text:
# Algebras of minors

## Introduction

Let $`I`$ be an ideal of a Noetherian ring $`R`$. The Rees algebra of $`I`$ is the graded $`R`$-algebra $`_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}I^k`$. The study of the properties of Rees algebras (and of the other blow-up algebras) has attracted the attention of many researchers in the last three decades. For a detailed account on the theories that have been developed and on the results that have been proved the reader should consult the monograph of Vasconcelos \[V\]. In this paper we treat a special and interesting case: the Rees algebras of determinantal ideals and their special fibers.

Let $`X=(x_{ij})`$ be a generic matrix of size $`m\times n`$ over a field $`K`$ and let $`S`$ be the polynomial ring $`K[x_{ij}]`$. Let $`I_t`$ be the ideal of $`S`$ generated by the minors of size $`t`$ of $`X`$. Finally, let $`_t`$ be the Rees algebra of $`I_t`$, and let $`A_t`$ be the subalgebra of $`S`$ generated by the $`t`$-minors of $`X`$. In the case of maximal minors, i.e. $`t=\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$, the algebra $`A_t`$ is nothing but the homogeneous coordinate ring of the Grassmann variety which is known to be a Gorenstein factorial domain; for instance, see Bruns and Vetter \[BV\]. Furthermore, for maximal minors, Eisenbud and Huneke proved in \[EH\] that $`_t`$ is normal and Cohen-Macaulay. Their approach is based on the notion of algebra with straightening law. Later Bruns proved that $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ are Cohen-Macaulay and normal for any $`t`$ if $`\mathrm{char}K=0`$ using invariant theory methods; see \[B\]. In \[BC1\] we have shown, by using Sagbi basis deformation and the Knuth-Robinson-Schensted correspondence, that $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ are Cohen-Macaulay and normal domains for any $`t`$ and for any non-exceptional characteristic. Recall that (in our terminology) $`K`$ has non-exceptional characteristic if either $`\mathrm{char}K=0`$ or $`\mathrm{char}K>\mathrm{min}(t,mt,nt)`$. For exceptional characteristic $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ can be (and perhaps are always) very far from being Cohen-Macaulay; see the example in \[B\].

For maximal minors the divisor class group and the canonical class of $`_t`$ have been determined. They are the “expected” ones, that is, those of the Rees algebra of a prime ideal with primary powers in a regular local ring: $`\mathrm{Cl}(_t)`$ is free of rank $`1`$ with generator $`\mathrm{cl}(I_t_t)`$ and the canonical class is $`(2\mathrm{height}I_t)\mathrm{cl}(I_t_t)`$; see Herzog and Vasconcelos \[HV\] or Bruns, Simis and Trung \[BST\]. On the other hand, for non-maximal minors, $`\mathrm{Cl}(_t)`$ is free of rank $`t`$ \[B\].

Our goal is to determine the canonical class of $`_t`$, the divisor class group of $`A_t`$ and the canonical class of $`A_t`$ in all the remaining cases, that is, $`t<\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$. The case $`t=1`$ is anyway easy, and also the study of $`A_t`$ in the case $`m=n=t+1`$ is trivial since that ring is a polynomial ring.

Our main tools are the $`\gamma `$-functions that allow us to describe all relevant ideals in $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ and the Sagbi deformation by which we will lift the canonical module from the initial algebras of $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ to the algebras $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ themselves. In the following we consider $`A_t`$ and $`_t`$ as subalgebras of the polynomial ring $`S[T]`$, $`A_t`$ being generated by the elements of $`M_tT`$, where $`M_t`$ is the set of $`t`$-minors, and $`_t`$ being generated by $`M_tT`$ and the entries of $`X`$.

It turns out that the canonical class of $`_t`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{cl}(\omega (_t))`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}\left(2(mi+1)(ni+1)+ti\right)\mathrm{cl}(P_i)`$
$`=\mathrm{cl}(I_t_t)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}(1\mathrm{height}I_i)\mathrm{cl}(P_i)`$
Here $`P_i`$ is the prime ideal of $`_t`$ determined by $`\gamma _i`$; it has the property $`P_iS=I_i`$, and it is well-known that $`\mathrm{height}I_i=(mi+1)(ni+1)`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{cl}(I_t_t)=_{i=1}^t(ti+1)\mathrm{cl}(P_i)`$. The classes $`\mathrm{cl}(P_i)`$ generate $`\mathrm{Cl}(_t)`$ freely.

The divisor class group of $`A_t`$ is also free; its rank is $`1`$ with generator the class $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$ of the ideal $`𝔮=(f)S[T]A_t`$ where $`f`$ is a minor of size $`t+1`$ of $`X`$. The canonical class of $`A_t`$ is given by

$$(mnmtnt)\mathrm{cl}(𝔮).$$

It follows that, apart from the trivial or known cases listed above, $`A_t`$ is Gorenstein if and only if $`mn=t(m+n)`$.

There are many open questions concerning the algebras $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$. Just to mention few of them:

(a) In general we do not know (the degrees of) the defining equations of $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$. It is known that $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ are defined by quadrics in the maximal minors case or if $`t=1`$ or if $`m=n=t+1`$ and that in general higher degree relations are needed. Since $`A_t`$ has a rational singularity, it has a negative $`a`$-invariant. This implies that the defining equations of $`A_t`$ have degree $`dimA_t`$ and $`dimA_t=mn`$ for non-maximal minors. But this bound is not at all sharp. There are indications that quadrics and cubics are enough for $`A_t`$ and $`_t`$ if $`t=2`$.

(b) The Hilbert function of $`A_t`$ can be computed by the hook length formula (for example, see Stanley \[St, 7.21.6\]). We have in fact computed these Hilbert functions for a substantial number of cases, but we do not know an explicit formula, not even, say, for the multiplicity of $`A_t`$.

(c) For maximal minors the algebra $`A_t`$ has an isolated singularity since the Grassmann variety is a homogeneous variety and, hence, smooth; for instance see \[BV\]. But in general we do not know (the dimension of) the singular locus of $`A_t`$.

