text:
# Solar Neutrino Precision Measurements using all 1496 Days of Super-Kamiokande-I Data

## 1 Introduction

Between May 31$`^{\text{st}}`$, 1996 and July 15$`^{\text{th}}`$, 2001 Super-Kamiokande (SK) exposed 22,500 tons of purified water for 1496 days to solar neutrinos. The detector is described elsewhere . Solar neutrinos are detected using the Cherenkov light emitted by the recoiling electron from neutrino-electron elastic scattering. This water Cherenkov detection technique offers four advantages: (i) the reconstructed direction of the recoiling electron is strongly correlated with the neutrino direction, (ii) the time of each neutrino interaction is recorded, (iii) the neutrino spectrum can be inferred from the recoil electron spectrum, and (iv) neutrino-elastic scattering is sensitive to all neutrino flavors, although the cross section for $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ is about six to seven times less than for $`\nu _e`$. However, only high energy solar neutrinos can be observed in this fashion; SK analyzes data above a threshold of 5 MeV of the total energy of the recoil electron. Only extremely few solar neutrinos have an energy that high; they arise from the $`\beta ^+`$ decay of 8B (8B neutrinos) and 3He-proton fusion (hep neutrinos) in the sun. The standard solar model (SSM) prediction of the flux of those rare neutrinos ($`\varphi _{{}_{}{}^{8}B}=5.05_{0.81}^{+1.01}\times 10^6/`$cm2s and $`\varphi _{hep}=9.3\times 10^3/`$cm2s with no uncertainty given ) is therefore difficult and beset by large uncertainties.

## 2 Solar Neutrino Flux

SK uses the known position of the sun (at the time of a solar neutrino event candidate) to statistically separate solar neutrino interactions from background events. During 1496 effective days 22,400$`\pm 800`$ solar neutrino interactions were found in the gray shaded forward peak of Figure 1. From Monte Carlo calculations based on the SSM, 48,200$`{}_{7,700}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+9,600}`$ are expected. In spite of the large neutrino flux uncertainty, the elastic scattering rate is significantly less than expected from the SSM. The suppression factor Data/SSM MC is about $`3\sigma `$ less than one: 0.465$`\pm 0.005`$(stat.)$`{}_{0.015}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.016}`$(syst.)$`{}_{0.17}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.19}`$(SSM). All solar neutrinos are born as $`\nu _e`$ in the sun; if all solar neutrinos detected by SK are $`\nu _e`$’s as well then a $`\nu _e`$ flux of 2.35$`\pm 0.02`$(stat.)$`\pm 0.08`$(syst.)$`\times 10^6/`$cm2s leads to the observed interaction rate.

SNO has measured the charged-current interaction rate of solar $`\nu _e`$ with deuterium  (above a threshold neutrino energy of about 7 MeV) implying a $`\nu _e`$ flux of 1.76$`{}_{0.05}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.06}`$(stat.)$`\pm 0.10`$(syst.) (assuming an undistorted 8B neutrino spectrum) and consequently 16,800$`{}_{1,000}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1,100}`$ $`\nu _e`$ interactions in SK. SK has observed 1.334$`\pm 0.013`$(stat.)$`{}_{0.043}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.047}`$(syst.)$`{}_{0.061}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.066}`$(SNO) more events which is about 4.5$`\sigma `$ above one.

Beyond the 8B endpoint of $`15`$ MeV, hep neutrinos dominate the solar neutrino flux. Taking into account energy resolution, an optimum hep neutrino search window (18 to 21 MeV) was defined using Monte Carlo. In that window $`4.9\pm 2.7`$ events were observed; one hep neutrino interaction is expected. This limits the hep flux to be less than $`73\times 10^3/`$cm2s (or less than 7.9 times the SSM flux) at 90% C.L.

## 3 Solar Antineutrinos

If there are antineutrinos in the solar $`\nu `$ flux, they could be detected by an inverse $`\beta `$ reaction on hydrogen. Unlike elastic scattering (as shown in Figure 1, those events are reconstructed within about 600 of the forward direction), the angular distribution of this reaction is essentially flat, with a slight backward bias, especially for low energy neutrinos. The positron energy is strongly correlated with the antineutrino energy. After solar neutrino interactions are removed using an angular cut of 600, the dominant background at higher energy (above 8 MeV) is due to cosmic ray-induced spallation. Figure 2 shows two upper flux limits at 90% C.L.: (i) all events below $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\text{sun}}<0.5`$ are considered to be antineutrino interactions (ii) spallation background is statistically subtracted. The limits of the left plot (in % of the SSM 8B flux) assume antineutrinos with a 8B energy spectrum, the limits given in the right plot (in /cm2s) are for monochromatic antineutrinos of eight different energies.

## 4 Time Variations

Figure 3 shows the time variation of the neutrino flux inferred from the SK rate in bins of ten days and 1.5 months. A 7% yearly variation is expected due to the 3.5% change in distance between sun and earth (assuming the neutrino flux is proportional to the inverse square of this distance, that is, the sun is a neutrino point source). The data favor such a 7% variation over no variation by about 2.5$`\sigma `$. No significant time variation is seen after subtraction of this effect. To search for daily variation, the data was binned according to solar zenith angle $`\theta _z`$. Figure 4 displays the resulting distribution. No significant daily variation is found. The result can be summarized by forming the “day/night asymmetry” $`A_{DN}=\frac{DN}{0.5(D+N)}`$ (with $`D`$ meaning “day rate” and $`N`$ meaning “night rate”): $`A_{DN}=0.021\pm 0.020`$(stat.)$`{}_{0.012}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.013}`$(syst.) is consistent with zero within 0.9$`\sigma `$.

Figure 4. Elastic Scattering Flux as a Function of Solar Zenith Angle. Note the suppressed zero.

## 5 Spectrum

For precision measurements of the spectrum it is necessary to calibrate the absolute energy scale (and determine the energy resolution) of SK with an outside source. We employed an electron linear accelerator to determine the energy scale within 0.64% and the resolution within 2.5% . In Figure 5 the observed recoil electron spectrum is compared to the expected spectrum: the ratio Data/SSM effectively plots spectral distortion. There is no significant spectral distortion; the fit to the no-distortion hypothesis results in $`\chi ^2=20.2/20`$ d.o.f. corresponding to 44.3% C.L. The $`\chi ^2`$ includes three systematic effects which will shift all bins of the distribution in a correlated way (correlated uncertainties): the uncertainty in (i) the 8B $`\nu `$ spectrum, (ii) the absolute SK energy calibration, and (iii) the SK energy resolution. The gray lines of Figure 5 show the size of the sum (in quadrature) of (i), (ii) and (iii). The same figure also plots the day/night asymmetry as a function of recoil electron energy. The day/night asymmetry is consistent with zero regardless of the recoil electron energy. The plotted correlated uncertainty is the sum of only (ii) and (iii), since (i) is the same for the day and the night.

## 6 Effects of Solar Neutrino Oscillations

Solar neutrino oscillations explain both the observed SK rate reduction compared to the SSM prediction and the observed SK rate enhancement relative to the SNO-based expectation (mentioned in section 2) as conversion of $`\nu _e`$ into other active flavors, that is $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$. They also explain the rates observed by various radio-chemical solar neutrino experiments . Solar neutrinos are always born as $`\nu _e`$; their conversion probability into $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$ in vacuum is determined by their energy and the distance of flight and the oscillation parameters. For the purpose of this paper, we assume just two massive neutrinos; in that case the oscillation parameters are the mixing angle $`\theta `$ (controlling the relationship between flavor and mass eigenstates) and the differences of the squared masses between the two neutrinos $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$.

The presence of matter strongly influences this conversion probability. In particular, the matter density in the sun is high enough to induce resonant conversion  at solar neutrino energies for a wide range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ ($`10^8`$ to $`10^4`$eV2). In that case, the conversion probability is large or even maximal, even if the mixing angle is small. The matter density in the earth also affects the conversion probability leading to apparent daily variations of the solar neutrino flux.

Depending on $`\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, SK can therefore observe distortions of the recoil electron spectrum, yearly variations or daily variations. In Figure 6, the expected spectral distortion and day/night asymmetry are shown for all values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ (The spectral distortion is quantified by a $`\chi ^2`$ method which uses the current SK uncertainties as input). Overlaid are the traditional oscillation “solutions”, an area of parameter space capable of explaining all measured solar neutrino rates. The conversion probabilities for the large mixing angle (LMA), small mixing angle (SMA) and low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ (LOW) solutions are dominated by the matter effects mentioned previously, while the vacuum solutions (VAC) match the first oscillation phase maximum to the solar neutrino energy range. LMA, LOW and VAC have a large mixing angle close to $`\pi /4`$ while the mixing of the SMA is small (a few $`10^2`$). SMA and VAC solutions predict a distorted spectrum, LMA and LOW solutions daily variations.

Figure 7 summarizes the data used for a simultaneous search for spectral distortions and daily variations: the zenith angle spectrum has eight energy bins and seven solar zenith angle bins between 5.5 and 16 MeV. The $`\chi ^2`$ for a flat shape hypothesis is $`\chi ^2=40.5/43`$ d.o.f. which corresponds to 58.1% C.L. Overlaid are the oscillation predictions (fit to the data by varying freely the total 8B and hep neutrino flux) for four selected parameter pairs, each representing a solution. The strong energy dependence of the flavor conversion (inducing spectral distortions) predicted by VAC and SMA is not supported by the data. In case of LMA and LOW, there is little energy dependence of the flavor conversion, the apparent spectral distortion shown in Figure 7 is caused by a larger ratio of the hep to the 8B neutrino flux than predicted in the SSM. These two solutions can only be distinguished by their daily flux variation predictions. LMA shows rapid oscillations during the night. These oscillations are washed out for the coarse bins of the data. The LOW solutions however predict slow oscillations in the night. The statistical fluctuations of the observed flat distributions would be more consistent with slow oscillations of the opposite phase.

## 7 Oscillation Analysis

Figure 8 shows the strong constraints on solar neutrino oscillation parameters which are imposed by the SK spectral distortion data (cross hatched areas) and the SK zenith angle spectrum (gray areas). A fit to two spectra (day and night; see gray dashed lines) partially includes the zenith angle variation which is fully included in the zenith angle spectrum fit. The analysis is described in ; the definition of the $`\chi ^2`$ employed to extract those constraints can be found in . The areas in the left panel of Figure 8 are excluded and use only the (zenith angle) spectrum shape while the right panel shows allowed areas based on this shape and the SK rate (and the SSM 8B flux). SK rate and spectrum allow only large mixing angles. The large daily variation predicted between $`10^5`$ and $`10^7`$eV2 splits this “large mixing band” into two distinct allowed areas (SK LMA and SK LOW/quasi-VAC). The $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ limits of these areas are stronger for the zenith angle spectrum compared to the day/night spectrum, especially the upper limit for the SK LOW/quasi-VAC which is reduced by a factor of two to three.

Figure 9. Area Excluded at 95% C.L. by the Shape of the SK Zenith Spectrum (Gray Area). The exclusion is independent of all SSM $`\nu `$ flux predictions. Overlaid is the allowed area (inside thick black line shaded in light gray) from the SNO day/night spectrum . The overlap of both is shaded dark gray. The cross hatched area is allowed by the rate of the Homestake experiment  and the SSM prediction of that rate. Similarly, the gray lines mark the boundary of the area allowed by Gallex/GNO  and SAGE .

Figure 9 compares the constraints of the zenith angle spectrum (gray area) with the allowed areas of the SNO day/night spectrum , the Homestake experiment and the combined “Gallium experiments” (Gallex/GNO and SAGE). All SNO small angle ($`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta <0.1`$; in particular the one at $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.002`$, which is consistent with the Gallium experiments), VAC (consistent with Homestake and the Gallium experiments, including the one at $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =1`$), and LOW solutions (consistent with Homestake and the Gallium experiments) are excluded. The SNO LMA solutions (consistent with all experiments) are restricted to a smaller range. The zenith angle spectrum also excludes almost the entire Homestake allowed area (except for LMA and the region just below the LOW solutions).

