsection 2.2, the charged and neutral $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ systems may point towards such values for $`𝜸`$ as well .

The constraints arising from $`𝑯`$ have also implications for the CP-violating observables of the $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ ($`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$) decays. In , upper bounds on the corresponding direct CP asymmetries and an allowed range for $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ were derived as functions of $`𝜸`$. Here we use the information provided by $`𝑯`$ to explore the allowed regions in the space of the CP-violating $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ observables, as well as constraints on $`𝜸`$. For other recent analyses of these decays, we refer the reader to .

## 4 Allowed Regions in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ Observable Space

### 4.1 General Formulae

The starting point of our considerations is the general expression (28) for $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, which allows us to eliminate the strong phase $`𝜽`$ in (27), yielding

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}𝒖\mathbf{+}𝒗𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜸}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒖\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒗\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{)}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(55)
where $`𝒖`$ and $`𝒗`$ are defined as in :

$$𝒖\mathbf{}\frac{𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}$$
(56)
$$𝒗\mathbf{}\frac{𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅}{𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(57)
It should be emphasized that (55) is valid exactly. If we use the $`𝑼`$-spin relation (36), we may also eliminate $`𝜽`$ through $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ in (41). Taking into account, moreover, the possible corrections to (36) through (52) and (53), we obtain the following expression for $`𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$:

$$𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑨𝑩\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒖𝒗\mathbf{)}𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{|}𝑺\mathbf{|}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟒}𝑨𝑩\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝑨𝒗\mathbf{+}𝑩𝒖\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒖𝒗\mathbf{)}𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒗^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(58)
where

$`𝑨`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝑯\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝜽\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸`$ (59)
$`𝑩`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`𝝃^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒗\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝑯\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝜽\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸`$ (60)
$`𝑺`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝑯\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚫𝜽\mathbf{.}`$ (61)
In the limit of $`𝚫𝜽\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, (58) simplifies to

$$𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}_{𝚫𝜽\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑨}{𝑩}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝑯\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸}{𝝃^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒗\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝑯\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸}\mathbf{.}$$
(62)
If we now insert $`𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ thus determined into (55), we may calculate $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ as a function of $`𝜸`$ for given values of $`𝑯`$, $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$. It is an easy exercise to show that (55) and (58) are invariant under the following replacements:

$$\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{,}$$
(63)
which will have important consequences below.

In the following, we assume that $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ and $`𝑯`$ are known from (5) and (49), respectively. If we then vary $`𝜸`$ within $`\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{]}`$ for each value of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{]}`$, we obtain an allowed range in the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ plane. Restricting $`𝜸`$ to (13), a more constrained region arises. The allowed range in the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ plane can be obtained alternatively by eliminating $`𝒅`$ through $`𝑯`$ in (27) and (28), and then varying $`𝜸`$ and $`𝜽`$ within the ranges of $`\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{]}`$ and $`\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{]}`$, respectively.

A different approach to analyse the situation in the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ plane was employed in . In this paper, the parameter $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$ introduced in (26) is written as $`\mathbf{}𝑷_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{/}𝑻_{𝝅𝝅}`$, where the magnitude of the “penguin” amplitude $`𝑷_{𝝅𝝅}`$ is fixed through the CP-averaged branching ratio of the penguin-dominated decay $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝑲`$ with the help of $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ flavour-symmetry arguments and plausible dynamical assumptions, concerning the neglect of an annihilation amplitude $`𝓐`$. In order to deal with $`𝑻_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖\mathbf{+}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^{𝒖𝒕}\mathbf{)}`$, the penguin piece $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}^{𝒖𝒕}`$ is neglected, and the magnitude of the “tree” amplitude $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖`$ is estimated using factorization and data on $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$, yielding $`𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑷_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{/}𝑻_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.276}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.064}`$ .333The dynamical assumptions concerning $`𝒜`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{pen}}^{ut}`$ may be affected by large rescattering effects . Moreover, using the unitarity relation $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜶\mathbf{}𝜷`$ to eliminate $`𝜸`$, the observables $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ are expressed in terms of $`𝜶`$, $`𝜷`$ and $`𝑷_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{/}𝑻_{𝝅𝝅}`$. Fixing $`𝜷`$ to be equal to the “Standard-Model” solution of $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}`$ implied by $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$, and estimating $`\mathbf{|}𝑷_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{/}𝑻_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}`$ as sketched above, $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ depend only on $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜽`$. For each given value of $`𝜶`$, the variation of $`𝜽`$ within the range $`\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{]}`$ specifies then a contour in the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ plane, holding within the Standard Model.

