text:
# Looking for Novel CP-Violating Effects in 𝐵̄→𝐾^∗𝑙⁺𝑙⁻

## I Introduction

$`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation has been observed so far only in the neutral kaon system. Within the standard model (SM), the experimental results on indirect ($`ϵ_K`$) and direct ($`ϵ^{}/ϵ_K`$) $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation can be explained by the complex phase of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix if one takes into account the large theoretical uncertainties associated with the hadronic matrix elements that enter the analysis of $`ϵ^{}/ϵ_K`$ . It therefore remains an open question whether the CKM mechanism of $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation can account for the new experimental result on $`ϵ^{}/ϵ_K`$.

A great deal of effort is given to the study of $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation in the $`B`$ system, which will provide invaluable information on the pattern of $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation and open up the possibility to look for new physics. In this paper we are concerned with the exclusive decay $`\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{}`$ which is of special interest because (i) it probes the underlying effective Hamiltonian describing flavour-changing neutral current (FCNC) processes in $`B`$ decay; (ii) the analysis of $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating effects in decays governed by $`bsl^+l^{}`$ may offer a deeper insight into the mechanism of $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation since the SM prediction for $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries is extremely small, typically $`10^3`$ ; and (iii) the process $`\overline{B}K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ is a very promising decay mode since it is likely to be observed in the next round of $`B`$ physics experiments. The most stringent limit has been set by CDF of $`(B^0K^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})<4.0\times 10^6`$ at the $`90\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.`$  to be compared with the SM prediction of $`(1.9\pm 0.7)\times 10^6`$ .

The object of the present work is to explore the possibility of sizable $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries in $`\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{}`$ decay, whose observation would clearly indicate the presence of physics beyond the SM. We perform a largely model-independent analysis by considering a new-physics scenario with additional $`\mathrm{CP}`$ phases and an extended operator basis, taking into account existing experimental data on $`\overline{B}X_s\gamma `$ and the upper bound on $`B^0K^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$.

Our paper is organized as follows. Section II contains the SM operator basis and short-distance matrix element for the process $`\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{}`$. A formalism for dealing with real $`c\overline{c}`$ intermediate states such as $`J/\psi ,\psi ^{}`$ entering via the decay chain $`\overline{B}K^{}V_{c\overline{c}}K^{}l^+l^{}`$, is described. In Sec. III, we briefly discuss possible extensions of the SM including those with an extended operator basis. Section IV is concerned with the parametrization of the hadronic matrix elements and gives the differential decay spectrum as well as the forward-backward asymmetry. The corresponding $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating observables are discussed in Sec. V. Numerical estimates for integrated observables in $`\overline{B}K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay in the presence of new physics are given in Sec. VI. Particular attention is paid to the $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating partial-rate asymmetry and the $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating effect related to the angular distribution of $`\mu ^{}`$ in $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ decays. Our conclusions are contained in Sec. VII.

## II Effective Hamiltonian

### A Short-distance contributions

The effective Hamiltonian for the decay $`\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{}`$ in the standard model (SM) is given by

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}c_i(\mu )𝒪_i(\mu )+\lambda _u\{c_1(\mu )[𝒪_1^u(\mu )𝒪_1(\mu )]+c_2(\mu )[𝒪_2^u(\mu )𝒪_2(\mu )]\}\right\},$$
(1)
where we have used the unitarity of the CKM matrix, $`\lambda _uV_{ub}V_{us}^{}/V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$, and the operator basis is defined as follows:

$`𝒪_1`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Lc_\beta )(\overline{c}_\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\alpha ),`$ (2)
$`𝒪_1^u`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Lu_\beta )(\overline{u}_\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\alpha ),`$ (3)
$`𝒪_2`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Lc_\alpha )(\overline{c}_\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\beta ),`$ (4)
$`𝒪_2^u`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Lu_\alpha )(\overline{u}_\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\beta ),`$ (5)
$`𝒪_3`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Lb_\alpha ){\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d,s,c,b}{}}(\overline{q}_\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Lq_\beta ),`$ (6)
$`𝒪_4`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Lb_\beta ){\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d,s,c,b}{}}(\overline{q}_\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Lq_\alpha ),`$ (7)
$`𝒪_5`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Lb_\alpha ){\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d,s,c,b}{}}(\overline{q}_\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Rq_\beta ),`$ (8)
$`𝒪_6`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Lb_\beta ){\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d,s,c,b}{}}(\overline{q}_\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Rq_\alpha ),`$ (9)
$`𝒪_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{s}_\alpha \sigma _{\mu \nu }(m_bP_R+m_sP_L)b_\alpha F^{\mu \nu },`$ (10)
$`𝒪_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{s}_\alpha T_{\alpha \beta }^a\sigma _{\mu \nu }(m_bP_R+m_sP_L)b_\beta G^{a\mu \nu },`$ (11)
$`𝒪_9`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\alpha \overline{l}\gamma _\mu l,`$ (12)
$`𝒪_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\alpha \overline{l}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5l,`$ (13)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are colour indices, $`a`$ labels the SU(3) generators, and $`P_{L,R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$. Evolution of the Wilson coefficients $`c_i(\mu )`$ in Eq. (1) from the weak scale $`\mu =M_W`$ down to the low energy scale $`\mu =m_b`$ by means of the renormalization group equations (RGE’s) then leads to the QCD-corrected matrix element in next-to-leading logarithmic approximation

$`={\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\{[(c_9^{\text{eff}}c_{10})K^{}(k)|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu P_Lb|\overline{B}(p)`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2c_7^{\text{eff}}}{s}}K^{}(k)|\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu (m_bP_R+m_sP_L)b|\overline{B}(p)]\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu P_Ll+(c_{10}c_{10})\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu P_Rl\}.`$
Here $`q=pk`$, $`sq^2`$ is the invariant mass of the lepton pair, and the effective Wilson coefficient $`c_9^{\text{eff}}`$ has the form

$$c_9^{\mathrm{eff}}=c_9+Y(s),$$
(16)
with

$`Y(s)`$ $`=`$ $`g(m_c,s)(3c_1+c_2+3c_3+c_4+3c_5+c_6)+\lambda _u[g(m_c,s)g(m_u,s)](3c_1+c_2)`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(m_s,s)(c_3+3c_4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(m_b,s)(4c_3+4c_4+3c_5+c_6)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(3c_3+c_4+3c_5+c_6)+\mathrm{},`$
where the ellipsis represents the order $`\alpha _s`$ correction to the matrix element of the operator $`𝒪_9`$, which can be regarded as a contribution to the form factors , and hence will be omitted in the calculations that follow. Table I summarizes our results for the Wilson coefficients $`c_i(m_b)`$. Observe that $`c_7^{\text{eff}}`$, $`c_9`$, and $`c_{10}`$ are real in the framework of the SM. The function $`g(m_i,s)`$ in the above formula arises from the one-loop contributions of the four-quark operators $`𝒪_1`$$`𝒪_6`$, and is given by (at $`\mu =m_b`$)

$`g(m_i,s)={\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\mathrm{ln}(m_i/m_b)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{27}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}y_i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(2+y_i)\sqrt{|1y_i|}`$ (21)
$`\times \left\{\mathrm{\Theta }(1y_i)\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1y_i}}{1\sqrt{1y_i}}}\right)i\pi \right]+\mathrm{\Theta }(y_i1)2\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{y_i1}}}\right\},`$
with $`y_i=4m_i^2/s`$.

This expression reduces to

$$g(0,s)=\frac{8}{27}\frac{4}{9}\mathrm{ln}(s/m_b^2)+\frac{4}{9}i\pi ,$$
(22)
in the limit $`m_i0`$. A few remarks are in order here.