## 8 Combined Oscillation Fits

Stronger constraints on neutrino oscillation parameters can be obtained when the SK results are combined with other solar neutrino data. In particular, for the first time, a unique solution is obtained, when SK results are combined with all other solar neutrino data . The strongest constraints that are independent of SSM neutrino flux predictions come from fits which combine the SK zenith spectrum shape with the SK and SNO rates . The left plot of Figure 10 shows the allowed regions of this fit. Superimposed is a combined fit of the SK zenith spectrum shape and the Gallium, Homestake and SK rates which relies on the SSM neutrino flux predictions. In either case only large mixing angle solutions survive. The LMA solutions are favored in either case. When all solar neutrino data is combined, the LMA solutions are more strongly favored.

Figure 11 plots the $`\chi ^2`$ difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ as a function of only one parameter for various fits. (The

other parameter is chosen as to minimize $`\chi ^2`$.) $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ has the statistics of a $`\chi ^2`$ with one degree of freedom. SK data by itself strongly disfavors small mixing. LMA solutions are favored, however quasi-VAC solutions (between LOW and VAC) provide reasonable fits as well with small “pockets” of parameter space that fit even better than LMA solutions. The SK-SNO combined fit favors the LMA at the 2$`\sigma `$ level and tightens the allowed range in the mixing angle. The SK-Gallium-Homestake combined fit disfavors LOW and quasi-VAC solutions more strongly, but SMA solutions are only disfavored by 2 to 2.5$`\sigma `$. The all-combined fit favors the LMA by almost 3$`\sigma `$ with small allowed ranges in $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$.

## 9 Conclusion

Super-Kamiokande solar neutrino precision measurements provide the first hint of solar neutrino flavor conversion due to oscillation in a unique parameter region, the LMA solution. Solar neutrino oscillation parameters that lead to significant distortions of the 8B neutrino spectrum or solar zenith angle variations are excluded by Super-Kamiokande data.


format: text

text:
# Secure quantum key distribution with an uncharacterized source

## Abstract

We prove the security of the Bennett-Brassard (BB84) quantum key distribution protocol for an arbitrary source whose averaged states are basis-independent, a condition that is automatically satisfied if the source is suitably designed. The proof is based on the observation that, to an adversary, the key extraction process is equivalent to a measurement in the $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$-basis performed on a pure $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$-basis eigenstate. The dependence of the achievable key length on the bit error rate is the same as that established by Shor and Preskill for a perfect source, indicating that the defects in the source are efficiently detected by the protocol.

PACS numbers: 03.67.Dd

Quantum key distribution is an ingenious application of quantum mechanics, in which two remote parties (Alice and Bob) establish a shared secret key through the transmission of quantum signals. In the BB84 protocol , Alice sends a key bit to Bob by preparing a qubit in one of two conjugate bases and Bob measures the qubit in one of the two bases; the eavesdropper Eve, who does not know the basis chosen by Alice or by Bob, cannot collect information about the key without producing a detectable disturbance. This protocol, when suitably augmented by classical error correction and privacy amplification, is provably secure against any attack by Eve allowed by the laws of quantum physics .

Though security can be proven without imposing any restriction on Eve’s attack (other than the requirement that she has no a priori information about the basis used), it is necessary to place conditions on the performance of the source and detector employed in the protocol. In the Shor-Preskill proof , it is assumed that any flaws in the source and detector can be absorbed into Eve’s basis-independent attack. The proof by Mayers , however, applies to a more general setting: although the source is perfect, the detector has never been tested and is completely uncharacterized. Indeed, the detector could be under the control of Eve’s collaborator Fred. Fred is unable to send messages to Eve, but he knows Bob’s basis and can adjust the measurement performed by the detector accordingly. Still, as Mayers showed, Fred cannot fool Alice and Bob into accepting a key that Eve knows, as long as the efficiency of the detector is basis independent. Since a real device could have an indefinite number of degrees of freedom, no test can fully characterize it; therefore proving security in the case of an uncharacterized apparatus provides comfort to a highly suspicious user of the key distribution scheme.

In this Letter, we present a simple proof of the security of the BB84 protocol that applies to a setting opposite to that considered by Mayers: the detector is perfect and Fred controls the source. We will, however, place one important restriction on Fred’s attack — the source must not leak any information to Eve about the basis chosen by Alice. That is, the state emitted by the source, averaged over the values of Alice’s key bit, is required to be independent of Alice’s basis. Our proof applies to faulty sources that are notably more general than those encompassed by the Shor-Preskill proof; to give just one example, it applies to a source that performs perfectly when Alice chooses the $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$-basis but that rotates the qubit when Alice chooses the $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$-basis. Nevertheless, our proof shows that secure key can be extracted from sifted key at the same rate established by Shor and Preskill.

Our proof combines insights gleaned from both the Mayers proof and the Shor-Preskill proof. Following Mayers, we analyze the information about (Bob’s) key collected by Eve in the case where Alice and Bob are using different bases. Following Shor and Preskill, we bound Eve’s information by observing that Bob could have performed error correction to remove any entanglement with Eve’s probe before executing the measurement that extracts his final key. The core of our proof is the observation that a single quantum circuit computes Bob’s final key in the $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$-basis and reverses the damage inflicted by Eve if the error rate is small in the $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$-basis. Using the same method, we can also prove security for the case of an uncharacterized detector, allowing a more general source and establishing a higher rate of key generation than in the proof by Mayers.

Before proceeding to the proof, let us specify in more detail our models of the source and detector. Alice prepares a physical system with Hilbert space $`_\mathrm{A}`$, which has an arbitrary size, in one of four states $`\widehat{\rho }(a,g)`$ with probability $`p_{a,g}`$; $`a=0,1`$ labels Alice’s basis choice and $`g=0,1`$ is the value of her key bit. The choice of $`a`$ is assumed to be completely random: $`p_{a,0}+p_{a,1}=1/2`$. We assume that the states satisfy

$$p_{0,0}\widehat{\rho }(0,0)+p_{0,1}\widehat{\rho }(0,1)=p_{1,0}\widehat{\rho }(1,0)+p_{1,1}\widehat{\rho }(1,1),$$
(1)
which is vital in the security proof. A convenient way to prepare such an ensemble is to introduce an auxiliary system A with Hilbert space $`_\mathrm{A}^{}`$. Alice first prepares $`_\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{A}^{}`$ in an entangled state $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{AA}^{}}`$, and then performs a measurement $`M_a`$ on system A alone. The measurement $`M_a`$ gives a binary outcome, determining $`g`$. Eq. (1) is then satisfied because the choice of the measurement, $`M_0`$ or $`M_1`$, does not affect the marginal state of $`_\mathrm{A}`$. Hence, if the source is realized in this way, there is no need to carry out tests to characterize its performance.

As noted in , if $`\mathrm{A}^{}`$ is a qubit, $`M_0`$ is a measurement of $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$, and $`M_1`$ is a measurement of $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$, then security can be established by the method of Shor and Preskill. But our security proof invokes only the condition (1); no further properties of $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{AA}^{}}`$, $`M_0`$, or $`M_1`$ need be specified.

At the end of the transmission channel $`_\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{B}`$, Bob switches between two measurements on $`_\mathrm{B}`$. We assume that the two measurements are modeled by a common quantum channel $`_\mathrm{B}_2`$, where $`dim_2=2`$, followed by the measurement of the Pauli operator $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ or $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$. In the security proof, we include the common quantum channel in the transmission channel between Alice and Bob, so that Bob receives a qubit at the end of the channel.

The protocol that we shall prove to be secure is the following: Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }\{1,\mathrm{},4N(1+ϵ)\}`$. The variable denoted by $`\overline{a}`$ takes the value opposite to $`a`$.

Protocol 1 (BB84) — (1) Alice creates random bit sequences $`\{a_i\}`$ and $`\{g_i\}`$ for $`i\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Alice randomly chooses a subset $`R\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with size $`|R|=2N(1+ϵ)`$. (2) Bob creates a random bit sequence $`\{b_i\}`$. (3) When $`iR`$, Alice sends $`\widehat{\rho }(a_i,g_i)`$. When $`i\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Omega }R)`$, Alice sends $`\widehat{\rho }(\overline{a}_i,g_i)`$. (4) Bob measures $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ when $`b_i=0`$, and measures $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$ when $`b_i=1`$. For either case, he sets bit $`h_i`$ according to the outcome ($`h_i=0`$ for outcome $`1`$ and $`h_i=1`$ for outcome $`1`$). (5) Bob announces $`\{b_i\}`$. Alice announces $`\{a_i\}`$ and $`R`$. If the size of $`T\{iR|a_i=b_i\}`$ is less than $`N`$, the protocol aborts. Bob decides randomly on a subset $`S\{i\overline{R}|\overline{a}_i=b_i\}`$ with $`|S|=N`$ and announces (if he cannot do this, the protocol aborts). (6) Alice and Bob compare $`g_i`$ and $`h_i`$ for $`iT`$ and determine the error rate $`\delta `$. If $`\delta `$ is too large, the protocol aborts. (7) Bob randomizes the positions of the $`N`$ qubits in $`S`$ by a permutation $`\pi `$ and announces $`\pi `$. Bob announces a linear code $`C`$ with $`|C|=2^r`$ that corrects $`N(\delta +ϵ)`$ errors occurring in random positions with probability exponentially close to unity. (8) The sifted key $`\kappa _{\mathrm{sif}}`$ of length $`N`$ is defined as the sequence $`\{h_i\}_{iS}`$. The final key is the coset $`\kappa _{\mathrm{sif}}+C^{}`$. (9) Alice obtains $`\kappa _{\mathrm{sif}}`$ by applying an error correction scheme to $`\{g_i\}_{iS}`$ via encrypted communication with Bob, consuming $`\tau `$ bits of the previously shared secret key. Then Alice obtains the final key.

Protocol 1 is the standard BB84 protocol, except for the use of $`\overline{a}_i`$ in place of $`a_i`$ in steps (3) and (5), which we have adopted for later convenience in the proof. The random permutation $`\pi `$ in step (7) is redundant, since it suffices to choose the code $`C`$ randomly instead of doing the permutation. In the limit of large $`N`$, the achievable $`r/N`$ reaches $`1h(\delta )`$ (where $`h(\delta )=\delta \mathrm{log}_2\delta (1\delta )\mathrm{log}_2(1\delta )`$ is the binary entropy function), and $`\tau /N`$ in step (9) approaches $`h(\delta )`$, resulting in the rate of key generation $`12h(\delta )`$.

Our proof uses some basic properties of (classical) error-correcting codes. The linear code $`C`$ appearing in step (7) is an $`r`$-dimensional subspace of the binary vector space $`𝐅_2^N`$. The code $`C^{}`$ appearing in step (8) is the orthogonal complement of $`C`$, called the dual of $`C`$. We can specify a linear coding function $`G:𝐅_2^r𝐅_2^N`$, which assigns a distinct codeword of $`C`$ to each binary sequence of length $`r`$. We have assumed in the protocol that $`C`$ corrects $`N(\delta +ϵ)`$ errors occurring in random positions with probability exponentially close to unity. More specifically, there exists a set of correctable errors $`𝐅_2^N`$ and a decoding function $`f:𝐅_2^N𝐅_2^r`$, satisfying

$$f(G(y)+x)=y$$
(2)
for any $`y𝐅_2^r`$ and any $`x`$. A random error with weight at most $`N(\delta +ϵ)`$ belongs to $``$ with probability exponentially close to unity. The function $`f`$ is not necessarily linear and may be hard to compute, but we will need only its existence for the proof of security — Bob does not compute $`f`$ in the actual protocol.