In our analysis, we prefer to use $`𝑯`$ as an additional observable to deal with the penguin contributions, i.e. with the parameter $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$, since we have then not to make a separation between $`𝑷_{𝝅𝝅}`$ and $`𝑻_{𝝅𝝅}`$, and have in particular not to rely on the naïve factorization approach to estimate the overall magnitude of $`𝑻_{𝝅𝝅}`$, which is governed by colour-allowed tree-diagram-like processes, but may also be affected by penguin contributions. In our approach, factorization is only used to include $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking effects. Concerning the parametrization in terms of weak phases, we prefer to use $`𝜸`$ and the general $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$, since the results for the former quantity can then be compared easily with constraints from other processes, whereas the latter can anyway be fixed straighforwardly through mixing-induced CP violation in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ up to a twofold ambiguity, also if there should be CP-violating new-physics contributions to $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing. This way, we obtain an interesting connection between the two solutions for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ and the allowed ranges for $`𝜸`$, as we will see in the next subsection.

### 4.2 Numerical Analysis

In Fig. 5, we show the situation in the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ plane for the central values of the two solutions for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ given in (5), and values of $`𝑯`$ lying within (51). The impact of the present experimental uncertainty of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ is already very small, and will become negligible in the future. In order to calculate Fig. 5, we have used, for simplicity, $`𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝚫𝜽\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$; the impact of variations of these parameters will be discussed in Subsection 4.3. The contours in Fig. 5 arise, if we fix $`𝜸`$ to the values specified through the labels, and vary $`𝜽`$ within $`\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{]}`$. We have also indicated the region which arises if we restrict $`𝜸`$ to the Standard-Model range (13). The crosses describe the experimental averages given in (8).

We observe that the experimental averages overlap – within their uncertainties – nicely with the SM region for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and point towards $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. In this case, not only $`𝜸`$ would be in accordance with the results of the fits of the unitarity triangle , but also the $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$. On the other hand, for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$, the experimental values favour $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and have essentially no overlap with the SM region. This feature is due to the symmetry relations given in (63). Since a value of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$ would require CP-violating new-physics contributions to $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing, also the $`𝜸`$ range in (13) may no longer hold, as it relies strongly on a Standard-Model interpretation of the experimental information on $`𝑩_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing . In particular, also values for $`𝜸`$ larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ could then in principle be accommodated. As we have noted in Subsection 3.3, theoretical analyses of $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$ would actually favour values for $`𝜸`$ being larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, provided that the corresponding theoretical uncertainties are reliably under control, and that the $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ system is still described by the Standard-Model parametrizations. In this case, (8) would point towards a $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing phase of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$, which would be a very exciting situation.

Consequently, it is very important to resolve the twofold ambiguity arising in (5) directly. To this end, $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ has to be measured as well. For the resolution of the discrete ambiguity, already a determination of the sign of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ would be sufficient, where a positive result would imply that $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ is given by $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$. There are several strategies on the market to accomplish this goal . Unfortunately, they are challenging from an experimental point of view and will require a couple of years of taking further data at the $`𝑩`$ factories.

In order to put these observations on a more quantitative basis, we show in Fig. 6 the dependences of $`\mathbf{|}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}`$ on $`𝜸`$ for given values of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. For the two solutions of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$, an interesting difference arises, if we consider positive and negative values of the mixing-induced CP asymmetry, as done in (a), (b) and (c), (d), respectively, In the former case, we obtain the following excluded ranges for $`𝜸`$:

$$\mathrm{𝟖𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟗𝟒}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(64)
Consequently, for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$, we can conveniently accommodate the Standard-Model range (13), in contrast to the situation for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$. On the other hand, if we consider negative values of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, we obtain the following allowed ranges for $`𝜸`$:

$$\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(65)
In this case, both ranges would contain (13), and the situation would not be as exciting as for a positive value of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. These features can be understood in a rather transparent manner from the extremal values for $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ derived in .