In principle, the results of this paper can be extended to the other generic determinantal ideals (minors of a symmetric matrix, pfaffians of an alternating matrix, etc.). In the last section we do this in detail for a generic Hankel matrix.

Most of the this work was done during the visit of the first author to the University of Genova in the frame of a project supported by the Italian Indam-Gnsaga.

## 1. Notation and generalities

We keep the notation of the introduction. We will always assume that the characteristic of the field $`K`$ is not exceptional, which means that it is either $`0`$ or larger than $`\mathrm{min}(t,mt,nt)`$. We will study the algebras $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$. As mentioned above, both algebras can be embedded into the polynomial ring $`S[T]`$ where $`T`$ is an auxiliary indeterminate. Denote by $`M_t`$ the set of the $`t`$-minors of $`X`$. Then $`A_t`$ is (isomorphic to) the $`K`$-subalgebra of $`S[T]`$ generated by the elements of the set $`M_tT`$, and $`_t`$ is the subalgebra generated by the elements of $`X`$ and of $`M_tT`$. Clearly, $`A_t_t`$ and both algebras are $``$-graded in a natural way. Moreover $`_t/(X)A_t`$ where $`(X)`$ is the ideal of $`_t`$ generated by the $`x_{ij}`$. Denote by $`V_t`$ the $`K`$-subalgebra of $`S[T]`$ generated by monomials that have degree $`t`$ in the variables $`x_{ij}`$ and degree $`1`$ in $`T`$. Note that $`A_tV_t`$ and that $`V_t`$ is a normal semigroup ring isomorphic to the $`t`$-th Veronese subring of the polynomial ring $`S`$. The rings $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ are known to be normal Cohen-Macaulay domains. The goal of the paper is to determine their divisor class group and canonical class and to discuss the Gorenstein property of these rings. As we have mentioned in the introduction these invariants are already known is some special cases. Therefore we will concentrate our attention to the remaining cases, that is, we make the following

Assumptions. (a) When studying the Rees algebra $`_t`$, we will assume that $`t<\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$,
(b) when studying $`A_t`$, we will assume that $`1<t<\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$ and that $`mn`$ if $`t=\mathrm{min}(m,n)1`$.

Our approach to the study of the algebras under investigation makes use of Sagbi bases deformations and of the straightening law for generic minors. For generalities on the former we refer the reader to Conca, Herzog and Valla \[CHV\]. As for the latter, the reader can consult Bruns and Vetter \[BV\], Doubilet, Rota and Stein \[DRS\], or De Concini, Eisenbud and Procesi \[DEP\].

Here we just recall its main features. The minor of $`X`$ with row indices $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_t`$ and column indices $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_t`$ is denoted by

$$[a_1,\mathrm{},a_t|b_1,\mathrm{},b_t].$$

We will assume that the row and the column indices are given in ascending order $`a_i<a_{i+1}`$ and $`b_i<b_{i+1}`$. The set of the minors of $`X`$ is partially ordered in a natural way:

$$[a_1,\mathrm{},a_t|b_1,\mathrm{},b_t][c_1,\mathrm{},c_s|d_1,\mathrm{},d_s]$$

if and only if $`ts`$ and $`a_ic_i`$, $`b_id_i`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$.

Let $`\delta _1,\delta _2,\mathrm{},\delta _p`$ be minors of size $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_p`$ respectively. Consider the product $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\delta _1\mathrm{}\delta _p`$. The shape of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is by definition the sequence of numbers $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is said to be a standard monomial if $`\delta _1\mathrm{}\delta _p`$. The straightening law asserts the following:

###### Theorem 1.1.

The standard monomials form a $`K`$-vector space basis of $`S`$.

We recall now the definition of the functions $`\gamma _t`$. Given a sequence of numbers $`s=s_1,\mathrm{},s_p`$ and a number $`t`$ we define

$$\gamma _t(s)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\mathrm{max}(s_i+1t,0).$$

Then we extend the definition to products of minors by setting:

$$\gamma _t(\mathrm{\Delta })=\gamma _t(s)$$

where $`s`$ is the shape of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Finally, for ordinary monomials $`M`$ of $`S`$ we define:

$$\rho _t(M)=sup\{\gamma _t(\mathrm{\Delta }):\mathrm{\Delta }\text{ is a product of minors of }X\text{ with }\mathrm{in}(\mathrm{\Delta })=M\}$$

where $`\mathrm{in}(f)`$ denotes the initial term of a polynomial $`f`$ with respect to a diagonal term order, i.e. a term order such that $`\mathrm{in}(\delta )=x_{a_1b_1}\mathrm{}x_{a_tb_t}`$ for every minor $`\delta =[a_1,\mathrm{},a_t|b_1,\mathrm{},b_t]`$ of $`X`$. In our previous papers \[BC1, BC2\], the function $`\rho _t`$ was also denoted by $`\gamma _t`$; this could create some ambiguities in the present paper, so that we have changed the notation.

The functions $`\gamma _t`$ were introduced in \[DEP\] to describe the symbolic powers of $`I_t`$ and the primary decomposition of the powers of $`I_t`$. We have shown in \[BC1\] that the functions $`\rho _t`$ describe instead the initial ideals of the symbolic and ordinary powers of $`I_t`$. Let us recall the precise statements:

###### Theorem 1.2.

* $`I_t^{(k)}`$ is $`K`$-vector space generated by the standard monomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\gamma _t(\mathrm{\Delta })k`$, and it contains all products of minors $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\gamma _t(\mathrm{\Delta })k`$.
* The initial ideal $`\mathrm{in}(I_t^{(k)})`$ is the $`K`$-vector space generated by the ordinary monomials $`M`$ with $`\rho _t(M)k`$.