What Bob actually calculates is the coset $`\kappa _{\mathrm{sif}}+C^{}`$ in step (8). One way to do this is to use the function $`G^T:𝐅_2^N𝐅_2^r`$, which is the adjoint (matrix transpose) of $`G`$ satisfying $`G^T(x)y=xG(y)(\mathrm{mod}2)`$ for any $`x𝐅_2^N`$ and $`y𝐅_2^r`$. Since the kernel of $`G^T(x)`$ is $`C^{}`$, the final key is the $`r`$-bit sequence $`G^T(\kappa _{\mathrm{sif}})`$. The duality between $`G`$ and $`G^T`$ will play an important role in the security proof below.

In order to prove that protocol 1 is secure, we need to show that Eve’s maximum knowledge $`I_1`$ about the final key is negligible. Note that Bob’s final key is determined at step (8); step (9), which assures that Alice’s key agrees with Bob’s and leaks no information to Eve, is not relevant to $`I_1`$. Let us compare Protocol 1 with a modified one:

Protocol 2 — (3) When $`iR`$, Alice sends $`\widehat{\rho }(a_i,g_i)`$. When $`i\overline{R}`$, Alice also sends $`\widehat{\rho }(a_i,g_i)`$. The other steps are the same as Protocol 1.

This modification follows Mayers’s argument  except for the exchanged roles of the sender and the receiver. The only difference between protocols 1 and 2 is a flip in Alice’s basis for $`i\overline{R}`$. But the bits $`\{g_i\}`$ for $`i\overline{R}`$ are kept secret by Alice. Hence, for Eve and Bob only the state averaged over $`\{g_i\}`$ is relevant, and this state is identical for the two protocols by the condition Eq. (1). Therefore, Eve’s maximum knowledge $`I_2`$ about Bob’s final key in Protocol 2 is the same as $`I_1`$.

Next, let us further modify Protocol 2 in favor of Eve, by allowing Eve to control Alice’s source. Now Eve knows $`\{a_i\}`$ and $`\{g_i\}`$ and is free to prepare the states measured by Bob however she pleases. Since the states $`\widehat{\rho }(a_i,g_i)`$ have been removed from the protocol and Bob’s measurements are symmetric in $`b_i`$, the protocol is completely symmetric in $`\{a_i\}`$ and $`\{g_i\}`$. Therefore we may assume $`a_i=g_i=0`$ without loss of generality. The resulting protocol is as follows:

Protocol 3 — (1) Alice randomly chooses a subset $`R\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with size $`|R|=2N(1+ϵ)`$. (2) Bob creates a random bit sequence $`\{b_i\}`$. (3) Eve prepares Bob’s qubits and her ancilla system in a state. (4) Bob measures $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ when $`b_i=0`$, and measures $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$ when $`b_i=1`$. For either case, he sets the bit $`h_i`$ according to the outcome. (5) Bob announces $`\{b_i\}`$. Alice announces $`R`$. If the size of $`T\{iR|b_i=0\}`$ is less than $`N`$, the protocol aborts. Bob decides randomly on a subset $`S\{i\overline{R}|b_i=1\}`$ with $`|S|=N`$ and announces (if he cannot do this, the protocol aborts). (6) Bob counts the number $`n`$ of bits with $`h_i=1`$ for $`iT`$ and determines the error rate $`\delta =n/|T|`$. If $`\delta `$ is too large, the protocol aborts. (7) Bob randomizes the positions of the $`N`$ qubits in $`S`$ by a permutation $`\pi `$ and announces $`\pi `$. Bob announces a linear code $`C`$. (8) The sifted key $`\kappa _{\mathrm{sif}}`$ of length $`N`$ is defined as $`\{h_i\}_{iS}`$. The final key is the coset $`\kappa _{\mathrm{sif}}+C^{}`$.

Since the modifications in the protocol favor Eve, Eve’s maximum knowledge $`I_3`$ about the final key in Protocol 3 is no less than $`I_2`$: thus $`I_1=I_2I_3`$. To complete the proof, we will show that $`I_3`$ is small — Eve cannot predict Bob’s key accurately because Bob is measuring in the “wrong” basis.

Let us denote the Hilbert space of Eve’s system as $`_\mathrm{E}`$ and that of the $`N`$ qubits belonging to $`S`$ as $`_S`$. We may imagine that Bob’s measurement on set $`S`$ is delayed until step (8), and denote by $`\widehat{\rho }`$ the state over $`_S_\mathrm{E}`$ after the verification test on the set $`T`$ is done, but before the qubits in $`S`$ are measured. The test on $`T`$ finds that the rate of error ($`\widehat{\sigma }_z=1`$) over $`N`$ (or more) randomly chosen qubits is $`\delta `$. If the qubits in the set $`S`$ were also measured in the $`\sigma _z`$-basis, then the joint probability of finding an error rate less than $`\delta `$ in $`T`$ and finding more than $`N(\delta +ϵ)`$ errors in $`S`$ would be asymptotically less than $`\mathrm{exp}[ϵ^2N/4(\delta \delta ^2)]`$ for any strategy by Eve. Ignoring any inefficient strategy that has only an exponentially small probability of giving an error rate less than $`\delta `$ in $`T`$, we conclude that for the state $`\widehat{\rho }`$, the probability of finding more than $`N(\delta +ϵ)`$ errors in $`S`$ is exponentially small.

Let $`\{|v_Z,v𝐅_2^N\}`$ denote the “$`Z`$-basis” of $`_S`$, where the value of the $`j`$-th bit of $`v`$ corresponds to the eigenvalue of $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ on the $`j`$-th qubit, and let $`\{|v_X=\widehat{H}^N|v_Z\}`$ denote the “$`X`$-basis,” where $`\widehat{H}^N`$ is the Hadamard transformation acting on the $`N`$ qubits. The announcement of $`\pi `$ in step (7) can be described as the transmission from Bob to Eve of a particle J in one of $`N!`$ orthogonal states $`\{|\pi _\mathrm{J}\}`$. The symmetrized state held by Bob and Eve after transmission of the particle is

$$\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s}=(N!)^1\underset{\pi }{}|\pi _\mathrm{J}\pi |(\widehat{U}_\pi \widehat{1}_\mathrm{E})\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{U}_\pi ^{}\widehat{1}_\mathrm{E}).$$
(3)
Let $`\widehat{P}_{}`$ be the projection of $`_S`$ onto the subspace spanned by the states $`|e_Z`$ such that $`e`$. The successful verification test ensures that the probability of finding an error pattern that is not in $``$ is exponentially small: $`\mathrm{Tr}[(\widehat{P}_{}\widehat{1}_\mathrm{E})\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s}]1\eta ,`$ where $`\eta `$ is an exponentially small number. (We are now regarding the particle J as part of Eve’s system E.) If we define $`\widehat{\rho }^{}`$ as

$$\widehat{\rho }^{}\frac{(\widehat{P}_{}\widehat{1}_\mathrm{E})\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s}(\widehat{P}_{}\widehat{1}_\mathrm{E})}{\mathrm{Tr}[(\widehat{P}_{}\widehat{1}_\mathrm{E})\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s}]},$$
(4)
its fidelity  to $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s}`$, $`F(\widehat{\rho }^{},\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s})[\mathrm{Tr}(\sqrt{\widehat{\rho }^{}}\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s}\sqrt{\widehat{\rho }^{}})^{1/2}]^2`$, is given by

$$F(\widehat{\rho }^{},\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s})=\mathrm{Tr}[(\widehat{P}_{}\widehat{1}_\mathrm{E})\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s}]1\eta .$$
(5)
In what follows, we will show that if the state $`\widehat{\rho }^{}`$ instead of $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s}`$ were used, Eve would have no information about the final key ($`I_3=0`$). Then we will infer that any actual strategy by Eve (that passes the verification test with a probability that is not exponentially small) gives her exponentially small information.

In Protocol 3, Bob measures in the $`Z`$-basis for the verification test, and in the $`X`$-basis to generate the key — we need to show that if the error rate is low in the $`Z`$-basis, then the key is random and private. Our proof invokes a quantum circuit that outputs the same $`r`$-bit final key as Bob finds in Protocol 3, and that also expunges Eve’s entanglement with the key bits. Though Bob might not have actually executed this circuit, it would be all the same to Eve if he had, which is sufficient to ensure privacy.

The circuit, shown in Fig. 1, uses an auxiliary system Q of $`r`$ qubits initially prepared in the state $`|0_X`$, and is a composition $`\widehat{U}\widehat{U}_2\widehat{U}_1`$ of two unitary operators $`\widehat{U}_1`$ and $`\widehat{U}_2`$. The operator $`\widehat{U}_1`$, which calculates the final key, acts in the $`X`$-basis as

$$\widehat{U}_1:|x_X|y_X|x_X|y+G^T(x)_X.$$
(6)
Using the duality between $`G`$ and $`G^T`$, we easily see that $`U_1`$ acts in the $`Z`$-basis as

$$\widehat{U}_1:|x_Z|y_Z|x+G(y)_Z|y_Z.$$
(7)
The operator $`\widehat{U}_2`$ is defined in the $`Z`$-basis as

$$\widehat{U}_2:|x_Z|y_Z|x_Z|y+f(x)_Z,$$
(8)
and in the $`X`$-basis acts as

$$\widehat{U}_2:|x_X|y_X|\mathrm{\Psi }_{x,y}_X|y_X.$$
(9)
Here $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{x,y}`$ is a rather complicated state of $`_S`$, but its exact form is not relevant here.

If the initial state of the ancilla Q is $`|0_X`$, then from Eqs. (6) and (9) we have

$$\widehat{U}(|\kappa _{\mathrm{sif}}_X|0_X)=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{x,\kappa _{\mathrm{fin}}}_X|G^T(\kappa _{\mathrm{sif}})_X;$$
(10)
the final key $`\kappa _{\mathrm{fin}}=G^T(\kappa _{\mathrm{sif}})`$ is obtained by measuring the system Q in the $`X`$-basis after execution of the circuit. On the other hand, Eqs. (7) and (8) with $`|0_X_y|y_Z`$ lead to

$`\widehat{U}(|x_Z|0_X)`$ (11)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{y}{}}|x+G(y)_Z|y+f(x+G(y))_Z;`$ (12)
if the initial state $`|x_Z`$ satisfies $`x`$, the final state of Q is $`|0_Z`$, due to Eq. (2). Then, Eq. (4) ensures that if the initial state of $`_S_E`$ is $`\widehat{\rho }^{}`$, the final marginal state of Q is still $`|0_Z`$. Therefore, the final state $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{Q}`$ of Q obtained when we start from the actual state $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s}`$ is exponentially close to $`|0_Z`$:

$${}_{Z}{}^{}0|\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{Q}|0_{Z}^{}F(\widehat{\rho }^{},\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{s})1\eta .$$
(13)
Eq. (13) establishes that the final key can be obtained from a complete $`X`$-basis measurement on the state $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{Q}`$, whose fidelity to the $`Z`$-basis eigenstate $`|0_Z`$ is exponentially close to unity. From this, we conclude the following: (a) The mutual information $`I_3`$ between the final key and Eve, who may conduct any measurement on her system, is upper-bounded by the von Neumann entropy $`S(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{Q})`$ . Since $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{Q}`$ has an eigenvalue greater than or equal to $`1\eta `$, we have $`I_1I_3S(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{Q})h(\eta )+\eta \mathrm{log}_2(2^r1)<h(\eta )+r\eta `$. (b) The probability distribution $`p_y`$ over the $`2^r`$ final keys is very close to uniform. In fact, the fidelity to the uniform distribution cannot be lower than the fidelity in Eq. (13). Thus we have $`2^r(_y\sqrt{p_y})^21\eta `$. Using the inequality $`2\mathrm{log}_2xr(1x)^2+(1x^2)/(\mathrm{log}_e2)`$ which holds for $`x2^{r/2}`$ when $`r`$ is large, the Shannon entropy of $`\{p_y\}`$ is bounded as $`H(\{p_y\})=r+2_yp_y\mathrm{log}_2(2^rp_y)^{1/2}r(2\sqrt{1\eta }1)r(12\eta )`$.