(i) The Wilson coefficient $`c_9^{\text{eff}}`$, Eq. (16), has absorptive parts for $`s>4m_u^2`$ and $`s>4m_c^2`$, and thus contains dynamical (unitarity) phases. As will become clear, these are prerequisites, besides a $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating phase, for observing $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries in partial rates. Since the remaining coefficients $`c_7^{\text{eff}}`$ and $`c_{10}`$ do not contain any strong phases, the unitarity phases below the $`c\overline{c}`$ threshold are generated by light quark contributions, whereas for $`s>4m_c^2`$ they arise mainly from $`c\overline{c}`$ intermediate states.

(ii) Within the SM, $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation in $`bsl^+l^{}`$ transition is caused by the ratio of CKM factors appearing in $`c_9^{\text{eff}}`$, namely $`\lambda _u\lambda ^2`$ ($`\lambda V_{us}0.22`$), which is further reduced by a factor of order $`(3c_1+c_2)/c_90.085`$. As a result, the effective Hamiltonian for $`bsl^+l^{}`$ essentially involves only one independent CKM factor $`V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$, so that $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation in this channel is unobservably small. Thus, the numerical effect of $`\lambda _u`$ in Eq. (19) is negligible for decays based on the transition $`bsl^+l^{}`$.

### B Resonance contributions

In addition to the short-distance contributions discussed so far, there are possible quark antiquark resonant intermediate states like $`\varphi ,J/\psi ,\psi ^{}`$ etc. Since the $`s`$-quark contributions in Eq. (19) are suppressed by small Wilson coefficients, and terms proportional to $`\lambda _u`$ may be dropped in the case of $`bs`$ transition, we are left with the $`J/\psi `$ family.

Following the procedure in Ref. , we implement the charmonium resonances utilizing $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation data. The absorptive part of the one-loop function $`g`$, Eq. (21), can be related to the experimentally accessible quantity

$$R(s)\sigma _{\text{tot}}(e^+e^{}\text{hadrons})/\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})$$
(23)
by virtue of the optical theorem. Specifically, it is found that

$$\text{Im}g(m_c,s)=\frac{\pi }{3}R^{J/\psi }(s),$$
(24)
with $`R^{J/\psi }(s)R_{\mathrm{cont}}^{c\overline{c}}(s)+R_{\mathrm{res}}^{J/\psi }(s)`$, whereas the dispersive part $`\text{Re}g(m_c,s)`$ may be obtained via a once-subtracted dispersion relation

$$g(m_c,s)=g(m_c,0)+\frac{s}{3}_{4M_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{R^{J/\psi }(s^{})}{s^{}(s^{}siϵ)}𝑑s^{},ϵ+0,$$
(25)
with $`g(m_c,0)=8/9\mathrm{ln}(m_c/m_b)4/9`$. The continuum contributions, $`R_{\mathrm{cont}}^{c\overline{c}}`$, can be determined using experimental data from Ref. , while the narrow resonances are well described by a relativistic Breit-Wigner distribution

$$R_{\mathrm{res}}^{J/\psi }(s)=\underset{V=J/\psi ,\psi ^{},\mathrm{}}{}\frac{9s}{\alpha ^2}\frac{(Vl^+l^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{tot}}^V\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{had}}^V}{(sM_V^2)^2+M_V^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{tot}}^{V^2}},$$
(26)
with the properties of the vector mesons summarized in Ref. .

To account for experimental data on direct $`J/\psi `$ production via the relation

$$(\overline{B}K^{}V_{c\overline{c}}K^{}l^+l^{})=(\overline{B}K^{}V_{c\overline{c}})(V_{c\overline{c}}l^+l^{}),$$
(27)
where $`V_{c\overline{c}}=J/\psi ,\psi ^{},\mathrm{}`$, one usually modifies the Breit-Wigner distribution in Eq. (26) by introducing an ad hoc factor $`\kappa _V`$ . This suggests that the factorization ansatz inherent in the approaches that have been advocated to incorporate resonance effects in $`bsl^+l^{}`$ (see, e.g., Ref. ) is inadequate for two-body hadronic decays of $`B`$ mesons. Using the set of form factors that will be discussed below, one finds $`\kappa _{J/\psi }=1.7`$, $`\kappa _\psi ^{}=2.4`$, whereas for the remaining resonances we shall take (as in Ref. ) $`\kappa =2`$. In Fig. 1, we show the real and imaginary parts of $`g(m_c,\widehat{s})`$ based on Eq. (25), as a function of $`\widehat{s}=s/M_B^2`$.

## III Effective Hamiltonian and new physics

The new-physics contributions to the decay mode $`bsl^+l^{}`$ can manifest itself in two distinct ways: (i) The absolute values and phases of the Wilson coefficients at the electroweak scale are modified. (ii) New operators in addition to the ones defined in Eq. (2) arise. We consider them in turn.

### A Wilson coefficients and new physics

The non-standard contributions can be divided into three main groups : First, models with tree-level contributions to the four-quark operators such as supersymmetry (SUSY) with broken R-parity or models with $`Z`$-mediated flavour-changing neutral currents. Second, models with contributions at one-loop level with new particles running in the loop like SUSY with conserved R-parity or models with four quark generations. Third, models with no significant effect on the above Wilson coefficients including multi-Higgs-doublet models with natural flavour conservation and left-right symmetric models.

Let us begin with the Wilson coefficients $`c_3,\mathrm{},c_6`$ of the QCD penguin operators. It follows from the RGE analysis that their numerical values at $`\mu =m_b`$ are essentially determined by the Wilson coefficient $`c_2`$ of the four-quark operator $`𝒪_2`$ at the electroweak scale. Thus, in order to have considerable deviations from the SM predictions for the coefficients $`c_3`$$`c_6`$, one needs large new-physics contributions to the short-distance coefficient $`c_2`$, which in turn would affect the theoretical branching ratio for two-body non-leptonic $`B`$ decays. Recent studies  suggest, however, that the short-distance coefficients of the SM can account for existing data if one allows departures from the naive factorization prescription.

For the numerical analysis here, we adopt the SM values for the Wilson coefficients $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_6`$ summarized in Table I. Furthermore, it is convenient for later use to parametrize the new-physics contributions to the remaining coefficients $`c_7^{\text{eff}}`$, $`c_9^{\text{eff}}`$, and $`c_{10}`$ by the following ratios (defined at the scale $`\mu =m_b`$):

$$R_7=c_7^{\mathrm{eff}}/c_7^{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{SM}}|R_7|e^{i\varphi _7},$$
(29)
$$R_9=c_9/c_9^{\mathrm{SM}}|R_9|e^{i\varphi _9},$$
(30)
$$R_{10}=c_{10}/c_{10}^{\mathrm{SM}}|R_{10}|e^{i\varphi _{10}},$$
(31)
where we recall Eq. (16), and

$$c_i=c_i^{\mathrm{SM}}+c_i^{\mathrm{New}},$$
(32)
with $`c_i^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ shown in Table I. Note that the Wilson coefficient $`c_{10}`$ in the above does not depend on the renormalization scale, and thus $`c_{10}c_{10}(M_W)`$.

### B Extended operator basis

It is conceivable that physics beyond the SM induces new operator structures containing scalar, pseudoscalar, and tensor interactions, in addition to the SM operator basis, Eq. (2).

The Wilson coefficients of the scalar operators

$`𝒪_9^S`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{s}_\alpha P_Lb_\alpha \overline{l}l,`$ (33)
$`𝒪_{10}^S`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{s}_\alpha P_Lb_\alpha \overline{l}\gamma _5l,`$ (34)
$`𝒪_9^S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{s}_\alpha P_Rb_\alpha \overline{l}l,`$ (35)
$`𝒪_{10}^S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{s}_\alpha P_Rb_\alpha \overline{l}\gamma _5l,`$ (36)
involve the lepton mass in most extensions of the SM, and hence will give only small contributions in the case of $`l=e`$ or $`\mu `$. Moreover, possible tensor-type operators $`\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{l}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }l`$ and $`\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{l}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }lϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ can be safely neglected since their numerical contributions have been found to be small .