###### Theorem 1.3.

* $`I_t^k=_{i=1}^tI_i^{(k(t+1i))}`$ is a primary decomposition of $`I_t^k`$. In particular, $`I_t^k`$ is generated by the standard monomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\gamma _i(\mathrm{\Delta })k(t+1i)`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$, and it contains all products of minors $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying these conditions. Moreover this primary decomposition is irredundant if $`t<\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$ and $`k(v1)/(vt)`$ where $`v=\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$.
* The initial ideal $`\mathrm{in}(I_t^k)`$ is the $`K`$-vector space generated by the ordinary monomials $`M`$ with $`\rho _i(M)k(t+1i)`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$.

We may define the value of function $`\gamma _t`$ for any polynomial $`f`$ of $`S`$ as follows. Let $`f=_{i=1}^p\lambda _i\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ the unique representation of $`f`$ as a linear combination of standard monomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ with coefficients $`\lambda _i0`$. Then we set

$$\gamma _t(f)=inf\{\gamma _t(\mathrm{\Delta }_i):i=1,\mathrm{},p\}$$

and $`\gamma _t(0)=+\mathrm{}`$. This definition is consistent with the one above in the sense that if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a product of minors of shape $`s`$ which is non-standard, then $`\gamma _t(\mathrm{\Delta })=\gamma _t(s)`$.

The function $`\gamma _t`$ is indeed a discrete valuation on $`S`$ (with values in $``$), that is, the following conditions are satisfied for every $`f`$ and $`g`$ in $`S`$:

* $`\gamma _t(f+g)\mathrm{min}(\gamma _t(f),\gamma _t(g))`$, and equality holds if $`\gamma _t(f)\gamma _t(g)`$,
* $`\gamma _t(fg)=\gamma _t(f)+\gamma _t(g)`$.

Note that (a) follows immediately from the definition, and (b) from the fact that the associated graded ring of a symbolic filtration is a domain if the base ring is regular. We may further extend $`\gamma _t`$ to the field of fractions $`Q(S)`$ of $`S`$ by setting

$$\gamma _t(f/g)=\gamma _t(f)\gamma _t(g)$$

so that $`S`$ is a subring of the valuation ring associated with each $`\gamma _t`$.

The next step is to extend the valuation $`\gamma _t`$ to the polynomial ring $`S[T]`$ and to its field of fractions. We want to do this in a way such that the subalgebras $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ of $`S[T]`$ will then be described in terms of these functions. So, from now on, let us fix a number $`t`$ with $`1t\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$. For every polynomial $`F=_{j=0}^pf_jT^j0`$ of $`S[T]`$ we set

$$\gamma _i(F)=inf\{\gamma _i(f_j)j(t+1i):j=0,\mathrm{},p\};$$

in particular

$$\gamma _i(T)=(t+1i).$$

Then we have:

###### Proposition 1.4.

The function $`\gamma _i`$ defines a discrete valuation on the field of fractions $`Q(S[T])`$ of $`S[T]`$.

###### Proof.

This is a general fact, see Bourbaki \[Bo, Ch. VI, §10, no. 1, lemme 1\]. ∎

Note that $`F=f_jT^jS[T]`$ has $`\gamma _i(F)0`$ if and only if $`f_jI_i^{(j(t+1i))}`$ for every $`j`$. It follows from 1.3 that the Rees algebra $`_t`$ of $`I_t`$ has the following description:

###### Lemma 1.5.

$$_t=\{FS[T]:\gamma _i(F)0\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},t\}.$$

Similarly $`A_t=\{FV_t:\gamma _i(F)0\text{ for }i=2,\mathrm{},t\}`$. But this description is redundant:

###### Lemma 1.6.

$$A_t=\{FV_t:\gamma _2(F)0\}.$$

###### Proof.

We have to show that if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a standard monomial with $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Delta }=kt`$ and $`\gamma _2(\mathrm{\Delta })k(t1)`$, then $`\gamma _i(\mathrm{\Delta })k(t+1i)`$ for all $`j=3,\mathrm{},t`$. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ let $`a_i`$ denote the number of the factors of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which are minors of size $`i`$. By assumption we have that

$$\text{(a)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}ia_i=kt\text{and}\text{(b)}\underset{i=2}{\overset{m}{}}(i1)a_ik(t1).$$

In view of (a), condition (b) can be rewritten as

$$\text{(c)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_ik.$$

We have to show that

$$\text{(d)}\underset{i=j}{\overset{m}{}}a_i(i+1j)k(t+1j).$$

Note that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=j}{\overset{m}{}}}a_i(i+1j)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}a_i(i+1j){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}a_i(i+1j)`$
$`=kt+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}a_i(1j)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}a_i(ji1).`$
Therefore (d) is equivalent to

$$\left(k\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_i\right)(j1)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{j1}{}}a_i(ji1)0$$

which is true since the left hand side is the sum of non-negative terms. ∎

Similarly the initial algebras of $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ have a description in terms of the functions $`\rho _i`$. To this end we extend the definition of the function $`\rho _i`$ to monomials of $`S[T]`$ by setting

$$\rho _i(MT^k)=\rho _i(M)k(t+1i)$$

where $`M`$ is a monomial of $`S`$. Furthermore, for a polynomial $`F=_{j=1}^p\lambda _jN_j`$ of $`S[T]`$ where the $`N_i`$ are monomials and the $`\lambda _j`$ are non-zero elements of $`K`$, we set

$$\rho _i(F)=inf\{\rho _i(N_j):j=1,\mathrm{},p\}.$$

Now Theorem 1.3 implies:

###### Lemma 1.7.

* The initial algebra $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$ of $`_t`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{in}(_t)=\{FS[T]:\rho _i(F)0\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},t\}$$

The set of the monomials $`N`$ of $`S[T]`$ such that $`\rho _i(N)0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$ form a $`K`$-vector space basis of $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$.
* The initial algebra $`\mathrm{in}(A_t)`$ of $`A_t`$ is given by:

$$\mathrm{in}(A_t)=\{FV_t:\rho _2(F)0\}$$

The set of the monomials $`N`$ of $`S[T]`$ such that $`\rho _1(N)=0`$ and $`\rho _2(N)0`$ form a $`K`$-vector space basis of $`\mathrm{in}(A_t)`$.