The two imperfections of the final key derived in (a) and (b) can be combined into a single parameter by the following argument. Let us assume that Bob randomly chooses and announces a bit sequence $`w𝐅_2^r`$, and produces a new key $`w+y`$ which is truly uniformly distributed. If Eve’s information about $`y`$ is $`I_1`$, then her information about $`w+y`$ is

$$I=rH(\{p_y\})+I_1<3r\eta +h(\eta ),$$
(14)
which is also exponentially small, concluding the proof.

Finally, suppose that Bob uses a detector with imperfect efficiency, which has a “null” outcome (signifying a detection failure) in addition to the valid binary outcome. Our proof remains valid, provided that the efficiency (probability of obtaining a valid outcome) is the same for the two bases, and the size of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is increased appropriately.

Our proof of security applies to an uncharacterized source with basis-independent averaged states. By interchanging the roles of sender and receiver, the same proof can be applied to the case of an uncharacterized detector, considered by Mayers . Indeed, in that case our proof allows a more general source (one triggered by a perfect measurement on half of an entangled state, as opposed to a perfect source) and a higher rate of key generation ($`12h(\delta )`$ rather than $`1h(\delta )h(2\delta )`$) than established by Mayers. In either case, by exploiting the duality between the operation that encodes a message using $`C`$ and the operation that computes a $`C^{}`$ coset, our proof illuminates the connection between a low error rate and successful privacy amplification.

It is also interesting to consider characterized imperfect sources and detectors that have limited basis-dependent flaws. One important case of a characterized defective source, recently analyzed in , is a source that occasionally emits two identical copies of a qubit, one of which can be intercepted by Eve. In this case, our proof does not apply because Eq. (1) is not satisfied. Security criteria for characterized sources and detectors are further discussed in .

We thank David DiVincenzo, Peter Shor, Andy Yao, and especially Daniel Gottesman and Hoi-Kwong Lo for helpful discussions. This work has been supported in part by the Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-92-ER40701, by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. EIA-0086038, and by the Caltech MURI Center for Quantum Networks under ARO Grant No. DAAD19-00-1-0374.


text:
# Black hole mass and spin coevolution by mergers

## 1 Introduction

Black holes span a wide spectrum of masses: the case for stellar mass holes ($`M10M_{}`$) in the field \[e.g., Bailyn et al. (1998)\] and supermassive holes ($`M10^610^9M_{}`$) in galactic bulges \[e.g., Ferrarese (2002); Kormendy & Gebhardt (2001)\] is extremely strong; tantalizing evidence suggests middleweight holes ($`M10^210^4M_{}`$) as well (Colbert & Mushotzky, 1999; Colbert & Ptak, 2002; Gebhardt et al., 2000; van der Marel, 2001). Stellar mass holes likely form in stellar collapse; the origins of more massive holes remains mysterious. Such holes could form in the collapse of massive gas accumulations; they could grow from smaller holes by accretion; they could grow by capturing stellar mass bodies; and they could grow by repeatedly merging with holes of comparable mass. Any or indeed all of these mechanisms could contribute to the growth of a given hole.

A black hole’s spin may help identify which scenario most strongly impacted its recent history. Since spin likely drives outflows and jets in active galaxies, and since jets are presumed to align with black hole spin (Rees, 1978), spin may provide an observational probe of a hole’s recent growth (Merritt, 2002). We examine how spin and mass coevolve in mergers. Binaries will form following galaxy mergers (Begelman, Blandford, & Rees, 1980), and may harden to the point that gravitational-wave (GW) emission drives its members together. Eventually, they encounter the last stable orbit (LSO), and then plunge and coalesce into a single hole. Our goal is to understand the mass and spin of this remnant hole.

For nearly equal mass holes, this is extremely difficult: we must model the spacetime dynamics of the transition from a binary to a single black hole, accounting for both holes’ spins and the radiated energy and angular momentum. A proper analysis requires mature numerical relativity codes \[see, e.g., Lehner (2001)\]. The problem is simpler for small mass ratio, $`qm_2/m_1m/M1`$. This binary is well described as a test particle orbiting a black hole. GW emission shrinks the small hole’s orbit to the LSO, whereupon it plunges into the large hole. Neglecting the final emission of radiation after the plunge, the hole evolves simply: its mass adds the small body’s energy at the LSO, its spin adds the LSO angular momentum.

Because we only need global “conserved” quantities, this description works surprisingly well even for rather large mass ratio. Post-Newtonian analyses (Blanchet, 2002; Buonanno & Damour, 1999; Damour, 2001) show that finite mass ratio typically changes the LSO and its orbital constants by a factor of order $`\eta mM/(m+M)^2=q/(1+q)^20.25`$. The error due to the test particle description is $`0.3`$ for $`q0.5`$. We also may safely neglect the energy and angular momentum radiated in the final merger: although its GW luminosity may be large, its duration will be very short. The mass carried off in this phase, for example, is $`\mathrm{\Delta }M(0.010.1)Mq^2`$ (Davis, Ruffini, Press, & Price, 1971; Sasaki & Nakamura, 1982). Neglecting this radiation incurs an error that is less important than other errors built into our approximations, and rapidly becomes negligible for small mass ratio. Likewise, the small hole’s spin can be neglected: since a hole’s spin scales with its mass squared, spin will be less important than the orbital angular momentum, provided we exclude $`q0.5`$.

We set the speed of light $`c`$ and Newton’s constant $`G`$ to 1; a useful conversion factor is $`1M_{}=1.5\text{km}`$. Our binary has masses $`M`$ and $`m`$; the larger hole has mass $`M`$ and spin $`|𝐒|=aM=aMc/G`$; $`0aM`$. Vectors are written in boldface; hatted quantities have been made dimensionless by dividing out powers of mass — e.g., $`\widehat{a}=a/M`$.

## 2 Orbital constants and black hole evolution

On reaching the LSO, the smaller hole plunges into the large hole, carrying along its orbital constants — energy $`E`$, angular momentum parallel to the spin $`L_z`$, and “Carter constant” $`Q`$. The Carter constant separates the equations of motion in a Hamilton-Jacobi description of black hole orbits \[e.g., Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973) (MTW)\]. It is essentially just the “rest” of the orbit’s angular momentum: to very high accuracy (Glampedakis, Hughes, & Kennefick, 2002), one can describe the binary as having an angular momentum $`L^2=Q+L_z^2`$. We treat $`Q`$ as $`L_{}^2`$, angular momentum projected into the equatorial plane (perpendicular to the spin). This treatment resonates with the theory of orbits in axisymmetric potentials: $`Q`$ is a relativistic analog of the “3rd integral” $`I_3`$ \[cf. Binney & Tremaine (1987)\]. Treating $`Q`$ as $`L_{}^2`$ is exact for orbits of non-spinning holes; for maximal spin, the error is less than a few percent (Glampedakis, Hughes, & Kennefick, 2002). $`E`$ includes the rest mass of the orbiting body: bound orbits have $`E/m<1`$, unbound orbits $`E/m>1`$.

The LSO is a one-parameter set of orbits: each orbit has radius $`r`$ and constants $`(E,L_z,Q)`$ determined by the inclination angle $`\iota `$, defined as

$$\mathrm{cos}\iota =L_z/\sqrt{L_z^2+Q}\mu .$$
(1)
This angle is very useful: detailed studies (Hughes, 2001) show it remains practically constant during inspiral, so a distribution $`f(\mu )`$ describing an ensemble of binaries at formation likewise describes that ensemble at plunge. To find the constants for circular orbits at plunge, solve

$$R=0,R^{}=0,R^{\prime \prime }=0;$$
(2)
prime denotes $`/r`$, and the “potential” $`R`$ is given by

$$R=\left[E(r^2+a^2)aL_z\right]^2\mathrm{\Delta }(r)\left[r^2+(L_zaE)^2+Q\right],$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(r)=r^22Mr+a^2`$. This potential describes the orbit’s radial motion; see MTW, Chap. 33. The LSO is bounded by prograde ($`\mu =1`$) and retrograde ($`\mu =1`$) equatorial orbits, with constants (Bardeen, Press, & Teukolsky, 1972)

$`\widehat{r}_{\mathrm{LSO}}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{\mathrm{LSO}}/M`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`3+Z_2\sqrt{(3Z_1)(3+Z_1+2Z_2)},`$
$`\widehat{E}_{\mathrm{LSO}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{LSO}}/m={\displaystyle \frac{12v^2\pm \widehat{a}v^3}{\sqrt{13v^2\pm 2\widehat{a}v^3}}},`$ (5)
$`\widehat{L}_{\mathrm{LSO}}`$ $`=`$ $`L_{\mathrm{LSO}}/mM=\pm \widehat{r}v{\displaystyle \frac{12\widehat{a}v^3+\widehat{a}^2v^4}{\sqrt{13v^2\pm 2\widehat{a}v^3}}}.`$ (6)
where $`v\sqrt{1/\widehat{r}}`$, and

$`Z_1`$ $`=`$ $`1+\left(1\widehat{a}^2\right)^{1/3}\left[(1+\widehat{a})^{1/3}+(1\widehat{a})^{1/3}\right],`$ (7)
$`Z_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[3\widehat{a}^2+Z_1^2\right]^{1/2}.`$ (8)
The upper sign is for prograde orbits, the lower for retrograde. We now drop the “LSO” subscript, since we always refer to these quantities at the LSO.

Using the bounding cases as initial guesses, it is straightforward to solve Eq. (2) using Newton’s method (Press et al., 1992) for the constants. The results are surprisingly well fit by a simple rule: letting $`\xi `$ stand for $`r`$, $`E`$, or $`L`$,

$$\xi (\mu )|\xi _{\mathrm{ret}}|+\frac{1}{2}(\mu +1)(\xi _{\mathrm{pro}}|\xi _{\mathrm{ret}}|).$$
(9)
Using Eq. (9) for $`L`$, one builds $`L_z(\mu )L(\mu )\mu `$, $`L_{}(\mu )L(\mu )\sqrt{1\mu ^2}`$. These fits are extremely good for small spin, and induce errors of about $`510\%`$ for $`\widehat{a}1`$.

We should also consider eccentricity $`e`$. Major mergers are well described by a circular LSO (eccentricity rapidly bleeds away in the formation of a tight binary and by the inspiral), but minor mergers will have significant eccentricity. We find that a black hole growth history barely changes when eccentricity is taken into account: almost identical growth histories are obtained with $`e=0`$ and with $`e=1`$. We will confine our discussion to circular orbits.

It is now simple to compute a remnant’s properties. Before merger, the large hole has mass $`M`$ and spin $`S=\widehat{a}M^2`$ along the $`z`$ axis. After merger, the remnant has mass and spin

$`M^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M[1+q\widehat{E}(\widehat{a},\mu )],`$ (10)
$`S_z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M^2[\widehat{a}+q\widehat{L}_z(\widehat{a},\mu )],`$ (11)
$`S_{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`qM^2\widehat{L}_{}(\widehat{a},\mu ).`$ (12)
The remnant hole is inclined at an angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ relative to the original hole, and has spin $`\widehat{a}^{}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arccos}\left(S_z^{}/\sqrt{S_z^2+S_{}^2}\right),`$ (13)
$`\widehat{a}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{S_z^2+S_{}^2}/M^2.`$ (14)
## 3 Results

### 3.1 Single major merger

We now examine the remnant’s properties following a single merger, choosing $`q`$ and computing $`(E,L_z,Q)`$ as functions of the larger hole’s spin $`\widehat{a}`$ and the inclination cosine $`\mu `$. We do not yet use the approximation (9), but instead solve Eq. (2) numerically. We then use Eqs. (10) – (14) to describe the remnant.