This leaves an extended operator basis which consists of the SM operators and the opposite-chirality operators

$`𝒪_7^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{s}_\alpha \sigma _{\mu \nu }(m_bP_L+m_sP_R)b_\alpha F^{\mu \nu },`$ (37)
$`𝒪_8^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{s}_\alpha T_{\alpha \beta }^a\sigma _{\mu \nu }(m_bP_L+m_sP_R)b_\beta G^{a\mu \nu },`$ (38)
$`𝒪_9^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu P_Rb_\alpha \overline{l}\gamma _\mu l,`$ (39)
$`𝒪_{10}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma ^\mu P_Rb_\alpha \overline{l}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5l.`$ (40)
## IV Decay distribution for $`\overline{𝑩}\mathbf{}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}𝒍^\mathbf{+}𝒍^{\mathbf{}}`$

### A Form factors

The hadronic matrix elements appearing in Eq. (15) can be expressed in terms of $`s`$-dependent form factors (recall $`sq^2`$); namely

$`K^{}(k)|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu P_{L,R}b|\overline{B}(p)=iϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ^\nu p^\alpha q^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{V(s)}{M_B+M_K^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{ϵ_\mu ^{}(M_B+M_K^{})A_1(s)`$ (41)
$``$ $`(ϵ^{}q)(2pq)_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{A_2(s)}{M_B+M_K^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2M_K^{}}{s}}(ϵ^{}q)[A_3(s)A_0(s)]q_\mu \},`$ (42)
with the convention $`ϵ_{0123}=+1`$, $`q=pk`$, and

$`K^{}(k)|\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu P_{R,L}b|\overline{B}(p)=iϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ^\nu p^\alpha q^\beta T_1(s)\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{[ϵ_\mu ^{}(M_B^2M_K^{}^2)`$ (43)
$``$ $`(ϵ^{}q)(2pq)_\mu ]T_2(s)+(ϵ^{}q)[q_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_B^2M_K^{}^2}}(2pq)_\mu ]T_3(s)\},`$ (44)
where $`T_1(0)=T_2(0)`$, and $`ϵ^\mu `$ is the $`K^{}`$ polarization vector. The form factor $`A_3`$ can be written in terms of $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, i.e.

$`A_3(s)={\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_K^{}}{2M_K^{}}}A_1(s){\displaystyle \frac{M_BM_K^{}}{2M_K^{}}}A_2(s),`$ (45)
with the relation $`A_3(0)=A_0(0)`$. The terms proportional to $`q_\mu `$ in Eqs. (41) and (43) do not contribute to the differential decay rate when the final leptons are massless. For the results presented below, we adopt the $`BK^{}`$ form factors of Ref.  which have been obtained using light cone sum rule (LCSR) results, and are displayed in Table II. Throughout our discussion, we assume the above form factors to be real, in the absence of final-state interactions.

### B Differential decay spectrum

Squaring the matrix element (15), summing over spins, and introducing the shorthand notation

$$\lambda (a,b,c)=a^2+b^2+c^22(ab+bc+ac),$$
(46)
$$\widehat{M}_i=M_i/M_B,\widehat{m_i}=m_i/M_B,\widehat{s}=s/M_B^2,$$
(47)
$$X=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^{1/2}(1,\widehat{s},\widehat{M}_K^{}^2),$$
(48)
the spectrum of $`\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{}`$ decay with respect to $`\widehat{s}`$ and $`\theta _l`$, the angle between $`l^{}`$ and the outgoing hadron in the dilepton centre-of-mass system, is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{})}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}=\frac{G_F^2\alpha ^2M_B^5}{2^9\pi ^5}|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2X\sqrt{1\frac{4\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}}[A(\widehat{s})+B(\widehat{s})\mathrm{cos}\theta _l+C(\widehat{s})\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _l].$$
(49)
The quantities $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ are defined as follows:

$$A(\widehat{s})=\frac{2X^2}{\widehat{M}_K^{}^2}\left[\widehat{s}\widehat{M}_K^{}^2f_1(\widehat{s})+\frac{1}{4}\left(1+\frac{2\widehat{s}\widehat{M}_K^{}^2}{X^2}\right)f_2(\widehat{s})+X^2f_3(\widehat{s})+f_4(\widehat{s})\right]+2\widehat{m}_l^2I(\widehat{s}),$$
(50)
$$B(\widehat{s})=8X\sqrt{1\frac{4\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}}\text{Re}\{c_{10}^{}[c_9^{\text{eff}}\widehat{s}A_xA_yc_7^{\text{eff}}(A_xB_y+A_yB_x)]\},$$
(51)
$$C(\widehat{s})=\frac{2X^2}{\widehat{M}_K^{}^2}\left(1\frac{4\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}\right)\left[\widehat{s}\widehat{M}_K^{}^2f_1(\widehat{s})\frac{1}{4}f_2(\widehat{s})X^2f_3(\widehat{s})f_4(\widehat{s})\right],$$
(52)
with the auxiliary functions

$$I(\widehat{s})=4X^2f_1(\widehat{s})+f_2(\widehat{s})+f_5(\widehat{s}),$$
(53)
$$f_1(\widehat{s})=(|c_9^{\text{eff}}|^2+|c_{10}|^2)A_x^2+\frac{4|c_7^{\text{eff}}|^2}{\widehat{s}^2}B_x^2\frac{4\text{Re}(c_7^{\text{eff}}c_9^{\text{eff}})}{\widehat{s}}A_xB_x,$$
(54)
$$f_2(\widehat{s})=f_1(\widehat{s})_{xy},f_3(\widehat{s})=f_1(\widehat{s})_{xz},$$
(55)
$`f_4(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\widehat{s}\widehat{M}_K^{}^2)`$ (56)
$`\times `$ $`\left[(|c_9^{\text{eff}}|^2+|c_{10}|^2)A_yA_z+{\displaystyle \frac{4|c_7^{\text{eff}}|^2}{\widehat{s}^2}}B_yB_z{\displaystyle \frac{2\text{Re}(c_7^{\text{eff}}c_9^{\text{eff}})}{\widehat{s}}}(A_yB_z+A_zB_y)\right],`$ (57)
$`f_5(\widehat{s})=|c_{10}|^2[`$ $``$ $`8X^2A_x^23A_y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{X^2}{\widehat{M}_K^{}^2}}\{[2(1+\widehat{M}_K^{}^2)\widehat{s}]A_z+2A_y\}A_z`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4X^2}{\widehat{s}\widehat{M}_K^{}}}\{\widehat{M}_K^{}(A_3A_0)[(1\widehat{M}_K^{}^2)A_z+A_y]\}(A_3A_0)].`$ (59)
In these equations,

$$A_x=\frac{V(\widehat{s})}{1+\widehat{M}_K^{}},A_y=(1+\widehat{M}_K^{})A_1(\widehat{s}),A_z=\frac{A_2(\widehat{s})}{1+\widehat{M}_K^{}},$$
(60)
$$B_x=T_1(\widehat{s})(\widehat{m}_b+\widehat{m}_s),B_y=(1\widehat{M}_K^{}^2)T_2(\widehat{s})(\widehat{m}_b\widehat{m}_s),$$
(61)
$$B_z=\left[T_2(\widehat{s})+\frac{\widehat{s}}{1\widehat{M}_K^{}^2}T_3(\widehat{s})\right](\widehat{m}_b\widehat{m}_s),$$
(62)
with the form factors listed in Table II.