The major difference between the functions $`\gamma _i`$ and $`\rho _i`$ is that the latter is not a valuation. Nevertheless, it will turn out that $`\rho _i`$ is an “intersection” of valuations, see Section 3.

## 2. The divisor class groups of $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$

The divisor class group of $`_t`$ has already been determined in \[B, Cor. 2.4\]. In this section we will present a (slightly) different approach to it, which will also be used to determine the divisor class group of $`A_t`$. We will need the following general facts:

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`A`$ be a normal domain. Suppose $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_t`$ are discrete valuations on $`A`$. Let $`B=\{xA:v_i(x)0\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},t\}`$ and $`P_i=\{xB:v_i(x)1\}`$. Then:

* Assume that there exist elements $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_tA`$ with $`v_i(y_i)<0`$ and $`v_j(y_i)0`$ for $`ji`$. Then $`P_i`$ is a height one ideal of the Krull domain $`B`$ whose symbolic power $`P_i^{(j)}`$ is $`\{xB:v_i(x)j\}`$ for every $`j1`$.
* Assume that $`\mathrm{height}(P_iA)>1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$ . Then $`A=B_Q,`$ where the intersection is taken over all height 1 prime ideals $`Q`$ of $`B`$ with $`Q\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_t\}`$.

###### Proof.

(1) Let $`V_i`$ be the valuation ring of $`v_i`$. Then evidently

$$B=V_1\mathrm{}V_t\underset{\mathrm{height}Q=1}{}A_Q,$$

and $`B`$ is obviously a Krull domain. All essential valuation overrings of $`B`$ occur in the above intersection. Since, by assumption, $`y_i`$ is in $`A`$ and in all the $`V_j`$ with $`ji`$, but not in $`B`$, we have that $`V_i`$ is not redundant in the above description of $`B`$. Then $`V_i`$ is an essential valuation overring of $`B`$. The rest is clear by standard results about essential valuations of Krull domains.

(2) Let $`f`$ be an arbitrary element of $`A`$. Let $`Q`$ be a height 1 prime ideal of $`B`$ with $`Q\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_t\}`$. We choose an element $`gP_1\mathrm{}P_tQ`$. Since $`v_i(g)1`$ for all $`i`$, there is a positive integer $`r`$ such that $`v_i(fg^r)=v_i(f)+rv_i(g)0`$ for all $`i`$. It follows that $`fg^rB`$. Hence $`fB_Q`$. So we get $`AB_Q`$. To prove $`AB_Q`$, we first note that $`A=A_𝔔`$, where $`𝔔`$ is taken over all height 1 prime ideal $`𝔔`$ of $`A`$. So we only need to show that if $`Q=𝔔B`$, then $`Q`$ is a height 1 prime ideal of $`B`$ and $`Q\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_t\}`$. That $`Q\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_t\}`$ follows from the assumption $`\mathrm{height}(P_iA)>1`$. To prove $`\mathrm{height}(Q)=1`$, it is sufficient to show that $`B_Q=A_𝔔`$. Let $`fA𝔔`$. Then $`fQB_Q`$ because otherwise there is an element $`gBQ`$ such that $`fgQ𝔔`$, contradicting the facts that $`f𝔔`$, $`g𝔔`$. Thus, $`f`$ is an invertible element in $`B_Q`$. Hence we can conclude that $`A_𝔔B_Q`$ so that $`A_𝔔=B_Q`$. ∎

We are grateful to the referee for the above lemma, which has simplified our original treatment. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$ we set $`P_i=\{F_t:\gamma _i(F)1\}`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

The ideal $`P_i`$ is a height $`1`$ prime ideal of $`_t`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$ and $`P_i^{(j)}=\{F_t:\gamma _i(F)j\}`$ for every $`j>0`$.

###### Proof.

We apply 2.1(1) with $`A=S[T]`$ and $`v_i=\gamma _i`$. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$ set

$$y_i=g^af^{ti}T^{mi}$$

where $`g`$ is an $`(i1)`$-minor, $`f`$ is an $`m`$-minor and $`a`$ is a large enough integer. The reader may check that these elements have the right $`\gamma `$-values, i.e. $`\gamma _j(y_i)0`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},t`$ and $`ji`$ and $`\gamma _i(y_i)<0`$. ∎

We can now describe the polynomial ring as a subintersection of the Rees algebra:

###### Proposition 2.3.

Set $`R=_t`$. Then

$$S[T]=R_Q$$

where the intersection is extended over all the height $`1`$ prime ideals $`Q`$ of $`_t`$ different from $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_t`$.

###### Proof.

We apply 2.1(2) with $`A=S[T]`$ and $`v_i=\gamma _i`$. To this end it suffices to note that $`I_iS[T]P_iS[T]`$ for all $`i`$. ∎

The ideal $`I_t_t`$ is a height $`1`$ ideal of $`_t`$. This follows, for instance, from the fact that $`_t`$ has dimension $`dimS+1`$ and the associated graded ring $`_t/I_t_t`$ has dimension $`dimS`$. Furthermore $`I_t_t`$ is divisorial since it is isomorphic to $`_{k>0}I_t^kT^k`$, which is a height $`1`$ prime ideal.

As a consequence of 2.2 and 1.3 (or \[B, Thm. 2.3\]) we obtain

###### Proposition 2.4.

One has

$$I_t_t=\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}P_i^{(ti+1)},$$

and this is an irredundant primary decomposition of $`I_t_t`$. In particular, $`P_i`$ is a height $`1`$ prime ideal of $`_t`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$.

###### Proof.

By virtue of 2.2 the equality $`I_t_t=_{i=1}^tP_i^{(ti+1)}`$ is simply a re-interpretation of 1.3. Since we assume that $`t<\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$, the primary decomposition of $`I_t^k`$ given in 1.3 is irredundant for $`k0`$. It follows that the primary decomposition of $`I_t_t`$ is also irredundant. ∎

###### Remark 2.5.

Since one can prove directly that $`P_1`$ is a height $`1`$ prime ideal with primary powers, one can also use the standard localization argument in order to show 2.2 and 2.4 (see \[B\]). However, this argument is not available for the Hankel matrices discussed in Section 6.