Two examples, $`q=0.1`$ and $`q=0.5`$, are shown in Fig. 1. We show $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ as a function of $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\mu `$. Consider the $`q=0.1`$ results first. For a broad range of $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\mu `$, the remnant spins relatively slowly. In many cases, $`\widehat{a}^{}<\widehat{a}`$: over much of the parameter space, this hole is spun down by the merger. Rapid rotation follows only if the larger hole was already spinning rapidly and plunge occurred at shallow inclination ($`\mu 1`$). Nearly nonspinning remnants form near $`\mu 1`$, $`\widehat{a}0.4`$: the retrograde orbit cancels the hole’s spin. This requires

$$qq_{\mathrm{crit}}=\widehat{a}/\widehat{L}_{\mathrm{ret}}(\widehat{a})0.23.$$
(15)
When $`q<q_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, the spin orientation changes very little by the merger. By contrast, when $`q>q_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, the spin is overwhelmed by the plunging body, and the orientation aligns with the plunge angle. Whereas about half of the parameter space for $`q=0.1`$ leads to remnants with spin $`\widehat{a}0.4`$, the half-area contour when $`q=0.5`$ is at spin $`\widehat{a}0.8`$.

The slow spin of most remnants spin is simply understood. Angular momentum at the LSO depends strongly on inclination — cf. the fit (9). The magnitude $`|𝐋|`$ is small for prograde orbits and large for retrograde orbits. Thus $`|𝐋|`$ is smallest when it tends to augment the spin ($`𝐒`$ and $`𝐋`$ nearly parallel) and is largest when it tends to cancel ($`𝐒`$ and $`𝐋`$ nearly antiparallel). On average, the hole tends to spin down. This tendency breaks at large $`q`$, when $`𝐋`$ overwhelms $`𝐒`$. The spin of the remnant is then dominated by the orbit at plunge.

### 3.2 Repeated minor mergers

After a hole grows above a certain mass, its subsequent spin evolution may be stochastic. This limit may be described by a Fokker-Planck equation, combining the secular and diffusive changes in the hole’s characteristics. We treat $`\mathrm{ln}M`$ and $`\widehat{𝐚}`$ as independent variables, so that the distribution function (per unit volume $`\widehat{𝐚}`$ space) $`f(\widehat{𝐚},\mathrm{ln}M)`$ evolves via

$$\frac{f}{\mathrm{ln}M}=\frac{}{\widehat{a}_i}\left(R_if\right)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{\widehat{a}_i\widehat{a}_j}\left(D_{ij}f\right),$$
(16)
where $`\widehat{a}_i`$ is the $`i`$-th component of $`\widehat{𝐚}`$,

$$R_i=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{a}_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}M},D_{ij}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{a}_i\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{a}_j}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}M},$$
(17)
and angle brackets mean to average over its distribution \[see, e.g., Pathria (1972), Lifshitz & Pitaevski (1980)\]. We restrict our attention to a population of black holes that are born with a specific mass and spin. This solution can be used to integrate over a broad initial population. We also will limit our quantitative analysis to an isotropic distribution of (small) merging holes; generalization to an anisotropic distribution is straightforward though lengthy.

We rewrite Eq. (16) in spherical coordinates attached to the initial spin direction, $`(\widehat{a},\theta ,\varphi )`$. For the isotropic case, symmetry dictates that the only non-zero coefficients are

$`R`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{a}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}M}},`$ (18)
$`D_{||}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{a})^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}M}},D_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}M}}.`$ (19)
Equation (16) then becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{\mathrm{ln}M}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{a}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\widehat{a}}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\widehat{a}}}\widehat{a}^2D_{||}\widehat{a}D_{}\widehat{a}^2R\right)f\right]`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_{}}{\widehat{a}^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}\mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{f}{\theta }}.`$
Evaluating the coefficients requires that we expand Eqs. (10) – (14) to leading order in $`q`$. For each merger, the changes in $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\theta `$ satisfy

$`\delta \widehat{a}`$ $`=`$ $`q\left[\widehat{L}_z(\widehat{a},\mu )2\widehat{a}\right]+O(q^2),`$ (21)
$`\delta \theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\widehat{a}}}\widehat{L}(\widehat{a},\mu )\sqrt{1\mu ^2}+O(q^2).`$ (22)
Combining this with $`\delta \mathrm{ln}M=q\widehat{E}(\widehat{a},\mu )`$ yields

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\widehat{L}_z(\widehat{a},\mu )2\widehat{a}]}{\widehat{E}(\widehat{a},\mu )}}2.4\widehat{a};`$ (23)
$`D_{||}`$ $`=`$ $`q{\displaystyle \frac{[\widehat{L}_z(\widehat{a},\mu )2\widehat{a}]^2}{\widehat{E}(\widehat{a},\mu )}}q(4+4.9\widehat{a}^2);`$ (24)
$`D_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\widehat{L}(\widehat{a},\mu )\sqrt{1\mu ^2}]^2}{\widehat{E}(\widehat{a},\mu )}}q(40.9\widehat{a}^2).`$ (25)
$`q`$ is the typical minor merger mass ratio. In the approximations, we put $`\widehat{E}=1`$ and expand in powers of $`\widehat{a}`$; this is permissible for $`\widehat{a}0.9`$. The Fokker-Planck approach works well for $`q0.3`$, and is easily supplemented by direct sums (as in Sec. 3.1) for major mergers.

The Fokker-Planck coefficients can be used to understand semi-quantitatively the evolution of holes that grow through minor mergers. The change in $`\widehat{𝐚}`$ is dominated by the resistive term for $`R>(D_{||}+D_{})/\widehat{a}`$, which is the case for $`\widehat{a}2q^{1/2}`$. In this case, the fluctuations about the average evolution are small. This average, secular evolution can be found by using the definition of $`R`$ and integrating Eq. (23) to find

$$\widehat{a}(t)=\widehat{a}(0)\left[M(0)/M(t)\right]^{2.4}.$$
(26)
If the power were $`2`$ rather than $`2.4`$, this equation would tell us that the hole’s original spin is preserved while the mass grows. The spin dies away somewhat faster because the magnitude of the change for retrograde captures is larger than that of prograde captures.

The orientation evolves diffusively. After growing by $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, the typical misalignment is

$$\delta \theta \sqrt{2D_{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}M/\widehat{a}^2}2.7\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{M}\frac{q}{\widehat{a}^2}}.$$
(27)
Significant realignment in a single merger occurs only if $`q/\widehat{a}0.3`$, in accord with Eq. (15).

### 3.3 Rapidly spinning holes

We have argued that a hole is unlikely to acquire rapid spin through mergers. Turn to the converse problem: if we believe that a black hole is spinning with $`\widehat{a}1`$, how many minor mergers can it have experienced? To be specific, suppose that the hole is born through gravitational collapse or is spun up by accretion to $`\widehat{a}1`$. If we assume that the hole spun down to its current value by capture from an isotropic distribution of minor mergers, then as $`d\widehat{a}/d\mathrm{ln}M3`$ for $`\widehat{a}1`$, the mass acquired must satisfy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M(1\widehat{a})M/3.$$
(28)
Rapidly spinning holes are extremely unlikely to have suffered a recent merger; their spin must either be original or due to accretion.

## 4 Discussion

We find that the remnant of a major merger is rarely rapidly rotating: rapid rotation follows only if the larger binary member spun rapidly before merger and the plunge was nearly prograde; or, if the binary’s mass ratio $`q1`$. Given the variety of black hole masses seen in galaxies, mergers with $`q1`$ should be rare; given the small volume of parameter space leading to rapid rotation, serendipitous configurations leading to a rapid rotation should also be rare. Mounting evidence, mostly from spiral galaxies, suggests that in many cases massive black holes nonetheless rapidly rotate \[e.g., Wilms et al. (2001); Elvis, Risaliti, & Zamorani (2002)\]. Our results strongly suggest that this spin cannot come from mergers \[e.g. Wilson & Colbert (1995); Kauffmann & Haehnelt (2000)\] but, instead, is consistent with the view that black hole mass (and spin) is assembled radiatively \[e.g. Small & Blandford (1995); Yu & Tremaine (2002)\].

The spin evolution of a hole that grows by repeated minor mergers is neatly described by a Fokker-Planck equation \[Eq. (16)\], taking a particularly simple form if the mergers arise from an isotropic cluster. In this case, the evolution has a secular component, which is approximately described by a “doctrine of original spin” \[$`S=\widehat{a}M^2`$ remains roughly constant while $`M`$ grows; cf. Eq. (26)\], and a diffusive component, with a spectrum of fluctuations governed by the coefficient $`D_{||}`$ \[cf. Eq. (24)\]. This is in accord with recent work on models to grow intermediate mass black holes in clusters (Miller, 2002).

Finally, we predict the typical angle $`\delta \theta `$ by which a hole’s orientation changes following merger \[Eq. (22)\]. These results may be of particular observational interest. Jets launched by a black hole’s spin should track its inclination: if the hole is kicked into a new orientation, the jet will “kink”. The angle of the kink should equal the hole’s change in orientation. Applying our predicted dependence for the kink angle on the binary’s parameters may provide some insight into the conditions of the hole’s last merging, untangling a bit of its recent growth history. An abrupt change in inclination \[such as discussed in Merritt & Ekers (2002)\] requires a comparatively rare major merger.

This work grew out of discussions at the KITP conference Black Holes: Theory Confronts Reality, Three Years Later; we thank the participants of that meeting for their stimulating input. We are also extremely grateful to Xinwu Cao for pointing out that the figure used in an earlier version of this manuscript contained important errors. SAH is supported by NSF Grant PHY-9907949; RDB is supported by NASA grants NAGW 5-2837, 5-7007.


text:
# Experimental demonstration of a technique to generate arbitrary quantum superposition states

Present Address: \]Dept. of Physics, Technion, Haifa ISRAEL Present Address: \]NIST Optoelectronics Division

## Abstract

Using a single, harmonically trapped 9Be+ ion, we experimentally demonstrate a technique for generation of arbitrary states of a two-level particle confined by a harmonic potential. Rather than engineering a single Hamiltonian that evolves the system to a desired final sate, we implement a technique that applies a sequence of simple operations to synthesize the state.

The goal of deterministically synthesizing or “engineering” arbitrary states of a quantum system is at the heart of such diverse fields as quantum computation 1  and reaction control in chemistry 2 . For harmonic oscillator states, particular non-linear interactions can be used to generate special states such as squeezed states. However, it is intractable to realize a single interaction required to create an arbitrary state. Law and Eberly 3  have devised a technique for arbitrary harmonic oscillator state generation that couples the oscillator to a two-level atomic or “spin” system and applies a sequence of operations that use simple interactions. We demonstrate this technique on the harmonic motion of a single trapped 9Be+ ion and include the generation of arbitrary spin-oscillator states 4 . Such quantum state control is relevant to the scheme for constructing a quantum computer using trapped atomic ions 7 ; 8 , where we must control the quantized micro-mechanical system composed of the collective ion normal modes that are used as a data bus to transfer information between the ion qubits. These techniques could also be used to create input states for quantum computing schemes that use continuous variables 25  including the code-words that are required for fault tolerant computation 26 .