In Fig. 6, we have also included bands, which are due to the present experimental averages given in (8). Interestingly, a positive value of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ is now favoured by the data. From the overlap of the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}`$ bands we obtain the following solutions for $`𝜸`$:

$$\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟕𝟒}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟐}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(66)
In the future, the experimental uncertainties will be reduced considerably, thereby providing much more stringent results for $`𝜸`$. Moreover, it should be emphasized that also $`𝒅`$ can be determined with the help of (58). Going then back to (44), we may extract $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽`$ as well, which allows an unambiguous determination of $`𝜽`$ because of (54). Before we come back to this issue in Subsection 4.4, where we shall have a brief look at factorization and the discrete ambiguities arising typically in the extraction of $`𝜸`$ from the contours shown in Fig. 6, let us first turn to the uncertainties associated with the parameters $`𝝃`$ and $`𝚫𝜽`$.

### 4.3 Sensitivity on $`𝝃`$ and $`𝚫𝜽`$

In the numerical analysis discussed in Subsection 4.2, we have used $`𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝚫𝜽\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Let us now investigate the sensitivity of our results on deviations of $`𝝃`$ from 1, and sizeable values of $`𝚫𝜽`$. The formulae given in Subsection 4.1 take into account these parameters exactly, thereby allowing us to study their effects straightforwardly. It turns out that the impact of $`𝚫𝜽`$ is very small,444We shall give a plot illustrating the impact of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 0^{}`$ on the $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ analysis in Subsection 5.2. even for values as large as $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Consequently, the most important effects are due to the parameter $`𝝃`$. In Fig. 7, we use $`𝑯\mathbf{=}\mathbf{7.5}`$ to illustrate the impact of a variation of $`𝝃`$ within the range $`\mathbf{[}\mathbf{0.8}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{1.2}\mathbf{]}`$: in (a) and (b), we show the allowed region in the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ plane for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$, respectively, including also the regions, which arise if we restrict $`𝜸`$ to the Standard-Model range (13). In (c) and (d), we show the corresponding situation in the $`𝜸`$$`\mathbf{|}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}`$ plane for positive values of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. Here we have also included the bands arising from the present experimental values for CP violation in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$. We find that a variation of $`𝝃`$ within $`\mathbf{[}\mathbf{0.8}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{1.2}\mathbf{]}`$ affects our result (66) for $`𝜸`$ as follows:

$$\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕𝟒}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟔}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟐}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(67)
For future reduced experimental uncertainties of $`\mathbf{|}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}`$, also the holes in Figs. 7 (c) and (d) may have an impact on $`𝜸`$, excluding certain values. The impact of the hole is increasing for decreasing values of $`𝝃`$. In Figs. 7 (c) and (d), only the smallest holes for $`𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.2}`$ are shown, whereas those corresponding $`𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.0}`$ and $`𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.8}`$ are hidden.

The range for $`𝝃`$ considered in Figs. 4 and 7 appears rather conservative to us, since (36) is not affected by $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking corrections within the factorization approach, in contrast to (39), as can be seen in (40). Non-factorizable corrections to the latter relation would show up as a systematic shift of $`𝑯`$, and could be taken into account straightforwardly in our formalism.

### 4.4 Comments on Factorization and Discrete Ambiguities

As we have noted in the introduction, the present BaBar and Belle measurements of CP violation in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ are not fully consistent with each other. Whereas Belle is in favour of very large CP asymmetries in this channel, the central values obtained by BaBar are close to zero. The Belle result and the average for $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ given in (8) cannot be accommodated within the factorization picture, predicting $`𝜽\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. On the other hand, this framework would still be consistent with BaBar. Let us therefore spend a few words on simplifications of the analysis given above that can be obtained by using a rather mild input from factorization.

If we look at (28) and (41), we observe that $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑯`$ depend only on cosines of strong phases, which would be equal to $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ within factorization. In contrast to $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜽`$, the value of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽`$ is not very sensitive to deviations of $`𝜽`$ from $`𝜽\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, i.e. to non-factorizable effects. Using (41), we obtain

$$𝒅\mathbf{=}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒃}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{+}\sqrt{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒂}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒃}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(68)
where

$$\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒂}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯}{𝝃^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒃}\mathbf{}\frac{𝒄\mathbf{+}𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝑯}{𝝃^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}$$
(69)
with

$$𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{,}𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}$$
(70)
are generalizations of $`𝒂`$ and $`𝒃`$ introduced in (45). The parameters $`𝒄`$ and $`𝒄^{\mathbf{}}`$ allow us to take into account deviations from the strict factorization limit, implying $`𝒄\mathbf{=}𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. We may now calculate

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒅𝒄\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒅𝒄\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{+}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(71)
with the help of (68) as a function of $`𝜸`$.