###### Theorem 2.6.

The divisor class group $`\mathrm{Cl}(_t)`$ of $`_t`$ is free of rank $`t`$,

$$\mathrm{Cl}(_t)^t$$

with basis $`\mathrm{cl}(P_1),\mathrm{},\mathrm{cl}(P_t)`$.

###### Proof.

The conclusion follows from 2.4 and from a general result of Simis and Trung \[ST, Thm. 1.1\]. Let us mention that one can derive the result also directly from Fossum \[F, Thm. 7.1\] and 2.3. ∎

We have similar constructions and results for $`A_t`$. First define

$$𝔭=\{FA_t:\gamma _2(F)1\}.$$

It is clear that $`𝔭`$ is a prime ideal of $`A_t`$.

###### Lemma 2.7.

The ideal $`𝔭`$ is prime of height $`1`$. Moreover, one has $`𝔭^{(j)}=\{FA_t:\gamma _2(F)j\}`$.

###### Proof.

We apply 2.1(1) where $`A=V_t`$ and $`v_1=\gamma _2`$. It suffices to take $`f=x_{11}^tTV_t`$ and note that $`\gamma _2(f)=t+1<0`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.8.

Set $`A=A_t`$. Then

$$V_t=A_P$$

where the intersection is extended over all the height $`1`$ prime ideals $`P`$ of $`A_t`$ with $`P𝔭`$.

###### Proof.

We apply 2.1(2) where $`A=V_t`$ and $`v_1=\gamma _2`$. It suffices to prove that $`𝔭A`$ has height $`>1`$. To this end take $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ distinct $`(t+1)`$-minors (they exist by our assumptions). Set $`g_j=f_j^tT^{t+1}`$. Then $`\gamma _2(g_j)=1`$ and hence $`g_j𝔭V_t`$. Since the $`f_i`$ are prime elements, $`(f_1^t,f_2^t)S`$ has height $`2`$. Since $`V_t`$ is a direct summand of the polynomial ring it follows that $`(g_1,g_2)V_t`$ has height $`2`$. ∎

Let $`f`$ be a $`(t+1)`$-minor of $`X`$. Set $`g=f^tT^{t+1}`$. By construction, $`gV_t`$ and $`\gamma _2(g)=1`$ so that $`gA_t`$. Set

$$𝔮=(f)S[T]A_t.$$

In other words, $`𝔮=\{faA_t:aS[T]\}`$. Since $`f`$ is a prime element in $`S[T]`$, the ideal $`𝔮`$ is prime. Furthermore we have $`𝔭𝔮^t(g)𝔭𝔮`$. The second inclusion is trivial. As for the first, note that any generator of $`𝔭𝔮^t`$ can be written in the from $`gb`$, and then just evaluate $`\gamma _2`$ to show that $`b`$ is in $`A_t`$.

Note also that:

###### Corollary 2.9.

The ideal $`𝔮`$ is a height $`1`$ prime ideal of $`A_t`$. Furthermore $`𝔮^{(j)}=(f^j)S[T]A_t`$.

###### Proof.

It suffices to check that $`𝔮`$ does not contain $`𝔭`$. Let $`f_1`$ be a $`(t+1)`$-minor of $`X`$ different from $`f`$ (it exist by our assumptions). Then $`f_1^tT^{t+1}`$ is in $`𝔭`$, but not in $`𝔮`$. The second statement is easy. ∎

It follows that:

###### Theorem 2.10.

The divisor class group of $`A_t`$ is free of rank $`1`$,

$$\mathrm{Cl}(A_t)$$

with basis $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$. Furthermore we have $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔭)=t\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$.

###### Proof.

By \[F, Thm. 7.1\] and 2.8 there is an exact sequence:

$$0\mathrm{cl}(𝔭)\mathrm{Cl}(A_t)\mathrm{Cl}(V_t)0.$$

It is well-known that $`\mathrm{Cl}(V_t)`$ is isomorphic to $`/t`$ and that it is spanned by the class of the prime ideal $`P`$ generated by the elements of the form $`x_{11}\mu T`$ where $`\mu `$ is a monomial in the $`x_{ij}`$ of degree $`t1`$. Note that $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔭)`$ is a torsion free element in $`\mathrm{Cl}(A_t)`$. This is because $`𝔭^{(j)}=\{FA_t:\gamma _2(F)j\}`$ cannot be principal; in fact, it contains all the elements of the form $`g^j`$ where $`g=f^tT^{t+1}`$ and $`f`$ is a $`(t+1)`$-minor. Now fix a $`(t+1)`$-minor $`f`$ and set $`P_1=(f)S[T]V_t`$, that is $`P_1`$ is the ideal generated by all the elements of the form $`f\mu T^2`$ where $`\mu `$ is a monomial of degree $`t1`$. Evidently $`P_1`$ is isomorphic to $`P`$ and hence $`\mathrm{cl}(P_1)`$ generates $`\mathrm{Cl}(V_t)`$. But $`𝔮`$ is $`P_1A_t`$ and hence $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$ is the preimage of $`\mathrm{cl}(P_1)`$ with respect to the map $`\mathrm{Cl}(A_t)\mathrm{Cl}(V_t)`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔭)`$ and $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$ generate $`\mathrm{Cl}(A_t)`$. By evaluating the function $`\gamma _2`$ one shows that

$$𝔮^{(t)}𝔭=(g)A_t.$$

Hence $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔭)=t\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$. Consequently $`\mathrm{Cl}(A_t)`$ is generated by $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$, and $`\mathrm{Cl}(A_t)`$ is torsion free. ∎

## 3. Canonical modules of $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$ and $`\mathrm{in}(A_t)`$

The goal of this section is to describe the canonical modules of the semigroup rings $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$ and $`\mathrm{in}(A_t)`$. We know that $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$ and $`\mathrm{in}(A_t)`$ are normal (see \[BC1\]) and hence their canonical modules are the vector spaces spanned by all monomials represented by integral points in the relative interiors of the corresponding cones.