Arbitrary quantum state synthesis is difficult unless certain conditions are met. As an example, consider a simple quantum system with four energy eigenstates labelled $`|0`$, $`|1`$, $`|2`$, and $`|3`$. If the system is initially prepared in $`|0`$, and if couplings that create superpositions $`\alpha _i|0+\beta _i|i`$ ($`i`$ = 1,2,3) can selectively be turned on, then we can create arbitrary superpositions of the form $`c_0|0+c_1|1+c_2|2+c_3|3`$. Here, the $`c_i`$ are complex and subject to the usual normalization condition $`_i\left|c_i\right|^2=1`$. This method could be realized in an atomic system if the four states were non-degenerate levels with different energy separations and coherent transitions $`|0|i`$ could be driven by applied radiation. These requirements are not often met in practice. For example, it may be impossible to realize all of the desired couplings $`|0|i`$. Also, if the eigenstates are equally spaced like the first four energy levels of a harmonic oscillator, then driving the $`|0|1`$ transition also induces successive transitions $`|1|2`$, $`|2|3`$, etc. leading to fixed relations between the $`c_i`$.

It has long been recognized that certain interactions can cause harmonic oscillators to evolve to particular desired states 9 . For example, if the oscillator is excited from its ground state with the nonlinear force $`F_0z\mathrm{cos}(2\omega t)`$ then a “vacuum-squeezed” state is created. Such states can be used to increase measurement precision in specific applications such as interferometry 10 . However, it is usually intractable to find the desired force or interaction that will create a state with arbitrary coefficients. To circumvent this problem, schemes have been proposed 11 ; 12  that sequentially couple atomic superposition states to the field of a cavity mode and statistically prepare arbitrary field states through projective measurements. An alternative method has been proposed to deterministically map a previously prepared superposition of atomic Zeeman states onto the field of a cavity 13 . A more general deterministic scheme to prepare arbitrary field states has been suggested by Law and Eberly 3 ; 14 . The idea relies on coupling the harmonic oscillator to an auxiliary two-level quantum system through a sequence of simple interactions.

Consider an auxiliary system consisting of two internal states of an atom which we label $`|`$ and $`|`$ in analogy with the two-level system resulting from a spin-$`1/2`$ magnetic moment in a magnetic field. In practice, the harmonic oscillator could correspond to a single mode of the radiation field 3  or the mechanical oscillation of a trapped atom 4 ; 15 . The combined energy levels for this system are depicted in Fig. 1. As an example, we summarize the procedure to create the state $`|_{i=0\mathrm{}3}c_i|i`$ starting from the ground state $`||0`$. It is simplest to first think about solving the inverse problem 3 : creating the state $`||0`$ from the initial state $`|_{i=0\mathrm{}3}c_i|i`$. The procedure begins by applying a resonant pulse of radiation that carries out a “$`\pi `$-pulse” $`||3||2`$ leaving no amplitude in the $`||3`$ state (“clearing it out”) and placing amplitude $`c_3`$ in the $`||2`$ state. Applying this radiation also causes transitions between other states $`||n`$ and $`||n1`$. Because in general the coherent transition rates (Rabi rates) are not the same for different values of $`n`$ 18 , in this first step the amplitudes of the other states change according to $`c_n||nc_n^{}||n+d_{,n1}^{}||n1`$. The Law/Eberly method succeeds because the state $`||0`$ remains unaffected since the state $`||1`$ does not exist.

The second step is to induce the transition $`c_3||2+c_2^{}||2c_2^{\prime \prime }||2`$, thereby clearing out the $`||2`$ state. The duration and phase of the second pulse are chosen according to the known values of $`c_3`$ and $`c_2^{}`$ in order to collapse the superposition state. The first two steps have cleared out the $`||3`$ and $`||2`$ states but, in general, non-zero amplitudes remain in the $`||0`$, $`||1`$, $`||0`$, $`||1`$, and $`||2`$ states. However, by repeating this two-step clearing-out process for successively lower values of $`n`$, the state amplitudes are transferred down the dual ladder of states eventually to the ground state $`||0`$. Finally, to achieve the original goal, we apply these same steps in a time-reversed fashion to carry out the mapping to $`|_{i=0\mathrm{}3}c_i|i`$. In the experiments described below, we demonstrate the Law/Eberly technique by implementing the mapping $`||0|\left(|0+|3\right)`$ and other intermediate mappings of the form $`||0_i\left(c_i|+c_i|\right)|i`$ 4 .

The harmonic oscillator and auxiliary levels in our experiment correspond to the motional and internal states of a single 9Be+ atomic ion trapped in a linear Paul trap 16 . We use the harmonic oscillator motional states along the trap axis ($`z`$ direction) which are equally spaced in energy by $`h\times (2.9`$ MHz), where $`h`$ is Planck’s constant. In this direction, the ion is confined by a static electric harmonic potential. The $`|`$ and $`|`$ (auxiliary) spin states are the $`F=1,m_F=1`$ and $`F=2,m_F=2`$ hyperfine levels of the ion’s $`{}_{}{}^{2}S_{1/2}^{}`$ electronic ground state, which are separated in energy by approximately $`h\times (1250`$ MHz). Applied laser radiation is used for state preparation and manipulation. A pair of laser beams detuned by approximately +80 GHz from the $`{}_{}{}^{2}S_{1/2}^{}`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{}`$ electronic transition ($`\lambda 313`$ nm) drives coherent Raman transitions and couples the $`|`$ and $`|`$ states and motional levels 8 ; 17 . Motion sensitive coupling is produced using non-collinear beams with a wavevector difference along $`z`$. The Raman laser beam frequency difference is tuned to drive $`||n\mathrm{\Delta }n||n`$ or $`||n||n`$ transitions, and the coherent transition rate, or Rabi frequency, depends on both $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ 18 ; 19 . The experimental observable is the atomic spin state which we detect through state-dependent resonance fluorescence measurements at the end of every experiment 8 ; 20 .

To demonstrate the Law/Eberly scheme, we configure the apparatus to generate the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{03}=|\left(|0+|3\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ from $`||0`$ using only transitions $`||n\mathrm{\Delta }n||n`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ alternates between 0 and 1. The ion is initialized in the $`||0`$ state with greater than 99.9% probability using stimulated Raman cooling and optical pumping 21 . The six steps required to carry out the reverse process (produce $`||0`$ from $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{03}`$) are calculated according to the step-wise algorithm and are shown in Fig. 1.

The state created after applying the Law/Eberly scheme is analyzed through measurements of Rabi oscillations on the $`||n||n+\mathrm{\Delta }n`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$=0,$`\pm 1`$ transitions 17 ; 23 . The probability $`P_{}=_i\left|c_i\right|^2`$ to detect the ion in the $`|`$ state is recorded after applying a laser pulse on one of these transitions for duration $`t`$. The observed oscillations (see Fig. 3) of $`P_{}`$ as a function of the laser pulse duration are fit to a sum of cosine functions with Rabi frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n,n+\mathrm{\Delta }n}(=\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+\mathrm{\Delta }n,n})`$ constrained by the measured ratio of Rabi frequencies for the different motional levels fitnote . The amplitude and phase (left as free parameters in the fit) of each frequency component are used to determine the probabilities $`\left|c_i\right|^2`$ and $`\left|c_i\right|^2`$ for $`i=0,1,2,3`$ fitnote2 . We find that the observed ion population corresponds to the target state with 0.89 probability (Table 1), and that the populations in $`||0`$ and $`||3`$ are equal within the 0.03 measurement uncertainty.

The probabilities $`\left|c_i\right|^2`$ and $`\left|c_i\right|^2`$ are also measured after each step in the procedure to generate $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{03}`$ and are compared to the theoretical predictions in Fig. 3. The Hilbert space trajectory from the initial to final state is somewhat complicated, with probability appearing, at least temporarily, in the $`||n=0,1,2,3`$ and $`||n=0,1,2`$ states.

The Rabi oscillation diagnostic determines the populations $`\left|c_i\right|^2`$ and $`\left|c_i\right|^2`$, but gives no information about the phase relation between the states. For example, measuring the populations in this way cannot distinguish between the pure (coherent superposition) state described by the density matrix $`\rho =\left(\right||0+||3)(0||+3|\left|\right)/2`$ and the mixed (incoherent) state described by $`\rho =\left(\right||00||+||33|\left|\right)/2`$. To verify that our implementation of the Law/Eberly scheme establishes coherence we have performed a test experiment starting from $`||0`$ using the target state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_T=0.64||0+0.77||2`$, which would give $`\left|c_0\right|^2=0.41`$ and $`\left|c_2\right|^2=0.59`$. The first five pulses of the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{03}`$ sequence were used to generate $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_T`$. The measured probabilities for the experimentally generated state were $`\left|c_0\right|^2=0.39`$, $`\left|c_2\right|^2=0.55`$, $`\left|c_0\right|^2=0.03`$, and 0.03 distributed among the remaining states.

A coherent analysis pulse was applied on $`||n+2||n`$ transitions after the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_T`$ state generation pulses but before spin state detection. The laser pulse area was adjusted to be a “$`\pi /2`$”-pulse for the $`||2||0`$ transition. For the pure $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_T`$ state, the population would almost fully oscillate between the states $`||0`$ and $`||2`$ as the phase of the analysis pulse was varied relative to the state generation pulses. No sensitivity to this phase would be observed if the state we generated was an incoherent mixture of populations (dashed line in Fig. 4). The measured probability to find the atom in the state $`|`$ as the laser phase is swept is shown in Fig. 4. The amplitude of these oscillations can be related to the fidelity

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_T|\rho |\mathrm{\Psi }_T`$
$`=`$ $`0.41\rho _{00}+0.59\rho _{22}+0.495\left(\rho _{02}+\rho _{20}\right)`$
where $`\rho `$ is the experimentally measured density matrix. We determine that $`F=0.93\pm 0.03`$ using the measured populations and oscillation contrast to determine the relevant elements of the density matrix $`\rho `$ as in ref Sackett00 .

In summary, we have demonstrated experimentally the scheme of Law and Eberly 3  for generation of arbitrary harmonic-oscillator states and its extension 4  to arbitrary harmonic-oscillator/spin states. The method can be generalized to higher dimensions 4 , to the generation of arbitrary density matrices of harmonic oscillators 14 , to the creation of arbitrary motional observables 15  such as the phase 24 , and to the generation of arbitrary Zeeman state superpositions 29 . The precision with which we can implement this technique has a direct relation to the efficiency of quantum-information processing using trapped ions 7 . With sufficient improvements in the fidelity of such operations, one can contemplate using additional motional modes of motion as information carriers in this scheme. Of course, the same techniques can be applied in cavity-QED, the system in which it was originally conceived 3 . More generally, such techniques increase the variety of tools available for quantum-information processing and may eventually find application in areas not currently anticipated.

We thank D. Lucas and J. Ye for helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the NSA and the ARDA under Contract No. MOD-7171.00. Contribution of the U.S. Government: not subject to U.S. copyright.


text:
# T–odd correlations in 𝐵→𝐾^∗ℓ⁺ℓ⁻ decay beyond standard model

## 1 Introduction

Rare $`B`$ decays, induced by flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) $`bs(d)`$ transition, provide potentially the stringiest testing ground in the Standard Model (SM) at loop level. Moreover, $`bs(d)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay is also very sensitive to the new physics beyond the SM. New physics effects manifest themselves in rare $`B`$ decays in two different ways, either through new contributions to the Wilson Coefficients existing in the SM or through new structures in the effective Hamiltonian which are absent in the SM.

Recently, time–reversal (T) violation has been measured in the $`K^0`$ system . Unfortunately, the origin of T, as well as CP violation which also has been obtained experimentally in $`K^0`$ system, remains unclear. In the SM, both violations come from a weak phase of the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix . SM predicts also violation of CP in the $`B^0`$ system (see for example ). The study of CP violation constitutes one of the main research area of the working $`B`$ factories . These factories have already reported evidence for the CP violation in the $`B`$ systems, namely $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.741\pm 0.067`$ . In this work we investigate T–violating effects in the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ using the most general form of the effective Hamiltonian. It should be noted T–violation effects in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays were studied in the framework of the supersymmetric model in  and  as well as in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay using the most general form of the effective Hamiltonian in , respectively.