In Fig. 8, we show the corresponding curves for various values of $`𝑯`$ in the case of $`𝒄\mathbf{=}𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$; we have again to distinguish between (a) $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and (b) $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$. For a variation of $`𝜽\mathbf{=}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}`$ between $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, we obtain very small shifts of these curves, as indicated in the figure. For $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, as favoured by the present BaBar result, we would obtain

$$𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(72)
Using now once more (68) or the curves shown in Fig. 4 yields correspondingly

$$𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.4}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.2}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.6}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.3}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(73)
Since, as we have seen in Subsection 3.3, theoretical estimates prefer $`𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.3}`$, the solutions for $`𝜸`$ larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ would be favoured. In (72) and (73), we obtain such solutions for both possible values of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$.

The contours shown in Fig. 6 hold of course also in the case of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. However, we have then to deal with a fourfold discrete ambiguity in the extraction of $`𝜸`$ for each of the two possible values of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$. Using the input about the cosines of strong phases from factorization, $`𝒄\mathbf{}𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, these fourfold ambiguities are reduced for $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to the twofold ones given in (72). A similar comment applies also to other contours in Fig. 6.

Let us consider the contour corresponding to $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.6}`$, which agrees with the central value in (8), to discuss this issue in more detail. For values of $`\mathbf{|}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{0.5}`$, we would obtain no solutions for $`𝜸`$. If, for instance, $`\mathbf{|}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}`$ should stabilize at 0.8, we would have an indication for new physics. In the case of $`\mathbf{|}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.5}`$, the corresponding horizontal line touches the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.6}`$ contours, yielding $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$, respectively. Moreover, $`𝜽\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.4}`$ would be preferred in this case. For $`𝜽\mathbf{=}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, expression (41) implies

$$𝒅\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯}{𝝃^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(74)
which yields $`𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.39}`$ for $`𝑯\mathbf{=}\mathbf{7.5}`$. It is amusing to note that $`𝜽\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.39}`$ give for $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ the observables $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.49}`$ and $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.60}`$, which are both in excellent agreement with (8). If we reduce the value of $`\mathbf{|}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}`$ below 0.5, we obtain a twofold solution for $`𝜸`$, where the branches on the left-hand sides correspond to $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝜽\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and those on the right-hand side to $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝜽\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Consequently, the latter ones would be closer to factorization, and would also be in accordance with the PQCD analysis discussed in Subsection 3.3. As we have seen there, these theoretical predictions for $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$ seem to favour $`𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and would hence require that $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$ in Fig. 6. For values of $`\mathbf{|}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}`$ below 0.1, we would arrive at the fourfold ambiguities for $`𝜸`$ discussed above.

It will be very exciting to see in which direction the data will move. We hope that the discrepancy between the BaBar and Belle results will be resolved in the near future.

### 4.5 Correlations Between $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$

Because of (42) and (47), it is also interesting to consider the CP asymmetry in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$ decays instead of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. The presently available $`𝑩`$-factory measurements give

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{0.04}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.16}\hfill & \text{(CLEO }\text{[35]}\text{)}\hfill \\ \mathbf{0.05}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.01}\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{[27]}\text{)}\hfill \\ \mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.08}\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{[28]}\text{),}\hfill \end{array}$$
(75)
yielding the average

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.05}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{.}$$
(76)
On the other hand, inserting the experimental central values for $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑯`$ into (47) yields $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.2}`$. In view of the present experimental uncertainties, this cannot be considered as a discrepancy. If we employ (42) and take into account (52) and (53), we obtain

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}$$

$$\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝑯\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝜽\mathbf{\pm }\frac{\mathbf{\left(}𝒖\mathbf{+}𝒗𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚫𝜽}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}𝒖\mathbf{+}𝒗𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(77)
where $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ is given by (55), with $`𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ fixed through (58).