To simplify notation we identify monomials of $`S[T]`$ with integral points of $`^{mn+1}`$. To a subset $`G`$ of the lattice $`[1,\mathrm{},m]\times [1,\mathrm{},n]`$ we associate the ideal $`P_G=(x_{ij}:(i,j)G)`$ of $`S`$ and a linear form $`\mathrm{}_G`$ on $`^{mn}`$ defined by $`\mathrm{}_G(x_{ij})=1`$ if $`(i,j)G`$ and $`\mathrm{}_G(x_{ij})=0`$ otherwise.

The initial ideal $`\mathrm{in}(I_i)`$ of $`I_i`$ is the square free monomial ideal generated by the initial terms (i.e. main diagonal products) of the $`i`$-minors. Therefore $`\mathrm{in}(I_i)`$ is the Stanley-Reisner ideal of a simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Let $`𝐅_i`$ be the set of the facets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Then $`\mathrm{in}(I_i)=_{F𝐅_i}P_F`$. The elements of $`𝐅_i`$ are described by Herzog and Trung \[HT\] in terms of families of non-intersecting paths. It turns out that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is a pure (even shellable) simplicial complex. We have shown in \[BC2\] that

$`(2)`$
$$\mathrm{in}(I_i^{(k)})=\underset{F𝐅_i}{}P_F^k.$$

and that

$`(3)`$
$$\mathrm{in}(I_t^k)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}\underset{F𝐅_i}{}P_F^{k(t+1i)}.$$

For every $`F𝐅_i`$ we extend the linear form $`\mathrm{}_F`$ to the linear form $`L_F`$ on $`^{mn+1}`$ by setting $`L_F(T)=(t+1i)`$. Then the equations (2) and (3) imply

###### Lemma 3.1.

A monomial $`N`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$ if and only if it has non-negative exponents and $`L_F(N)0`$ for every $`F𝐅_i`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$.

This is the description of the semigroup in terms of linear homogeneous inequalities. It follows from the general theory (see Bruns and Herzog \[BH, Ch. 6\]) that the canonical module $`\omega (\mathrm{in}(_t))`$ of $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$ is the semigroup ideal of $`_t`$ generated by the monomials $`N`$ with all exponents $`1`$ and $`L_F(N)1`$ for every $`F𝐅_i`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$.

Let $`𝒳`$ denote the product of all the variables $`x_{ij}`$ with $`(i,j)[1,\mathrm{},m]\times [1,\mathrm{},n]`$. The canonical module $`\omega (\mathrm{in}(_t))`$ has a description in terms of $`𝒳`$ and the functions $`\rho _i`$:

###### Lemma 3.2.

The canonical module $`\omega (\mathrm{in}(_t))`$ of $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$ is the ideal

$$\{FS[T]:𝒳TF\text{ in }S[T]\text{ and }\rho _i(F)1\text{ for every }i=1,\mathrm{},t\}$$

of $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`N=MT^k`$ be a monomial, where $`M`$ is a monomial in the variables $`x_{ij}`$. Then, for a given $`i`$, $`L_F(N)1`$ for every $`F𝐅_i`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{}_F(M)k(t+1i)+1`$ for every $`F𝐅_i`$. By (2) this is equivalent to $`M\mathrm{in}(I_i^{(k(t+1i)+1)})`$ which in turn is equivalent to $`\rho _i(M)k(t+1i)+1`$. Summing up, $`L_F(N)1`$ for every $`F𝐅_i`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$ if and only if $`\rho _i(N)1`$ for every $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$. ∎

Similarly the canonical module $`\omega (\mathrm{in}(A_t))`$ has a description in terms of the function $`\rho _2`$:

###### Lemma 3.3.

The canonical module $`\omega (\mathrm{in}(A_t))`$ of $`\mathrm{in}(A_t)`$ is the ideal

$$\{FV_t:𝒳TF\text{ in }S[T]\text{ and }\rho _2(F)1\}$$

of $`\mathrm{in}(A_t)`$.

For later application we record the following lemma. Its part (2) asserts that $`𝒳`$ is a “linear” element for the functions $`\rho _i`$.

###### Lemma 3.4.

* $`\rho _i(𝒳)=(mi+1)(ni+1)`$.
* Let $`M`$ be any monomial in the $`x_{ij}`$’s. Then $`\rho _i(𝒳M)=\rho _i(𝒳)+\rho _i(M)`$ for every $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`M`$ be a monomial in the $`x_{ij}`$’s. We know that $`\rho _i(M)k`$ if and only if $`M\mathrm{in}(I_i^{(k)})`$. From equation $`(2)`$ we may deduce that

$$\rho _i(M)=inf\{\mathrm{}_F(M):F𝐅_i\}.$$

Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is a pure simplicial complex of dimension equal to the dimension of the determinantal ring defined by $`I_i`$ minus $`1`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{}_F(𝒳)=(mi+1)(ni+1)`$ for every facet $`F`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. In particular, $`\rho _i(𝒳)=(mi+1)(ni+1)`$.