It is known that for a general three–body decay, the triplet spin correlations $`\stackrel{}{s}(\stackrel{}{p}_i\times \stackrel{}{p}_j)`$ are the T–odd observables, where $`\stackrel{}{s}`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_j`$ are the spin and final momenta of the final particles. Thus in the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay, the T–odd observables can be constructed in two different ways.

* either by choosing lepton polarization as the polarization of the final particles,
* or by choosing polarization of $`K^{}`$.

The first possibility, i.e., the choice of the lepton polarization in the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay, was studied in detail in . For this reason in the present work, in investigating the T–violating effects, we choose the second possibility, namely, we choose $`K^{}`$ polarization to represent the polarization of the final state.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, using the most general, model independent form of the decay amplitude for the $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ transition, we study T violation in the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay. Section 3 is devoted to the numerical analysis and concluding remarks.

## 2 Theoretical background

The matrix element of the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay is described by the $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ transition at quark level. The decay amplitude for for the $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ transition, in a general, model independent form can be written in the following form

$`={\displaystyle \frac{G\alpha }{\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\{C_{SL}\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\nu }{q^2}}Lb\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}+C_{BR}\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\nu }{q^2}}b\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}+C_{LL}^{tot}\overline{s}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\gamma _\mu \mathrm{}_L`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`C_{LR}^{tot}\overline{s}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\gamma _\mu \mathrm{}_R+C_{RL}\overline{s}_R\gamma ^\mu b_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\gamma _\mu \mathrm{}_L+C_{RR}\overline{s}_R\gamma ^\mu b_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\gamma _\mu \mathrm{}_R`$
$`+`$ $`C_{LRLR}\overline{s}_Lb_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\mathrm{}_R+C_{RLLR}\overline{s}_Rb_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\mathrm{}_R+C_{LRRL}\overline{s}_Lb_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}_L+C_{RLRL}\overline{s}_Rb_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}_L\},`$
where $`L=(1\gamma _5)/2`$ and $`R=(1+\gamma _5)/2`$ are the chiral operators and $`C_X`$ are the coefficients of the four–Fermi interaction. Note that this form of the decay amplitude is motivated by various extensions of the SM, such as the two Higgs doublet model and supersymmetric models. The first two of these coefficients, $`C_{SL}`$ and $`C_{BR}`$ describe the penguin contributions which correspond to $`2m_sC_7^{eff}`$ and $`2m_bC_7^{eff}`$ in the SM, respectively. The next four terms in Eq. (1) represent the vector type interactions, of whom the two with the coefficients $`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ and $`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ do exist in the SM in the forms $`(C_9^{eff}C_{10})`$ and $`(C_9^{eff}+C_{10})`$, respectively, i.e.,

$`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}C_{10}+C_{LL},`$
$`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}+C_{10}+C_{LR}.`$ (2)
The remaining last four terms describe the scalar type interactions.

The effective Wilson coefficient $`C_9^{eff}`$ is given by

$`C_9^{eff}=C_9(\mu )+Y_{pert}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{\alpha ^2}}C^{(0)}{\displaystyle \underset{V_i=J/\psi ,\psi ^{},\mathrm{}}{}}\kappa _i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(V_i\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})m_{V_i}}{m_{V_i}^2q^2im_{V_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V_i}}},`$ (3)
where $`C^{(0)}=3C_1+C_2+3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6`$, $`m_{V_i}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V_i\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ are the masses and the widths of the $`\psi `$ family, and $`Y_{pert}(q^2/m_b^2)`$ arises from the one–loop matrix element of the four–quark operators and can be found in . The last term in Eq. (3) describes the long distance contribution from the real intermediate $`\overline{c}c`$ states . The factor $`\kappa _i`$ for the lowest resonances are chosen as $`\kappa _{J/\psi }=1.65`$ and $`\kappa _\psi ^{}=2.36`$ (see ) and for the higher resonances the average of the $`\kappa _{J/\psi }`$ and $`\kappa _\psi ^{}`$ have been used.

Exclusive $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay is described in terms of matrix elements of the four quark operators in Eq. (1) over meson states $`B`$ and $`K^{}`$, which are parametrized in terms of form factors. The decay amplitude for the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays is found to be

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G\alpha }{4\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\{\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)\mathrm{}[2𝒱_{L_1}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p^\lambda q^\sigma i𝒱_{L_2}\epsilon _\nu ^{}+i𝒱_{L_3}(\epsilon ^{}q)P_\mu +i𝒱_{L_4}(\epsilon ^{}q)q_\mu ]`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\mathrm{}\left[2𝒱_{R_1}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p^\lambda q^\sigma i𝒱_{R_2}\epsilon _\nu ^{}+i𝒱_{R_3}(\epsilon ^{}q)P_\mu +i𝒱_{R_4}(\epsilon ^{}q)q_\mu \right]`$
$`+`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{}}(1\gamma _5)\mathrm{}\left[i𝒮_L(\epsilon ^{}q)\right]+\overline{\mathrm{}}(1+\gamma _5)\mathrm{}\left[i𝒮_R(\epsilon ^{}q)\right]\},`$
where $`P=p+p_B`$, $`q=p_Bp`$, and $`p`$ and $`\epsilon `$ are the $`K^{}`$ meson four–momentum and four–polarization vectors, and $`𝒱_{L_i}`$ and $`𝒱_{R_i}`$ are the coefficients of left and right handed leptonic currents with vector structure, and $`𝒮_{L,R}`$ are the coefficients of the scalar currents with left and right chirality. Definitions of the form factors and functions $`𝒱_{L_i,R_i}`$ can be found in .

In order to obtain T–odd terms $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q^\mu \epsilon ^\nu p_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha P^\beta `$, we study the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ process. The helicity amplitude $`M_\lambda ^{\lambda _{\mathrm{}}\overline{\lambda }_{\mathrm{}}}`$ of the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay can be written as

$`M_{\lambda _i}^{\lambda _{\mathrm{}}\overline{\lambda }_{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _V^{}}{}}\eta _{\lambda _V^{}}L_{\lambda _V^{}}^{\lambda _{\mathrm{}}\overline{\lambda }_{\mathrm{}}}H_{\lambda _V^{}}^{\lambda _i},`$ (5)
where

$`L_{\lambda _V^{}}^{\lambda _{\mathrm{}}\overline{\lambda }_{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _V^{}^\mu \mathrm{}^{}(p_{\mathrm{}^{}},\lambda _i)\mathrm{}^+(p_\mathrm{}^+,\overline{\lambda }_j)\left|J_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}\right|0,`$
$`H_{\lambda _V^{}}^{\lambda _i}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _V^{}^\mu K^{}(p,\lambda _i)\left|J_\mu ^i\right|B(p_B),`$ (6)
where $`\epsilon _V^{}`$ is the polarization vector of the virtual intermediate vector boson $`(\gamma `$ or $`Z)`$, satisfying the relation

$`g^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _V^{}}{}}\eta _{\lambda _V^{}}\epsilon _{\lambda _V}^\mu \epsilon _{\lambda _V^{}}^\nu ,`$
where the summation is over the helicities $`\lambda _V^{}=\pm 1,0,s`$ of the virtual intermediate vector boson, with the metric defined as $`\eta _+=\eta _0=\eta _s=1`$ (see ). In Eq. (2), $`J_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`J_\mu ^i`$ represent the leptonic and hadronic currents, respectively.

Using Eqs. (42), we get for the helicity amplitudes

$`_\pm ^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}A_\pm ^{++},`$
$`_\pm ^+`$ $`=`$ $`(1\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})A_\pm ^+,`$
$`_\pm ^+`$ $`=`$ $`(1\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})A_\pm ^+,`$
$`_\pm ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}A_\pm ^{},`$
$`_0^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}A_0^{++}+B_0^{++},`$
$`_0^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}A_0^+,`$
$`_0^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}A_0^+,`$
$`_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}A_0^{}+B_0^{},`$ (7)
where $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the polar angle of position in the rest frame of the intermediate boson with respect to its helicity axis. Explicit expressions of the functions $`A`$ and $`B`$ are presented in the Appendix (see also ).

Using the helicity amplitudes given in Eq. (2), the angular distribution in $`BK^{}(K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is given by the following expression

$`d\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3G^2\alpha ^2}{2^{17}\pi ^6m_B^3m_\rho ^2q^2}}\left|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right|B(K^{}K\pi )dq^2d\mathrm{cos}\theta _Kd\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}d\phi `$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`\lambda ^{1/2}(m_B^2,m_K^{}^2,q^2)\lambda ^{1/2}(m_K^{}^2,m_K^2,m_\pi ^2)\lambda ^{1/2}(q^2,m_{\mathrm{}}^2,m_{\mathrm{}}^2)`$
$`\times `$ $`\{2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _K[\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}N_1+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}N_2+2\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(N_3)+N_4]`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}N_5+(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}})N_6+2\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}N_7+2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}2\phi \text{Im}(N_8)`$
$``$ $`2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}2\phi \text{Re}(N_8)]+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _K\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}\phi \text{Re}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}N_9+N_{10})`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _K\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\phi \text{Im}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}N_{11}+N_{12})\}.`$
Various angles in Eq. (8) are defined as follows: $`\theta _K`$ is the polar angle of the $`K`$ meson in the rest frame of the $`K^{}`$ meson, measured with respect to the helicity axis, i.e., the outgoing direction of the $`K^{}`$ meson. $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the polar angle of the $`\mathrm{}^+`$ in the dilepton rest frame, measured with respect to the helicity axis of the dilepton, and $`\phi `$ is the azimuthal angle between the two planes defined by the momenta of the decay products $`K^{}K\pi `$ and $`V\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. Also, explicit expressions of the functions $`N_i`$ are given in the Appendix.

It follows from Eq. (8) that terms with $`N_8,N_{11}`$ and $`N_{12}`$ contain imaginary part. If we rewrite Eq. (8) for the SM case, we immediately see that there are two possible sources for T violation:

* T violation coming from $`\text{Im}C_9^{eff}C_7^{}`$,
* T violation coming from $`\text{Im}C_{10}C_7^{}`$.

In SM only $`C_9^{eff}`$ has imaginary part (see Eq. (3). Therefore we can conclude that T–odd observables could be nonzero in the processes involving strong phases or absorptive parts even without weak CP violating phase. In this work we explore the possibility of the existence of T violation due to the new weak CP–violating phases. It follows from Eq. (8) that, in order to have nonvanishing T violation

* interactions of new type must exist,
* contributions of different new Wilson coefficients must have weak CP–violating phases.

In order to discard terms $`\text{Im}C_9^{eff}C_7^{}`$ which give rise to T–violation in the SM, we consider the following T–odd observable

$`𝒪={\displaystyle 𝒪𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }},`$ (9)
where $`𝒪`$ is the T–odd correlation, given by

$`𝒪={\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}_B\stackrel{}{p}_K)[\stackrel{}{p}_B(\stackrel{}{p}_K\times \stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{}^+)]}{\left|\stackrel{}{p}_B\right|^2\left|\stackrel{}{p}_K\right|^2(qp_\mathrm{}^+/\sqrt{2})}}.`$ (10)
In the $`K^{}`$ rest frame, $`𝒪=\mathrm{cos}\theta _K\mathrm{sin}\theta _K\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\phi `$. The statistical significance of the T–odd observable in Eq. (8) is determined by ,

$`\epsilon ={\displaystyle \frac{𝒪𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sqrt{𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }}\sqrt{𝒪^2𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}.`$ (11)
It should be noted that in in Eq. (11), integration over $`q^2`$ is carried out in order to eliminate the $`q^2`$ dependence of $`\epsilon `$. Our final remark in this section is that, T–odd effects that are related with the CP violation and CP violating asymmetry between the decay rates of $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}\overline{K}^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ are discussed in the second reference in .