A further observable of interest is the forward-backward (FB) asymmetry of $`l^{}`$, defined as

$$A_{\text{FB}}(\widehat{s})=\frac{{\displaystyle _0^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}}{\displaystyle _1^0}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}}}{{\displaystyle _0^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}}+{\displaystyle _1^0}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}}},$$
(63)
and we obtain

$$A_{\text{FB}}(\widehat{s})=12X\sqrt{1\frac{4\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}}\frac{\text{Re}\{c_{10}^{}[c_9^{\text{eff}}\widehat{s}A_xA_yc_7^{\text{eff}}(A_xB_y+A_yB_x)]\}}{[3A(\widehat{s})+C(\widehat{s})]}.$$
(64)
Note that the Wilson coefficients in the above expressions are defined through Eq. (32). The decay distributions in the presence of new physics with additional operators are discussed further in Sec. VI. We now proceed to a discussion of $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating observables in the process $`\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{}`$.

## V $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}`$-violating observables

Suppose the decay amplitude for $`\overline{B}F`$ has the general form

$$𝒜(\overline{B}F)=e^{i\varphi _1}A_1e^{i\delta _1}+e^{i\varphi _2}A_2e^{i\delta _2},$$
(65)
where $`A_{1,2}`$ are real matrix elements, $`\delta _i`$ and $`\varphi _i`$ are the strong phases ($`\mathrm{CP}`$-conserving) and weak phases ($`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating) respectively. Using $`\mathrm{CPT}`$ invariance, which requires that the total decay rate for particle and antiparticle be equal, the decay amplitude for the conjugate process takes the form

$$\overline{𝒜}(B\overline{F})=e^{i\varphi _1}A_1e^{i\delta _1}+e^{i\varphi _2}A_2e^{i\delta _2},$$
(66)
giving rise to the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry

$$A_{\mathrm{CP}}\frac{|𝒜|^2|\overline{𝒜}|^2}{|𝒜|^2+|\overline{𝒜}|^2}=\frac{2r\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\delta }{1+2r\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\delta +r^2},$$
(67)
with $`r=A_2/A_1`$, $`\varphi =\varphi _1\varphi _2`$, and $`\delta =\delta _1\delta _2`$. Notice that in the limit $`r1`$ the asymmetry is approximately $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}2r\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\delta `$. Inspection of Eq. (67) reveals that a non-zero partial-rate asymmetry requires $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation ($`\varphi 0`$) and the presence of dynamical phases ($`\delta 0`$), the latter being provided by the one-loop function $`g(m_i,s)`$ present in the Wilson coefficient $`c_9^{\text{eff}}`$ \[Eq. (16)\].

To determine the impact of the strong phases on the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries, it is useful to separate those contributions to the decay amplitude that generate absorptive parts. To this end, we choose $`\delta _1=\varphi _2=0`$ in Eq. (65) and require that $`A_2e^{i\delta _2}`$ vanishes when $`Y(s)0`$. Moreover, as discussed in Sec. III, the corrections to the short-distance coefficients of the SM multiplying the absorptive parts of the decay amplitude are not expected to be large in many extensions of the SM, nor required by current data on two-body hadronic $`B`$ decays . Consequently, the strong phases in $`bsl^+l^{}`$ decay are essentially unaffected by possible new interactions transcending the SM, so that the non-standard effects on $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries can be described by the two parameters $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$.

In order to get a quantitative idea of the magnitude of unitarity phases in $`bsl^+l^{}`$ transition, we plot in Fig. 2 the parameter $`R_Y\text{Im}[Y(\widehat{s})]/|Y(\widehat{s})|`$ for two different regions of the dilepton invariant mass, namely

$$4\widehat{m}_l^2\widehat{s}(\widehat{M}_{J/\psi }ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}})^2,(\widehat{M}_\psi ^{}+ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}^{})^2\widehat{s}(1\widehat{M}_K^{})^2,$$
(68)
which we refer to as the low-$`\widehat{s}`$ and high-$`\widehat{s}`$ region respectively.<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*We use $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2\text{GeV}/M_B`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cut}}^{}=0.1\text{GeV}/M_B`$ in the case of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ in the final state.

As we alluded to earlier, in the low-$`\widehat{s}`$ region the strong phase is suppressed by small Wilson coefficients of the QCD penguin operators, whereas in the high-$`\widehat{s}`$ region it can be large.

Figure 3 shows the dependence of $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ on $`r`$ for different choices of the weak phase $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ in the low-$`\widehat{s}`$ and high-$`\widehat{s}`$ region. Observe that the asymmetry is maximized when $`r=1`$ (i.e. the two interfering amplitudes are of comparable size) but is strongly suppressed if either $`r1`$ or $`r1`$.

Using the two-dimensional decay distribution $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }/d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l`$ derived in the preceding section, we may define the following average $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries:

$$A_{\mathrm{CP}}^D=\frac{{\displaystyle _{\widehat{s}_0}^{\widehat{s}_1}}𝑑\widehat{s}{\displaystyle _D}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{sum}}}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}}}{{\displaystyle _{\widehat{s}_0}^{\widehat{s}_1}}𝑑\widehat{s}{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{sum}}}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}}},A_{\mathrm{CP}}^S=\frac{{\displaystyle _{\widehat{s}_0}^{\widehat{s}_1}}𝑑\widehat{s}{\displaystyle _S}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{diff}}}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}}}{{\displaystyle _{\widehat{s}_0}^{\widehat{s}_1}}𝑑\widehat{s}{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{sum}}}{d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}}},$$
(69)
where

$$_{D,S}_0^1_1^0,$$
(70)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{sum}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{})+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B\overline{K}^{}l^+l^{}),$$
(71)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{diff}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{})\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B\overline{K}^{}l^+l^{}).$$
(72)
Notice that the asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^D`$ is a $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating effect in the angular distribution of $`l^{}`$ (or equivalently the Dalitz-plot distribution) in $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ decays while $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^S`$ represents the asymmetry in the partial widths of these decays. The special feature of the former is that it can be determined even for an untagged equal mixture of $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ events, i.e. without flavour identification. We emphasize that both asymmetries are odd under $`CP`$ but even under ‘naive’ $`T`$, and thus vanish in the limit that there are no strong phases.For a review of $`\mathrm{CP}`$-odd observables, we refer the reader to Ref. .

## VI Numerical analysis

In the remainder of this paper, we wish to focus on the $`\overline{B}K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ mode. We start this section with a brief discussion of the experimental constraints that we shall be using in our subsequent calculations.

### A Experimental constraints

Constraints on the parameters $`R_i`$, Eqs. (III A), are provided by the following experimental results: (i) The CDF collaboration has recently obtained the upper bound

$$(B^0K^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})<4.0\times 10^6$$
(73)
at $`90\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.`$ . (ii) The measurement of the inclusive branching ratio $`(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )`$ yields

$$2.0\times 10^4<(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )<4.5\times 10^4(95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.).$$
(74)
Employing the leading-order result for $`(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )`$ (see, e.g., Ref. ), useful bounds can be placed on the absolute value of $`R_7`$, namely

$$0.881<|R_7|<1.321.$$
(75)
### B Integrated observables in $`\overline{𝑩}\mathbf{}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$

Below we present our predictions (i) for the non-resonant invariant mass spectrum of the muon pair, and (ii) for the low-$`\widehat{s}`$ and high-$`\widehat{s}`$ region, as defined in Eq. (68). The resonance effects are taken into account by employing Eqs. (24) and (25).