Since $`\mathrm{}_F(NM)\mathrm{}_F(N)+\mathrm{}_F(M)`$ for all monomials $`N,M`$ and for every $`F`$, we have $`\rho _i(MN)\rho _i(N)+\rho _i(M)`$. Conversely, let $`G`$ be a facet of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ such that $`\rho _i(M)=\mathrm{}_G(M)`$. Then $`\mathrm{}_G(𝒳M)=\mathrm{}_G(𝒳)+\mathrm{}_G(M)=\rho _i(𝒳)+\rho _i(M)`$. Hence $`\rho _i(MN)\rho _i(N)+\rho _i(M)`$, too. ∎

## 4. The deformation lemma

We have been able to identify the canonical modules of $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$ and $`\mathrm{in}(A_t)`$ and we would like to use this information to describe the canonical modules of $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$. To this end we need a deformation lemma:

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`R=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a polynomial ring equipped with a term order $`\tau `$ and with a grading induced by positive weights $`\mathrm{deg}(x_i)=v_i`$. Let $`B`$ be a finitely generated $`K`$-subalgebra of $`R`$ generated by homogeneous polynomials and $`J`$ be a homogeneous ideal of $`B`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{in}(B)`$ and $`\mathrm{in}(J)`$ the initial algebra and the initial ideal of $`B`$ and $`J`$ respectively. Then we have:

* If $`\mathrm{in}(B)`$ is finitely generated and $`\mathrm{in}(B)/\mathrm{in}(J)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay, then $`B/J`$ is Cohen-Macaulay.
* If $`\mathrm{in}(B)`$ is finitely generated and Cohen-Macaulay and $`\mathrm{in}(J)`$ is the canonical module of $`\mathrm{in}(B)`$ (up to shift) then $`B`$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $`J`$ is the canonical module of $`B`$ (up to the same shift).

###### Proof.

(1) Let $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_k`$ be a Sagbi basis of $`B`$ and $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_h`$ a Gröbner basis of $`J`$. We may assume that these polynomials are monic and homogeneous. Consider the presentation $`K[y_1,\mathrm{},y_k]/IB`$ of $`B`$ obtained by mapping $`y_i`$ to $`f_i`$ and the presentation $`K[y_1,\mathrm{},y_k]/I_1\mathrm{in}(B)`$ of $`\mathrm{in}(B)`$ obtained by mapping $`y_i`$ to $`\mathrm{in}(f_i)`$. Let $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_p`$ a system of binomial generators for the toric ideal $`I_1`$, say $`h_i=y^{a_i}y^{b_i}`$. Then for each $`i`$ we have expressions $`f^{a_i}f^{b_i}=\lambda _{ij}f^{c_{ij}}`$ with $`\lambda _{ij}K\{0\}`$ and $`\mathrm{in}(f^{c_{ij}})<\mathrm{in}(f^{a_i})`$ for every $`i,j`$. It is known that the polynomials

$`(4)`$
$$y^{a_i}y^{b_i}\lambda _{ij}y^{c_{ij}}$$

generate $`I`$. For each $`g_i`$ we may take a presentation $`g_i=f^{d_i}+\delta _{ij}f^{d_{ij}}`$ with $`\delta _{ij}K\{0\}`$ and $`\mathrm{in}(f^{d_{ij}})<\mathrm{in}(f^{d_i})`$ for all $`i,j`$. Then, by construction, the preimage of $`J`$ in $`K[y]/I`$ is generated by the elements

$`(5)`$
$$y^{d_i}+\delta _{ij}y^{d_{ij}},$$

and the preimage of $`\mathrm{in}(J)`$ in $`K[y]/I_1`$ is generated by the $`y^{d_i}`$. Hence $`B/J`$ is the quotient of $`K[y]`$ defined by the ideal $`H`$ that is generated by the polynomials (4) and (5), and $`\mathrm{in}(B)/\mathrm{in}(J)`$ is the quotient of $`K[y]`$ defined by the ideal $`H_1`$ that is generated by the polynomials $`h_i`$ and $`y^{d_i}`$.

If we can find a positive weight $`w`$ on $`K[y]`$ such that $`\mathrm{in}_w(H)=H_1`$, then there is $`1`$-parameter flat family with special fiber $`\mathrm{in}(B)/\mathrm{in}(J)`$ and general fiber $`B/J`$. This implies that $`B/J`$ is Cohen-Macaulay, provided $`\mathrm{in}(B)/\mathrm{in}(J)`$ is. Let us define $`w`$. First consider a positive weight $`\alpha `$ on $`K[x]`$ such that $`\mathrm{in}_\alpha (f^{c_{ij}})<\mathrm{in}_\alpha (f^{a_i})`$ for every $`i,j`$ and $`\mathrm{in}_\alpha (f^{d_{ij}})<\mathrm{in}_\alpha (f^{d_i})`$ for every $`i`$ and $`j`$. That such an $`\alpha `$ exists is a well-known property of monomial orders; for instance, see Sturmfels \[S, Proof of Cor. 1.11\]. Then we define $`w`$ as the “preimage” of $`\alpha `$ in the sense that we put $`w(y_i)=\alpha (\mathrm{in}(f_i))`$. It is clear, by construction, that the initial forms of the polynomials (4) and (5) with respect to $`w`$ are exactly the $`h_i`$ and the $`y^{d_i}`$.

This proves that $`\mathrm{in}_w(H)`$ contains $`H_1`$. But $`H_1`$ and $`H`$ have the same Hilbert function by construction, and $`H`$ and $`\mathrm{in}_w(H)`$ have the same Hilbert function because they have the same initial ideal if we refine $`w`$ to a term order; for instance see \[S, Prop. 1.8\]. Here we consider Hilbert functions with respect to the original graded structure induced by the weights $`v_i`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{in}_w(H)=H_1`$ and we are done.

(2) That $`B`$ is Cohen-Macaulay follows from \[CHV\]. Since $`B`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay positively graded $`K`$-algebra which is a domain, to prove that $`J`$ is the canonical module of $`B`$ it suffices to show that $`J`$ is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay module whose Hilbert series satisfies the relation $`H_J(t)=(1)^dt^kH_B(t^1)`$ for some integer $`k`$ where $`d=dimB`$ \[BH, Thm. 4.4.5,Cor. 4.4.6\].

The relation $`H_J(t)=(1)^dt^kH_B(t^1)`$ holds since by assumption the corresponding relation holds for the initial objects and Hilbert series do not change by taking initial terms. So it is enough to show that $`J`$ is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay module. But $`\mathrm{in}(J)`$ is a height $`1`$ ideal since it is the canonical module \[BH, Prop. 3.3.18\], and hence also $`J`$ has height $`1`$. Therefore it suffices to show that $`B/J`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ring. But this follows from $`(1)`$ since $`\mathrm{in}(B)/\mathrm{in}(J)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay (it is even Gorenstein) \[BH, Prop. 3.3.18\]. ∎

## 5. The canonical classes of $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$

In this section we will describe the canonical modules of $`_t`$ and of $`A_t`$ and determine the canonical classes.