## 3 Numerical analysis

In this section we will study the dependence of the statistical significance $`\epsilon `$ on the new Wilson coefficients. For the $`BK^{}`$ transition form factors, which are the main input parameters in $`\epsilon `$, we use the light cone QCD sum rules method prediction . The dependence of the form factors on $`q^2`$ can be written in terms of the three parameters as

$`F(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{F(0)}{1a_F(q^2/m_B^2)+b_F(q^2/m_B^2)^2}}.`$ (12)
The value of the parameters $`F_i(0),a`$ and $`b`$ for various form factors are presented in table 1.

In further numerical analysis, we use next–to leading logarithmic approximation results for the values of the Wilson coefficients $`C_7,C_9^{eff}`$ and $`C_{10}`$ at $`\mu =m_b`$ . As has already been noted, in the process under consideration, only short distance contributions are taken into account in the Wilson coefficient $`C_9^{eff}`$ (see the expression for $`C_9^{eff}`$ given in Eq. (3)). The new Wilson coefficients vary in the range $`\left|C_{10}\right|C_X\left|C_{10}\right|`$. The experimental bounds on the branching ratio of the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$  111The latest result released by the BaBar Collaboration for the branching ratio of the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay, is    $`(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})=\left(1.68_{0.58}^{+0.68}\pm 0.18\right)\times 10^6.`$   and $`B\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decays  suggest that this is the right order of magnitude range for the vector and scalar interaction coefficients. The present experimental values on the branching ratio $`(BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})=\left(0.78_{0.240.11}^{+0.24+0.11}\times 10^6\right)`$ lead to stronger restrictions on some of the new Wilson coefficients, namely, $`1.5C_T1.5`$, $`3.3C_{TE}2.6`$, $`2C_{LL};C_{RL}2.3`$ while for all remaining coefficients $`4C_X4`$. Note that if the latest results for the branching ratio for the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay are taken into account (see the footnote below), the allowed regions of the new coefficients are $`2.5C_{LL}0`$, $`0C_{RL}4`$ and all remaining coefficients vary in the region $`4C_X4`$. As has already been noted, in order to obtain considerable statistical significance $`\epsilon `$, the new Wilson coefficients must have new weak phase. For simplicity we assume that all new Wilson coefficients have a common weak phase $`\varphi `$. The dependence of the $`\epsilon `$ on the Wilson coefficients $`C_{LL},C_{LR},C_{RL}`$ and $`C_{RR}`$ and on the weak phase $`\varphi `$ for the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay is presented in Figs. (1)–(4). Note that the dependence of $`\epsilon `$ on the Wilson coefficients for scalar interactions for the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay is not presented since for all their values $`\left|\epsilon \right|`$ is very small $`(0.2\%)`$.

From these figures we see that $`\epsilon `$ gets its largest value for $`C_{LL}`$ about $`5\%`$, for $`C_{LR}`$ and $`C_{RR}`$ about $`3\%`$ and $`C_{RL}`$ about $`4\%`$, for the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay.

The situation is quite different from the previous case for the $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay. In this case contributions coming from the scalar type interactions are dominant (see Figs. (5)–(8)), while vector type interactions give negligibly small contributions to $`\epsilon `$. We observe from these figures that $`\epsilon `$ gets its maximum value $`4\%`$ for $`C_{LRLR}`$ and $`C_{RLLR}`$. We also note that in the present work $`C_{BR}`$ and $`C_{SL}`$ are assumed to be identical, as is the case in the SM, since experimentally measured branching ratio of $`BX_s\gamma `$ decay is very close to the SM prediction .

Finally we would like to discuss the detectability of $`\epsilon `$ in the experiments. In order to observe this effect at the $`n\sigma `$ level, the required number of $`B`$ mesons are $`𝒩_B=n^2/(\epsilon ^2)`$. If the branching ratio takes on the following values

$`(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})=\{\begin{array}{c}2.0\times 10^6,\text{for }\mu \text{ mode},\hfill \\ \\ 2.0\times 10^7,\text{for }\tau \text{ mode},\hfill \end{array},`$ (16)
then to be able to observe T–violating effects of $`𝒪`$ in the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay at $`3\sigma `$ level, with $`\epsilon 3\%`$, at least

$`𝒩_B=\{\begin{array}{c}5\times 10^9,\text{for }\mu \text{ mode},\hfill \\ \\ 5\times 10^{10},\text{for }\tau \text{ mode},\hfill \end{array},`$ (20)
$`B`$ mesons are needed. Since at LHC and BTeV machines $`10^{12}b\overline{b}`$ pairs are expected to be produced per year , the observation of T–violating effects in the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay is quite possible.

Appendix A :

In this appendix we present the explicit expressions of the functions $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`N_i`$ entering into Eqs. (2) and (8).

$`A_\pm ^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{2}m_{\mathrm{}}\left\{(C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{LR}^{tot})H_\pm +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{q^2}}\left(C_{BR}G_\pm +C_{SL}g_\pm \right)+(C_{RR}+C_{RL})h_\pm \right\},`$
$`A_\pm ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_\pm ^{++},`$
$`A_\pm ^+`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}}\{[C_{LL}^{tot}(1v)+C_{LR}^{tot}(1+v)]H_\pm +[C_{RL}(1v)+C_{RR}(1+v)]h_\pm `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{q^2}}(C_{BR}G_\pm +C_{SL}g_\pm )\},`$
$`A_\pm ^+`$ $`=`$ $`A_\pm ^+(vv),`$
$`A_0^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{\mathrm{}}\left[(C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{LR}^{tot})H_0+(C_{RL}+C_{RR})h_0+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{q^2}}\left(C_{BR}G_0+C_{SL}g_0\right)\right],`$ (A.1)
$`A_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_0^{++},`$
$`B_0^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{\mathrm{}}\left\{(C_{LR}^{tot}C_{LL}^{tot})H_S^0+(C_{RR}C_{RL})h_S^0\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_b}}q^2\left[(1v)(C_{LRLR}C_{RLLR})(1+v)(C_{LRRL}C_{RLRL})\right]H_S^0,`$
$`B_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`B_0^{++}(vv),`$
$`A_0^+`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{q^2}\{[C_{LL}^{tot}(1v)+C_{LR}^{tot}(1+v)]H_0+[C_{RL}(1v)+C_{RR}(1+v)]h_0`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{q^2}}(C_{BR}G_0+C_{SL}g_0)\},`$
$`A_0^+`$ $`=`$ $`A_0^+(vv),`$
where $`v=\sqrt{14m_{\mathrm{}}^2/q^2}`$ is the lepton velocity and superscripts denote helicities of the lepton and antilepton and subscripts correspond to the helicities of the $`K^{}`$ meson, and furthermore

$`H_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm \lambda ^{1/2}(m_B^2,s_M,q^2){\displaystyle \frac{V(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}+(m_B+m_K^{})A_1(q^2),`$
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{s_Mq^2}}}[(m_B^2s_Mq^2)(m_B+m_K^{})A_1(q^2)`$
$`+`$ $`\lambda (m_B^2,s_M,q^2){\displaystyle \frac{A_2(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}],`$
$`H_S^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{1/2}(m_B^2,s_M,q^2)}{2\sqrt{s_Mq^2}}}[(m_B+m_K^{})A_1(q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{A_2(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}(m_B^2s_M)`$ (A.2)
$`+`$ $`2\sqrt{s_M}(A_3A_0)],`$
$`G_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`2\left[\pm \lambda ^{1/2}(m_B^2,s_M,q^2)T_1(q^2)+(m_B^2s_M)T_2(q^2)\right],`$
$`G_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{s_Mq^2}}}[(m_B^2s_M)(m_B^2s_Mq^2)T_2(q^2)\lambda (m_B^2,s_M,q^2)(T_2(q^2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2s_M}}T_3(q^2))],`$
$`h_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`H_\pm (A_1A_1),`$
$`h_S^0`$ $`=`$ $`H_S^0(A_1A_1,A_2A_2),`$
$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`H_0(A_1A_1,A_2A_2),`$
$`g_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`G_\pm (T_2T_2),`$
$`g_0`$ $`=`$ $`G_0.`$
$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left|A_0^{++}\right|^2+\left|A_0^{}\right|^2,`$
$`N_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left|A_0^+\right|^2+\left|A_0^+\right|^2,`$
$`N_3`$ $`=`$ $`A_0^{++}\left(B_0^{++}\right)^{}+A_0^{}\left(B_0^{}\right)^{},`$
$`N_4`$ $`=`$ $`\left|B_0^{++}\right|^2+\left|B_0^{}\right|^2,`$
$`N_5`$ $`=`$ $`\left|A_+^{++}\right|^2+\left|A_{}^{++}\right|^2+\left|A_+^{}\right|^2+\left|A_{}^{}\right|^2,`$
$`N_6`$ $`=`$ $`\left|A_+^+\right|^2+\left|A_{}^+\right|^2+\left|A_{}^+\right|^2+\left|A_+^+\right|^2,`$
$`N_7`$ $`=`$ $`\left|A_{}^+\right|^2+\left|A_+^+\right|^2\left|A_+^+\right|^2\left|A_{}^+\right|^2,`$ (A.3)
$`N_8`$ $`=`$ $`A_+^{++}\left(A_{}^{++}\right)^{}+A_+^+\left(A_{}^+\right)^{}+A_+^+\left(A_{}^+\right)^{}+A_+^{}\left(A_{}^{}\right)^{},`$
$`N_9`$ $`=`$ $`A_0^{++}\left(A_{}^{++}A_+^{++}\right)^{}A_0^+\left(A_{}^++A_+^+\right)^{}A_0^+\left(A_{}^++A_+^+\right)^{}`$
$`+`$ $`A_0^{}\left(A_{}^{}A_+^{}\right)^{},`$
$`N_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`B_0^{++}\left(A_{}^{++}A_+^{++}\right)^{}+A_0^+\left(A_{}^++A_+^+\right)^{}+A_0^+\left(A_{}^+A_+^+\right)^{}`$
$`+`$ $`B_0^{}\left(A_{}^{}A_+^{}\right)^{},`$
$`N_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`N_9\left(A_+^{++}A_+^{++},A_+^+A_+^+,A_+^+A_+^+,A_+^{}A_+^{}\right),`$
$`N_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{10}\left(A_+^{++}A_+^{++},A_+^+A_+^+,A_+^+A_+^+,A_+^{}A_+^{}\right).`$
## Figure captions

Fig. (1) The dependence of the statistical significance $`\epsilon `$ on the new Wilson coefficient $`C_{LL}`$ and on the weak phase $`\varphi `$ for the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay.
Fig. (2) The same as in Fig. (1), but for the Wilson coefficient $`C_{LR}`$.
Fig. (3) The same as in Fig. (1), but for the Wilson coefficient $`C_{RR}`$.
Fig. (4) The same as in Fig. (1), but for the Wilson coefficient $`C_{RL}`$.
Fig. (5) The dependence of the statistical significance $`\epsilon `$ on the new Wilson coefficient $`C_{LRRL}`$ and on the weak phase $`\varphi `$ for the $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay.
Fig. (6) The same as in Fig. (5), but for the Wilson coefficient $`C_{LRLR}`$.
Fig. (7) The same as in Fig. (5), but for the Wilson coefficient $`C_{RLRL}`$.
Fig. (8) The same as in Fig. (5), but for the Wilson coefficient $`C_{RLLR}`$.