In Fig. 9, we collect the plots corresponding to those of the pure $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ correlations given in Figs. 5 and 6: in (a) and (b), we show the allowed ranges in the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}`$ plane for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$, respectively, whereas the curves in (c) and (d) illustrate the corresponding situation in the $`𝜸`$$`\mathbf{|}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}`$ plane for positive values of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. We observe that the overlap of the experimental bands gives solutions for $`𝜸`$ that are consistent with (66), although we have now also two additional ranges for each $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ due to the small central value of (76).

If we consider the allowed regions in observable space of the direct and mixing-induced CP asymmetries of the decay $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, we obtain a very constrained situation. Let us next have a closer look at this particularly interesting transition.

## 5 Allowed Regions in $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ Observable Space

### 5.1 General Formulae

From a conceptual point of view, the analysis of the decay $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ is very similar to the one of $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$. If we use (34) to eliminate $`𝜽^{\mathbf{}}`$ in (33), we arrive at

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟒}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜸}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{)}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(78)
where $`𝒖^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝒗^{\mathbf{}}`$ correspond to $`𝒖`$ and $`𝒗`$, respectively, and are given by

$$𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\frac{𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}$$
(79)
$$𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\frac{𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔}{𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(80)
In analogy to (55), (78) is also an exact expression. Making use of (36), the mixing-induced CP asymmetry $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ allows us to eliminate $`𝜽^{\mathbf{}}`$ also in (41), thereby providing an expression for $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. If we take into account, furthermore, (52) and (53), we obtain

$$\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑨^{\mathbf{}}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{|}𝑺^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟒}𝑨^{\mathbf{}}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝑨^{\mathbf{}}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒗^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(81)
with

$`𝑨^{\mathbf{}}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathit{ϵ}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝝃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝜽\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝑯\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸`$ (82)
$`𝑩^{\mathbf{}}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{\left[}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝃^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝝃𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝜽\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝑯\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{\right]}`$ (83)
$`𝑺^{\mathbf{}}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathit{ϵ}𝝃\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚫𝜽\mathbf{.}`$ (84)
In the limit of $`𝚫𝜽\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, (81) simplifies to

$$\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}_{𝚫𝜽\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑨^{\mathbf{}}}{𝑩^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{(}\mathit{ϵ}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝝃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝑯\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸}{\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{\left[}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝃^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑯\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝝃𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}𝝃𝑯\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{\right]}}\mathbf{.}$$
(85)
As in the case of $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, (78) and (81) are invariant under the following symmetry transformation:

$$\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{.}$$
(86)
Since $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$ is negligibly small in the Standard Model, these symmetry relations may only be of academic interest in the case of $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$. On the other hand, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$ could in principle also be close to $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. In this case, $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$ would not show CP-violating effects, as in the Standard Model. Strategies to distinguish between $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ were addressed in .

### 5.2 Numerical Analysis

In analogy to our study of $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ in Section 4, we may now straightforwardly calculate the allowed region in the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ plane. In Fig. 10, we show these correlations for (a) a negligible $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$, and (b) a value of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, illustrating the impact of possible CP-violating new-physics contributions to $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing. We have also indicated the contours corresponding to various fixed values of $`𝜸`$, and the region, which arises if we restrict $`𝜸`$ to the Standard-Model range (13). In contrast to Fig. 5, the allowed region is now very constrained, thereby providing a narrow target range for run II of the Tevatron and the experiments of the LHC era. As we have seen in Subsection 4.5, the experimental constraints on $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}`$ exclude already very large direct CP violation in this channel. Because of (47), we expect a similar situation in $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, which is in accordance with Fig. 10. The allowed range for $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ may be shifted significantly through sizeable values of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$. Such a scenario would be signaled independently through large CP-violating effects in the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$ channel, which is very accessible at hadronic $`𝑩`$ experiments. It is interesting to note that if the solution $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$ should actually be the correct one, it would be very likely to have also new-physics effects in $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing. If we restrict $`𝜸`$ to the Standard-Model range (13), we even obtain a much more constrained allowed region, given by a rather narrow elliptical band.

The sensitivity of the allowed region in the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ plane on variations of $`𝝃`$ and $`𝚫𝜽`$ within reasonable ranges is very small, as can be seen in Figs. 11 (a) and (b), respectively. In the latter figure, we consider $`\mathbf{|}𝚫𝜽\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and show explicitly the two solutions ($`𝒅_\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝒅_{\mathbf{}}`$) for $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ arising in (81). As in Fig. 10, we consider again the whole range for $`𝜸`$, and its restriction to (13). The shifts with respect to the $`𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝚫𝜽\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ case are indeed small, as can be seen by comparing with rescaled Fig. 10 (a). Consequently, the main theoretical uncertainty of our predictions for the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ observable correlations is due to the determination of $`𝑯`$.