* The branching ratio resulting from the SM operator basis given in Eq. (2) can be conveniently written as

$``$ $`=`$ $`[a_0+a_1|R_{10}|^2+a_2|R_7|^2+a_3|R_9|^2+a_4\text{Im}R_7+a_5\text{Im}R_9+a_6\text{Re}(R_7R_9^{})`$ (77)
$`+a_7\text{Re}R_7+a_8\text{Re}R_9]\times 10^7.`$
Here we have introduced the coefficients $`a_i\alpha _i+\beta _i`$ which allow us to incorporate the effects of new operators $`𝒪_i^{}`$ \[Eq. (37)\] into our computation of the branching ratio by simply replacing

$$(\alpha _i+\beta _i)f(R_i)\alpha _if(R_i+R_i^{})+\beta _if(R_iR_i^{}),$$
(78)
where we have defined the quantities $`R_i^{}`$ analogous to those in Eqs. (III A). Our numerical results for the coefficients $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _i`$ are listed in Table III.
* Similarly, we parametrize the average FB asymmetry as

$$A_{\mathrm{FB}}=[\text{Re}R_{10}^{}(a_0+a_1R_7+a_2R_9)+a_3\text{Im}R_{10}]\left(\frac{10^7}{}\right),$$
(79)
with the values of $`a_i`$ tabulated in Table III. As before, the average FB asymmetry in the presence of chirality-flipped operators can be obtained from Eq. (79) by the following replacements:

$`(\alpha _i+\beta _i)f(R_7,R_9,R_{10})`$ $``$ $`\alpha _if(R_7R_7^{},R_9R_9^{},R_{10}+R_{10}^{})`$ (80)
$`+`$ $`\beta _if(R_7+R_7^{},R_9+R_9^{},R_{10}R_{10}^{}).`$ (81)
* Our results for the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries are as follows:

$`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^S^{\mathrm{low}}=(a_0\text{Im}R_7+a_1\text{Im}R_9)\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^9}{\widehat{}^{\mathrm{low}}}}\right),`$ (82)
$`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^S^{\mathrm{high}}=(a_0\text{Im}R_7+a_1\text{Im}R_9)\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^8}{\widehat{}^{\mathrm{high}}}}\right),`$ (83)
and

$`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^D^{\mathrm{low}}=a_0\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{10}|R_{10}|\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^9}{\widehat{}^{\mathrm{low}}}}\right),`$ (84)
$`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^D^{\mathrm{high}}=a_0\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{10}|R_{10}|\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^8}{\widehat{}^{\mathrm{high}}}}\right),`$ (85)
$`\widehat{}(+\overline{})/2`$ being the $`\mathrm{CP}`$-averaged branching ratio \[see Eqs. (65) and (66)\]. It is obvious that $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^S`$ is sensitive to the $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating phases $`\varphi _7`$ and $`\varphi _9`$, while $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^S`$ also probes the phase $`\varphi _{10}`$. The predictions for the coefficients $`a_i`$ are reported in Table IV.

### C Numerical results and predictions

We first analyse the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries in the context of the SM operator basis, Eq. (2). To determine the implications of new physics for the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries, we adopt the following procedure. The absolute value of $`R_7`$ is chosen such that it satisfies the constraints implied by the measured $`bs\gamma `$ rate, Eq. (75), while the remaining parameters $`R_9`$ and $`R_{10}`$ are required to be consistent with the current experimental upper limit on the non-resonant branching ratio $`(B^0K^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ given in Eq. (73). To gain predictivity we take $`|R_7|`$ to be unity, so that we end up with a set of free parameters comprising $`\varphi _7`$, $`\varphi _9`$, and $`|R_9|`$. In fact, imposing the requirement that the non-resonant branching ratio coincides with the experimental upper bound, or, alternatively, with the SM prediction, the quantity $`R_{10}`$ is computed for any given set of the parameters $`\varphi _7,\varphi _9,|R_9|`$.As far as new $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating phases are concerned, we note that in the context of a specific model one has also to take into account the severe constraints on the electric dipole moments of electron and neutron. This enables us to consider a scenario where the predicted $`bs\gamma `$ fraction coincides with the SM expectation while the non-resonant branching ratio of $`\overline{B}K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ may well be accessible in the next round of $`B`$ experiments.

As mentioned above, the value of the strong phase entering the amplitude of the $`\overline{B}K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ process depends on the Wilson coefficients $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_6`$ which we have assumed to be unaffected by new-physics contributions. Hence, the value of the strong phase $`\mathrm{sin}\delta `$ is fixed, and estimated to be $`0.07`$ and $`0.51`$ in the low-$`\widehat{s}`$ and high-$`\widehat{s}`$ domain respectively.

Lastly, using the parametrization for the amplitude given in Eq. (65), and employing the integrated expressions above, we determine $`r`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ numerically as a function of $`\varphi _7,\varphi _9`$, and $`|R_9|`$.

#### 1 CP asymmetry in the partial widths

Figures 4 and 5

show the parameters $`r`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^S`$ in the low dimuon invariant mass region as a function of the phases $`\varphi _7`$ and $`\varphi _9`$, taking $`|R_9|=1`$ and requiring that $`^{\mathrm{nr}}=4.0\times 10^6`$.<sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§The impact of new phases on the partial-rate asymmetry in $`\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{}`$ decay for the case of $`|R_i|=1`$ has also been studied in Ref. . It may be noted that the predictions for the average $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry depend very little on the phase $`\varphi _7`$ and its absolute value is no greater than $`1\%`$, regardless of the size of the $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating phases. If we allow for deviations from $`|R_9|=1`$, the magnitude of the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry does not change significantly. We may therefore conclude that the partial-rate asymmetry, indicative of $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation, in the low-$`\widehat{s}`$ region is too small to be observable (assuming that the indispensable strong phase does not receive any substantial non-standard contributions).

We now turn our attention to the high-$`\widehat{s}`$ region. It is clear from the above discussion that physics beyond the SM can give rise to sizable $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries above the $`\psi ^{}`$ resonance where we expect to have an appreciable strong phase but also a lower branching ratio. In fact, in the high-$`\widehat{s}`$ region we find the approximate relation $`r^{\mathrm{high}}2r^{\mathrm{low}}`$, whereas the numerical value of the weak phase $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ is of the same order of magnitude in both the low and the high dimuon invariant mass region. This can be seen in Figs. 6

and 7, where we show our results for $`r`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^S`$. For certain values of the phases $`\varphi _7`$ and $`\varphi _9`$, the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry can be of order $`\pm 10\%`$. As far as theoretical uncertainties are concerned, we merely remark that the numerical estimates for average $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries are largely independent of the parametrizations of form factors, so that the theoretical uncertainty associated with real $`c\overline{c}`$ intermediate states discussed in Sec. II gives by far the largest uncertainty in the predicted $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry.

Next we consider the case where we allow for higher values of $`|R_9|`$. We begin by noting that for $`|R_9|>1.75`$ some part of the $`(\varphi _7,\varphi _9)`$ parameter space is already excluded by the experimental upper bound on the non-resonant branching ratio, Eq. (73). Exploiting the fact that $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^S`$ depends only weakly on the phase $`\varphi _7`$, we may take $`\varphi _7=4.8`$ (see Fig. 6). Then, setting $`|R_9|=1`$ we find a magnitude of the average $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry varying from $`0.05`$ to $`0.12`$, whereas for $`|R_9|=1.75`$ we predict the range $`0.15A_{\mathrm{CP}}^S0.20`$. In this latter case, numerical values of $`r`$ between $`0.26`$ and $`0.33`$ are estimated while $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ can be maximal. In particular, for $`|R_9|=1.75`$ the weak phase $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ is nearly unity if we demand the non-resonant branching fraction to be $`4.0\times 10^6`$.

Let us now discuss a scenario in which we abandon the assumption of having a non-resonant branching ratio of $`4.0\times 10^6`$. We focus here on the high-$`\widehat{s}`$ region as we do not expect any significant deviation from our results obtained in the region below the charmonium resonances. We first consider the case where the branching ratio is still fixed to the SM value of $`^{\mathrm{nr}}=1.8\times 10^6`$. Further, we take $`\varphi _7=4.8`$ and $`|R_9|=0.9`$. (Note that larger values of $`|R_9|`$ are not consistent with the SM branching ratio). As a result, the weak phase $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ exhibits almost the same $`\varphi _9`$-dependent behaviour as in the previous case with maximum branching ratio presently allowed by experiment. In addition, a smaller value for $`^{\mathrm{nr}}`$ leads to a wider range of $`r`$, namely $`0.47r0.70`$. As for $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation, an average asymmetry of anything between $`0.20`$ and $`0.30`$ is predicted.

It is also interesting to analyse the case in which the branching ratio is not fixed to any particular value but is still compatible with the experimental results described above. Remembering that $`R_{10}`$ contributes only to the branching ratio, we set $`R_{10}=0`$ in order to get the highest possible value for the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry (see Sec. V). Consequently, the interference of the terms $`R_7`$ and $`R_9`$ now plays an essential role as the branching ratio diminishes for certain values of $`\varphi _9`$, and so $`r`$ can be unity (which corresponds to the maximal size of the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry). In this case, the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^S`$ varies considerably and can take on any value between $`0.5`$ and $`0.4`$ for $`^{\mathrm{nr}}`$ ranging from $`5.0\times 10^7`$ to $`1.6\times 10^6`$.

#### 2 CP asymmetry in the angular distribution of $`\mu ^{}`$

A similar analysis has been carried out for the asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^D`$, Eq. (69), which is of considerable interest since it probes the phase of $`R_{10}`$. Here again the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry in the low-$`\widehat{s}`$ domain is fairly small, typically a few per cent, and we therefore concentrate on the high-$`\widehat{s}`$ region where $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating effects are not suppressed by small unitarity phases. Results for the ratio $`R_{\mathrm{CP}}A_{\mathrm{CP}}^D/\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{10}`$ as a function of $`\varphi _7`$ and $`\varphi _9`$ are displayed in Fig. 8.

Demanding that $`|R_9|`$ reproduces the experimental upper bound on the non-resonant branching ratio leads to the predictions shown in Figure 8 (a). Moreover, the quantity $`R_{10}`$ obeys the constraint $`|R_{10}|1.9`$. On the other hand, assuming the SM prediction of $`^{\mathrm{nr}}=1.8\times 10^6`$, we obtain the results shown in Fig. 8 (b). In this case, present experimental data on $`(B^0K^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ lead to the upper bound $`|R_{10}|1.2`$. In both cases, the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry in the angular distribution of $`\mu ^{}`$ in $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ decays turns out to be about $`10\%`$.An analysis of such a $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating effect in the presence of non-standard $`Z`$ couplings has recently been performed in Ref. , which estimates an asymmetry of about $`10\%`$ in the high dimuon invariant mass region.

Finally, taking $`|R_9|=0`$ we find that the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry can be as large as $`25\%`$ for a rather low $`|R_{10}|`$, which corresponds to a non-resonant branching fraction of $`O(10^7)`$. If we consider instead a branching ratio of $`^{\mathrm{nr}}10^6`$, the asymmetry can reach to values of $`15\%`$.

#### 3 A comment on CP violation and additional operators

As seen in the preceding, within the framework of the SM operator basis it is possible to account for the maximum values of the $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating asymmetries. Hence our quantitative results for $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation in the decay $`\overline{B}K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ are not affected by the chirality-flipped operators \[Eq. (37)\] once existing experimental constraints are taken into account. In other words, the observation of an appreciable $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetry alone does not provide a test of the chirality structure of operators that enter the effective Hamiltonian, and thus is not sufficient to disentangle different new-physics scenarios.

## VII Summary and conclusions

We have performed a largely model-independent analysis of the exclusive decay $`\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{}`$ in the presence of physics transcending the SM. In particular, we have investigated the implications of new $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating phases for the decay $`\overline{B}K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, and derived analytic expressions for the branching ratio, the FB asymmetry, and certain $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating observables. The formalism presented is applicable to any effective Hamiltonian containing the SM operator basis as well as operators with a different chirality structure. We have studied in some detail the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries in the partial rates and the angular distribution of $`\mu ^{}`$ in $`\overline{B}K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`B\overline{K}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decays, which require the simultaneous presence of weak and strong phases. Adopting the SM operator basis and assuming that new-physics contributions to two-body non-leptonic $`B`$ decays are unlikely to be significant, the $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating effects in the $`2m_\mu M_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}<M_{J/\psi }`$ domain are estimated to be small (up to at most a few per cent). Ultimately, this result is a consequence of the smallness of the dynamical phase associated with the absorptive part of the penguin diagram; thus, the presence of large non-standard $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating phases does not necessarily imply sizable $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating effects in the lower part of the decay spectrum. Even so, studies of $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating effects in the low-$`\widehat{s}`$ region will provide a crucial test of the SM, since any indication of $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation would represent new physics. On the other hand, in the high dimuon invariant mass region $`M_\psi ^{}<M_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}(M_BM_K^{})`$ appreciable $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating effects can show up, which are consistent with current experimental data on the $`bs\gamma `$ branching fraction and the upper bound on $`(B^0K^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$. We find that $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries up to $`30\%`$ can arise for a non-resonant branching ratio of $`1.8\times 10^6`$. That is, new physics gives the same rate as in the SM while large $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating effects may occur. It should be kept in mind that our numerical results for the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries in the high dimuon invariant mass region are plagued with theoretical uncertainties due mainly to real $`c\overline{c}`$ intermediate states, so that precise predictions are more difficult in this case. Nevertheless, the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries provide a particularly useful tool for discovering new physics and their study may gain insight into the mechanism of $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation. Given an asymmetry of $`20\%`$ and a branching ratio of $`3.0\times 10^7`$ in the high-$`\widehat{s}`$ region, a measurement at $`3\sigma `$ level will necessitate at least $`7.5\times 10^8`$ $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs, which seems to be achievable in the $`B`$-factory era (see, e.g., Ref. ). In this connection it is worth pointing out that the asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^D`$, which is a $`\mathrm{CP}`$-violating effect related to the angular distribution of $`\mu ^{}`$ in $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ decays, has the piquant feature that it does not require flavour identification and can be obtained from a measurement of the sum of $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ events.

As far as new operators are concerned, we have argued that in the case of massless leptons, i.e. $`l=e`$ or $`\mu `$, the dominant contributions may come from operators with a non-SM chirality structure. However, since the SM operator basis can accommodate maximum $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries, the inclusion of new operator structures does not affect the main conclusions of our analysis, but it is worth considering once sufficient data are accumulated. We are thus eagerly awaiting the upcoming $`B`$ experiments which will provide useful information on the short-distance coefficients governing FCNC processes like $`bs\gamma `$ and $`bsl^+l^{}`$.

We conclude that the $`\mathrm{CP}`$ asymmetries in the exclusive decay $`\overline{B}K^{}l^+l^{}`$ can serve as an important test of the SM mechanism of $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation and hence provide a testing ground for new physics. A measurement of these asymmetries in forthcoming $`B`$ experiments would signal the presence of non-standard physics and rule out the SM as a primary source of $`\mathrm{CP}`$ violation.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of us (F.K.) would like to thank the SISSA particle theory group for their warm hospitality during the early stages of this project. This work was supported in part by the TMR Network of the EC under contract ERBFMRX-CT96-0090.


format: text

text:
# Implementing universal multi-qubit quantum logic gates in three and four-spin systems at room temperature

## I Introduction

A quantum computer, exploiting quantum state superposition and entanglement, is capable of performing select computations more powerfully than any classical computer. Many quantum algorithms that achieve the same computational tasks much faster than their classical counterparts have been designed. These theoretical results have led many groups to try to realize a quantum computer experimentally. Up to now, there are a rapidly growing number of proposed device technologies for quantum computation. Of these technologies, those exploiting nuclear magnetic resonance(NMR) have been the first to demonstrate non-trivial quantum algorithms with small numbers of qubits, most authors realized three-qubit NMR quantum computation.