It will be very exciting to see whether the measurements at run II of the Tevatron and at the experiments of the LHC era, where the physics potential of the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ system can be fully exploited, will actually hit the very constrained allowed region in observable space. In this case, it would be more advantageous not to use $`𝑯`$ for the extraction of $`𝜸`$, but contours in the $`𝜸`$$`𝒅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝜸`$$`𝒅`$ planes, which can be fixed in a theoretically clean way through the CP-violating $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ observables, respectively . Making then use of $`𝒅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝝃𝒅`$, $`𝜸`$ and the hadronic parameters $`𝒅`$, $`𝜽`$ and $`𝜽^{\mathbf{}}`$ can be determined in a transparent manner. Concerning theoretical uncertainties, this is the cleanest way to extract information from the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ system. In particular, it does not rely on (40). It should be noted that this approach would also work, if $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$ turned out to be sizeable. This phase could then be determined through $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$ .

### 5.3 Comments on Factorization

Using the same input from factorization as in Subsection 4.4, we obtain the following simplified expressions for the contours in the $`𝜸`$$`𝒅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝜸`$$`𝒅`$ planes:

$$𝒅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}}}{𝒗^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒖𝒗}}{𝒗}\mathbf{,}$$
(87)
where $`𝒖^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝒗^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝒖`$, $`𝒗`$ are given in (79), (80) and (56), (57), respectively, and $`𝒄^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝒄`$ are defined in (70). On the other hand, the general expressions derived in  that do not rely on factorization simplify for vanishing direct CP asymmetries in $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ as follows:

$$𝒅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}}}{𝒗^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒖𝒗}}{𝒗}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{.}$$
(88)
Consequently, since $`𝒅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝒅`$ are by definition positive parameters, the input from factorization would allow us to reduce the number of discrete ambiguities in this case. We have encountered a similar feature in our discussion of $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ in Subsection 4.4. As noted in , in order to reduce the number of discrete ambiguities, also the contours in the $`𝜸`$$`𝒅`$ and $`𝜸`$$`𝒅^{\mathbf{}}`$ plane specified through (58) and (81), respectively, are very helpful.

### 5.4 The $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$$`𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ Plane

Let us finally consider the observable $`𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ appearing in (1), which may be accessible due to a sizeable width difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$ of the $`𝑩_𝒔`$ system. Interestingly, this quantity may also be extracted from the “untagged” rate

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝐇𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚪_𝐇^{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}𝒕}\mathbf{+}𝑹_𝐋𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚪_𝐋^{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}𝒕}$$
(89)
through

$$𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑹_𝐇\mathbf{}𝑹_𝐋}{𝑹_𝐇\mathbf{+}𝑹_𝐋}\mathbf{,}$$
(90)
where $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{}𝚪_𝐇^{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝚪_𝐋^{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}`$ is negative in the Standard Model. Using parametrization (29), we obtain

$$𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(91)
An important difference with respect to the direct CP asymmetry (33) is that – as in (34) – only $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}`$ terms appear in this expression. Consequently, using the mixing-induced CP asymmetry $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ to eliminate $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}`$, we arrive at

$$𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left\{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right\}}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{\right)}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(92)
In contrast to (78), no sign ambiguity appears in this expression; in the former, it is due to $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}}`$. The square root in (78) ensures that

$$\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{|}𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}}{\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{.}$$
(93)
If we fix $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}`$ through (81) and insert it into (92), we have to require, in addition, that this relation is satisfied. We may then perform an analysis similar to the one for the observables $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ given above.

In Fig. 12, we show the allowed region in the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$$`𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ plane for (a) the Standard-Model case of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and (b) a value of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, illustrating the impact of possible new-physics contributions to $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing. It should be noted that the width difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$ would be modified in the latter case as follows :

$$𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝚫𝚪_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{.}$$
(94)
As in Fig. 10, we have also included the regions, which arise if we restrict $`𝜸`$ to (13). We observe that $`𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ is highly constrained within the Standard Model, yielding

$$\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.95}\mathbf{.}$$
(95)
Moreover, it becomes evident that this observable may be affected significantly through sizeable values of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$. Unfortunately, the width difference $`\mathbf{|}𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{|}`$ would be reduced in this case because of (94), thereby making measurements relying on a sizeable value of this quantity more difficult.