One of the key challenges we are facing is to increase the size of the system used. It is notable that the largest number of qubits used up to date is seven-qubit. To experimenter, any computational task could be viewed as a quantum circuit composed of quantum logic gates, in analogy to the situation of classical computers. In addition, from the point of view of decoherence, the circuit must be high efficient in experiment. Therefore, it is important to demonstrate the Multi-qubit quantum logic gates on a large number of qubits effectively in practice. On the other hand, some methods to construct the arbitrary multi-qubit quantum circuit with a sequence of universal two-qubit gates were reported recently.

In this paper, we start from the introduction of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\left(not\right)`$ gate, and try to realize it with a sequence of two-qubit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gates presented by Barenco et al. Through this procedure we find that in NMR doing nothing (suspending evolution) in one part of a system while doing something in another part of the system is nontrivial, i.e. the extension of two-qubit gate to more than two coupled spins is complicated and not easy to implement. Then, we report the implementation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\left(not\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ gates by utilizing the electromagnetic pulses of well-defined frequency and length in three and four-qubit systems. For the sake of experimental convenience, these pulses are physically reasonable choice for the method of quantum circuit construction in quantum computation rather than two-qubit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gate. It seems that this method is experimentally convenient when we extend this procedure to more qubits, and one can perform a large class of multi-qubit controlled rotations simultaneously in many physical systems such as quantum dots, nuclear spins and trapped ions etc.

## II Quantum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\left(not\right)`$ gate

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\left(not\right)`$ gate is a $`\left(n+1\right)`$-qubit quantum logic gate in which there are $`n`$ control qubits and one target qubit, performing the unitary transformation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\left(not\right)\left(|x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y\right)=|x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_ky$$
(1)
$`=\{\begin{array}{c}|x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y\text{ }\text{if}_{k=1}^nx_k=0\hfill \\ |x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\overline{y}\text{ if}_{k=1}^nx_k=1\hfill \end{array}`$

for all $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y\{0,1\},`$ and $`_{k=1}^nx_k`$ denotes the AND of the boolean variables $`\left\{x_k\right\}.`$ It can be seen that $`n`$ control qubits does not change their values $`|x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ after the action of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\left(not\right)`$ gate and the target qubit flips its state $`|y`$ to $`|\overline{y}`$ if and only if $`_{k=1}^nx_k=1`$. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\left(not\right)`$ gate can also be described by the following unitary matrix

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\left(not\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_{2^{n+1}2}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \sigma _x\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(2)
where the basis states of $`n+1`$ qubits are lexicographically ordered, i.e., $`|0\mathrm{}00,|0\mathrm{}01,`$ $`\mathrm{}|1\mathrm{}11`$, $`I_{2^{n+1}2}`$ is the $`\left(2^{n+1}2\right)\times \left(2^{n+1}2\right)`$ identity matrix and $`\sigma _x`$ are Pauli spin matrices.

when $`n=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ is the so-called CNOT gate

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)=|0000|+|0101|+|1011|+|1110|=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_2\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \sigma _x\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(3)
It has a role to play in quantum measurement, in creation and manipulation of entanglement and in quantum error correction. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gate is of central importance in quantum computation because any quantum logic gates can be decomposed into a sequence of one-qubit rotations and two-qubit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gates. Most implementation of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gate in a liquid state NMR involved a special sequence of resonance electromagnetic pulses. For example, in two-spin physical system of the carbon-13 labeled chloroform, the “modified” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gate was implemented using two radio-frequency pulses. The first pulse induced a $`\pi `$/$`2`$ rotation of the target spin around the one axis of the rotating reference frame. The second pulse induced a similar rotation around the other axis. The delay time between two pulses was $`\pi /2J`$, where $`J`$ is the interaction constant. This action is modified in the sense that it differs from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gate in relative phases but it require even less resources. One can also see the ideal implementation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gate with more resources.

If $`n=2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\left(not\right)`$ can be regarded as a three-qubit quantum logic gate which is named as Toffolli-gate now, and this gate plays the role of a universal gate for reversible circuits.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\left(not\right)=\stackrel{101}{\underset{x=000}{}}|xx|+|110111|+|111110|=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_6\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \sigma _x\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(4)
Similarly, the four-qubit gate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)=\stackrel{1101}{\underset{x=0000}{}}|xx|+|11101111|+|11111110|=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_{14}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \sigma _x\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(5)
One method to implement $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\left(not\right)`$ gate and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ gate would be to make use of one-qubit rotations and two-qubit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gates. several schemes have been proposed to realize $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\left(not\right)`$ gates by these foundational quantum logic gates. However, extending the number of qubits has not been proved easy. Barenco et al. exhibited to obtain the best known three-qubit Toffoli gate$`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\left(not\right)\right)`$ with five $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gates; in this same paper, they also built up a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ gate with thirteen $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gates. Reck et al. proved that any $`n`$-qubit quantum circuit, expressed as an unitary operator, could be constructed using a finite number $`\left(\mathrm{\Theta }\left(n^34^n\right)\right)`$ of two-qubit gates. More important, due to the interactions among the qubits, to apply two-qubit gate while doing nothing on the other $`\left(n2\right)`$ qubits in $`n`$-qubit system is much more complicated than to apply the same two-qubit gate in a two-qubit NMR quantum computer.

The above scheme to realize the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\left(not\right)`$ gates $`\left(n2\right)`$ depends heavily on using the fundamental two-qubit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$ gate. Although each gate in these schemes can be implemented by appropriately refocused evolutions in NMR, however, the approach to realize $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\left(not\right)`$ gate in the n-qubit NMR system according to these theoretical schemes is not efficient in general. There are two main reasons. One is that most of these schemes are to construct the arbitrary quantum circuit with a sequence of the two-qubit operation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(not\right)`$. This may not be a physically reasonable choice in some NMR quantum computation, but for the moment this should be considered as a mathematical convenience which will permit us to address somewhat general questions. The other is that NMR quantum operations depend heavily on the molecule being used. The fact that the chemical shift and coupling constant are small in the spin systems leads to the requirement of the highly frequency selectivity which is important in quantum operation.

## III Experimental realization

Seth Lloyd described a method to perform arbitrary quantum circuit by a sequence of electromagnetic pulses of well-defined frequency and length in a weakly-coupled quantum systems. For the purpose of interpreting this method, let us consider a macroscopic ensemble of $`n`$-spin molecules at room temperature. The $`n`$ nuclear spins in each molecule represent a $`n`$-qubit register. The qubits are labeled by the characteristic frequencies, $`\omega _k`$, $`\left(k=\text{1 to n}\right)`$ due to the Zeeman interaction of the nuclear spins with the magnetic field. The Hamiltonian of the nuclear spins in a molecule in solution is well approximated for the following reason: small interactions with other nuclei do not play a major role in the dynamics while higher order terms in the spin-spin coupling can be disregarded in the first-order model, and the rapid molecular tumbling averages away in the liquid at a high magnetic field.