## 6 Conclusions and Outlook

In our paper, we have used recent experimental data to analyse allowed regions in the space of CP-violating $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ observables that arise within the Standard Model. The main results can be summarized as follows:

* As far as $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ decays are concerned, the combinations of charged and neutral modes appear to be most exciting. We have presented contour plots, allowing us to read off the preferred ranges for $`𝜸`$ and strong phases $`𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ directly from the experimental data. The charged and neutral $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$ decays point both towards $`𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. On the other hand, they prefer $`\mathbf{|}𝜹_𝐜\mathbf{|}`$ to be smaller than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and $`\mathbf{|}𝜹_𝐧\mathbf{|}`$ to be larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. This puzzling situation, which was also pointed out in , may be an indication of new-physics contributions to the electroweak penguin sector, but the uncertainties are still too large to draw definite conclusions. It should be kept in mind that we may also have “anomalously” large flavour-symmetry breaking effects.
* The present data on the CP-averaged $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ branching ratios allow us to obtain rather strong constraints on the penguin parameter $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$. A comparison of the experimental curves with the most recent theoretical predictions for this parameter is not in favour of an interpretation within the Standard Model; comfortable agreement between theory and experiment could be achieved for values of $`𝜸`$ being larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$.
* The constraints on $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$ have interesting implications for the allowed region in the space of the mixing-induced and direct CP asymmetries of the decay $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$. Taking into account the first measurements of these observables at the $`𝑩`$ factories, we arrive at the following picture:

+ For the $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$, the data favour a value of $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. In this case, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷`$ and $`𝜸`$ would both agree with the results of the usual indirect fits of the unitarity triangle.
    + For the $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$, the data favour a value of $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, i.e. larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. In this case, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ would require CP-violating new-physics contributions to $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing, so that also the results of the usual indirect fits of the unitarity triangle for $`𝜸`$ may no longer hold.

As we have noted above, $`𝜸`$ may actually be larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, which would then require the unconventional solution $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Consequently, it is very important to resolve the twofold ambiguity arising in the extraction of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ from $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ directly through a measurement of the sign of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$.
* We have provided the formalism to take into account the parameters $`𝝃`$ and $`𝚫𝜽`$, affecting the theorectical accuracy of our approach, in an exact manner, and have studied their impact in detail.
* In the case of the decay $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, we obtain a very constrained allowed region in the space of the corresponding CP-violating observables, thereby providing a narrow target range for run II of the Tevatron and the experiments of the LHC era. Here the impact of variations of $`𝝃`$ and $`𝚫𝜽`$ within reasonable ranges is practically negligible. On the basis of the present data on direct CP violation in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$, we do not expect a very large value of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, which is also in accordance with the allowed range derived in this paper. On the other hand, CP-violating new-physics contributions to $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing may shift the range for $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ significantly.
* Using a moderate input from factorization about the cosines of CP-conserving strong phases, our analysis could be simplified, and the number of discrete ambiguities arising in the extraction of $`𝜸`$ could be reduced.

It will be very exciting to see in which direction the experimental results for the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝑲`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ observables will move. Unfortunately, the present measurements of the CP asymmetries in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ by BaBar and Belle are not fully consistent with each other. We hope that this discrepancy will be resolved soon. As we have pointed out in our analysis, we may obtain valuable insights into CP violation and the world of penguins from such measurements. A first analysis of $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ will already be available at run II of the Tevatron, where $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing should also be discovered, and $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$ may indicate a sizeable value of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$. At the experiments of the LHC era, in particular LHCb and BTeV, the physics potential of the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ system to explore CP violation can then be fully exploited.

## Acknowledgements

R.F. is grateful to Wulfrin Bartel and Masashi Hazumi for discussions and correspondence on the recent Belle measurement of $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, in particular the employed sign conventions, and would like to thank the Theoretical High-Energy Physics Group of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona for the kind hospitality during his visit. J.M. acknowledges financial support by CICYT Research Project AEN99-07666 and by Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia from Spain.