$$H_{nqubits}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left[\stackrel{n}{\underset{k=1}{}}\omega _k\sigma _z^k+\pi \underset{k>m}{}J_{m,k}\sigma _z^m\sigma _z^k\right]$$
(6)
where $`\omega _k`$ is the Lamour frequency of spin $`k`$ and $`\sigma _z^k`$ is the $`\widehat{z}`$ Pauli operator of spin $`k`$. $`J_{m,k}`$ is the strength of scalar weakly coupling between $`k`$ spin and $`m`$ spin. Because the energy level differences are small at room temperature $`E_k/K_BT1`$ and scalar coupling is weak $`J\left|\omega _{k+1}\omega _k\right|`$; the initial state is the thermal equilibrium state,

$$\rho _{eq}=\frac{\varrho ^{E_k/K_BT}}{_{k=0}^{2^n+1}\varrho ^{E_k/K_BT}}$$
(7)
we use the complete set of the basis states, $`\{|0_1\mathrm{}0_{n1}0_n`$ $`=|0,`$ $`|0_1\mathrm{}0_{n1}1_n`$ $`=|1,`$ $`\mathrm{},`$ $`|1_1\mathrm{}1_{n1}1_n`$ $`=`$ $`|2^n1\}`$, form a complete set of eigenstates of Hamiltonian $`H`$: $`H|k`$ $`=E_k|k,`$ $`\left(k=0,\mathrm{},2^n1\right)`$. For example, the energies of the ground state, $`|0\mathrm{}00`$, and the excited state, $`|1\mathrm{}11`$, are

$$E_0=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\stackrel{n}{\underset{k=1}{}}\left(\omega _k+\pi \underset{k>m}{}J_{m,k}\right)$$
(8)
$`E_{2^n1}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{n}{\underset{\alpha =1}{}}}\left(\omega _k+\pi {\displaystyle \underset{k>m}{}}J_{m,k}\right)`$

we assume that: $`\omega _1<\omega _2<\omega _3,`$ $`\mathrm{},<\omega _n,`$and $`J`$ $`\omega _{k+1}\omega _k,`$ ($`k=1,2,`$ $`\mathrm{},`$ $`2^n1`$).

Assume that the frequency of the external magnetic field, $`\omega `$, is resonant with the frequency of the transition, $`|1_1\mathrm{}1_{n1}0_n`$ $``$ $`|1_1\mathrm{}1_{n1}1_n`$, and that this transition frequency is different from all other single-spin transition frequencies. In this case, by applying a single $`\pi `$-pulse with frequency $`\omega `$, we could implement the modified quantum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n1}\left(not\right)`$ gate in an ensemble of $`n`$-spin molecules,

$$U=\varrho ^{i\pi [\frac{1}{16}\left(1\sigma _z^1\right),\mathrm{},\left(1\sigma _z^{n2}\right)\left(1\sigma _z^{n1}\right)\sigma _x^n]}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_{2^n2}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & i\sigma _x\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(9)
The above operation changes the state of the $`n`$-th spin (the target spin): $`|0i|1`$, only if the state of any other spins is $`|1`$. Some groups tested this method experimentally in their small two-qubit and three-qubit NMR quantum computers. Here, we extend this method to four-qubit systems and realized the Toffoli gate and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ gate experimentally.

### A three-qubit Toffoli gate

The single-pulse experimental realization of a modified three-qubit quantum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\left(not\right)`$ gate (Toffoli gate) is shown in Figure 1. In our NMR approach to realize three-qubit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\left(not\right)`$ gate we need three qubits. A convenient system we used is the liquid consisting of identical chlorostyrene molecules, the three weakly coupled spin 1/2 hydrogen nuclei, which are distinguished by their different resonance frequencies, i.e. $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _2`$and $`\omega _3`$, can be regarded as the isolated qubits ($`\omega _1<\omega _2<\omega _3`$).

In this experiment, the difference frequencies of the three spins are $`\omega _3\omega _2=471.8Hz`$ and $`\omega _3`$ $`\omega _1=700.3Hz`$. The corresponding $`J`$ coupling constant between the two qubits are $`J_{13}=10.9Hz`$, $`J_{23}=17.6Hz`$, and $`J_{12}=0.65Hz`$. The transmitter frequency of the transition-pulse is set at the $`\omega _3/2\pi +J_{13}/2+J_{13}/2`$. The power and the duration of the transition-pulse are adjusted to optimize the frequency selectivity. The real part of the Fourier transform of the resulting signal gives a NMR spectrum of the target qubit-3 containing four peaks at frequencies $`\omega _3/2\pi \pm J_{13}/2\pm J_{13}/2`$. these four peaks (from left to right) correspond to the two control qubits in the following states $`|00,|01,|10`$and $`|11`$. It is clear that our implementation of the quantum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\left(not\right)`$ gate leaves the computer in a final result as expected: if any one of the two control qubits is in ground state , the target qubit-3 does not change its value after the action of the gate; and if the two control qubits are both in states $`|1`$ , the target qubit-3 flips its state $`|0|1`$.

### B four-qubit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ gate

The experimental realization of a modified four-qubit quantum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ gate is shown in Figure 2. The physical system that we used to implement the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ gate is the liquid-state proton and carbon NMR of $`{}_{}{}^{13}C_{3}^{}`$ labeled alanine $`NH_3^+`$ $`C^^\alpha H\left(C^^\beta H_3\right)`$ $``$ $`C^\stackrel{´}{}OOH`$, with decoupling of the methyl protons, alanine exhibits a weakly coupled four-spin system. The $`C^^\alpha `$ was chosen as target qubit (labeled qubit-4) because of its well-resolved couplings with the other carbons $`\left(J_{C^^\alpha C^\stackrel{´}{}}=53.92Hz,\text{ }J_{C^^\alpha C^^\beta }=34.42Hz\right)`$ and with the adjacent proton $`\left(J_{C^^\alpha H}=144.89Hz\right)`$, which were chosen as the three control spins (labeled qubit-1, qubit-2 and qubit-3). The selective $`\pi `$ pulse were applied on the connected single-quantum transition $`|1_11_21_30_4`$ $`|1_11_21_31_4`$ of the target qubit-4, it is noted that all eight lines arise from the target qubit-4, and the intensity of each line is proportional to the total population difference between the corresponding states. It is clear that our implementation of the quantum logic gate leaves the computer in a final result as expected,

All NMR experiments are performed at room temperature and pressure on Bruker Avance $`DMX500`$ spectrometer $`\left(11.7T\right)`$ with a $`5mm`$ probe in Laboratory of Structure Biology, University of Science and Technology of China. We can see the small but significant distortions in the final spectra arising from the difficulty of implementing perfect selective pulses and inhomogeneity of the magnetic field. The experimental task is to shape the radio-frequency pulse envelope so as to achieve sufficient selectivity in the frequency domain that there is negligible perturbation of the next nearest neighbor of the spin multiplet.

## IV Conclusion

In conclusion, utilizing the proper resonant pulse of the well-defined frequency and length, we have demonstrated the reversible and universal three and four-qubit quantum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\left(not\right)`$ logic gates in two-level nuclear spin systems at room temperature.

One of the key challenges in quantum computation is to try to increase the size of the system used. The transition pulse that used in this paper can apply to all qubits of a quantum register in one operation. the operational time of the pulse is not influenced by the number of the qubits, therefore, it is experimentally convenient when we extend this procedure to more qubits. This advantage may be helpful to answer the question given a unitary transformation corresponding to a quantum computational task, what is the shortest sequence of pulses and evolutions which generates it? Further, in quantum information processing, this single-pulse quantum operation is useful not only in an ensemble of nuclear spins system but also in many other physical systems such as quantum dots, trapped ions etc.

Although the multi-qubit gates implementation with transition pulse is much simpler, it must be noted that it takes more time than the multi-qubit gates implementation with spin-selective pulse. For the experimenters, a reasonable choice should be to combine the utility of various NMR methods.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China.

Figure Captions:

Fig. 1, The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ quantum gate implemented on the four-spin system of alanine. $`\left(a\right)`$ experimental NMR spectra of the target qubit of the input thermal equilibrium state. $`\left(b\right)`$ experimental NMR spectra of the target qubit of the output state of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ gate.

Fig. 2, The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ quantum gate implemented on the four-spin system of alanine. $`\left(a\right)`$ experimental NMR spectra of the target qubit of the input thermal equilibrium state. $`\left(b\right)`$ experimental NMR spectra of the target qubit of the output state of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\left(not\right)`$ gate.