Assume for simplicity that $`mn`$. Let us consider a product of minors $`D`$ such that $`\mathrm{in}(D)=𝒳`$ and $`\gamma _i(D)=\rho _i(𝒳)`$. Since we have already computed $`\rho _i(𝒳)`$ (see 3.4), we can determine the shape of $`D`$, which turns out to be $`1^2,2^2,\mathrm{},(m1)^2,m^{(nm+1)}`$. In other words, $`D`$ must be the product of $`2`$ minors of size $`1`$, $`2`$ minors of size $`2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`2`$ minors of size $`m1`$ and $`nm+1`$ minors of size $`m`$. It is then not difficult to show that $`D`$ is uniquely determined, the $`1`$-minors are $`[m|1]`$ and $`[1|n]`$, the $`2`$-minors are $`[m1,m|1,2]`$ and $`[1,2|n1,n]`$ and so on.

We have:

###### Theorem 5.1.

* The canonical module of $`_t`$ is the ideal

$$J=\{FS[T]:DTF\text{ in }S[T]\text{ and }\gamma _i(F)1\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},t\}.$$
* The canonical module of $`A_t`$ is the ideal

$$J_1=\{FV_t:DTF\text{ in }S[T]\text{ and }\gamma _2(F)1\}.$$

###### Proof.

By virtue of 4.1 it suffices to show that $`\mathrm{in}(J)`$ and $`\mathrm{in}(J_1)`$ are the canonical modules of $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$ and $`\mathrm{in}(A_t)`$ respectively. A description of the canonical modules of $`\mathrm{in}(_t)`$ and $`\mathrm{in}(A_t)`$ has been given in Section 3. Therefore it is enough to check that $`\mathrm{in}(J)`$ is exactly the ideal described in 3.2 and $`\mathrm{in}(J_1)`$ is the ideal described in 3.3. Note that we may write

$$J=DT\{FS[T]:\gamma _i(F)1\gamma _i(DT)\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},t\}$$

and

$$J_1=DT\{FS[T]:\gamma _2(F)1\gamma _2(DT)\}V_t.$$

Furthermore, by virtue of 3.4,

$$\omega (\mathrm{in}(_t))=𝒳T\{FS[T]:\rho _i(F)1\rho _i(𝒳T)\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},t\}$$

and

$$\omega (\mathrm{in}(A_t))=𝒳T\{FS[T]:\rho _2(F)1\rho _2(𝒳T)\}V_t.$$

Since, by the very definition of $`D`$, we have $`\mathrm{in}(D)=𝒳`$ and $`\gamma _i(D)=\rho _i(𝒳)`$, it suffices to show that

$$\mathrm{in}(\{FS[T]:\gamma _i(F)j\})=\{FS[T]:\rho _i(F)j\}.$$

But this has (essentially) been proved in \[BC1\]. ∎

Now we determine the canonical class of $`_t`$.

###### Theorem 5.2.

The canonical class of $`_t`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{cl}(\omega (_t))`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}\left(2(mi+1)(ni+1)+ti\right)\mathrm{cl}(P_i)`$
$`=\mathrm{cl}(I_t_t)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}(1\mathrm{height}I_i)\mathrm{cl}(P_i)`$
###### Proof.

The second formula for $`\omega (_t)`$ follows from the first, since $`\mathrm{height}I_i=(mi+1)(ni+1)`$ and $`\mathrm{cl}(I_t_t)=_{i=1}^t(ti+1)\mathrm{cl}(P_i)`$ by 2.4.

We have seen that

$$\omega (_t)=DT\{FS[T]:\gamma _i(F)1\gamma _i(DT)\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},t\}.$$

We can get rid of $`DT`$ and obtain a representation of $`\omega (_t)`$ as a fractional ideal, namely,

$$\omega (_t)=\{FS[T]:\gamma _i(F)1\gamma _i(DT)\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},t\}.$$

It follows that $`\omega (_t)=P_i^{(1\gamma _i(DT))}`$. As $`\gamma _i(DT)=(mi+1)(ni+1)(t+1i)`$, we are done. ∎

For $`A_t`$ the situation is slightly more difficult since $`DA_t`$ in general. Therefore we need an auxiliary lemma:

###### Lemma 5.3.

Let $`f_j`$ be a $`j`$-minor of $`X`$ and $`𝔮_j=(f_j)S[T]A_t`$. Then $`𝔮_j`$ is a height $`1`$ prime ideal of $`A_t`$ and $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔮_j)=(jt)\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$.

###### Proof.

Note that $`𝔮_{t+1}=𝔮`$ by definition. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a product of minors. We say that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has *tight shape* if its degree is divisible by $`t`$ and it has exactly $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Delta })/t`$ factors. In other words, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has tight shape if $`\gamma _1(\mathrm{\Delta }T^k)=0`$ and $`\gamma _2(\mathrm{\Delta }T^k)=0`$ where $`k=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Delta })/t`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a product of minors with tight shape and $`k=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Delta })/t`$. Note that

$$(\mathrm{\Delta })S[T]A_t=(\mathrm{\Delta }T^k)A_t.$$

Now fix $`jt`$ and set $`k=tj+1`$; the product $`\mathrm{\Delta }=f_jf_{t+1}^{tj}`$ has tight shape and hence $`𝔮_j𝔮_{t+1}^{(tj)}=(\mathrm{\Delta }T^k)A_t`$. Note that, for obvious reasons, $`𝔮_j`$ does not contain $`𝔮`$. It follows that $`𝔮_j`$ is a prime ideal of height $`1`$ and that $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔮_j)=(jt)\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$. Now take $`j>t`$ and set $`k=jt+1`$; the product $`\mathrm{\Delta }=f_jf_{t1}^{jt}`$ has tight shape and hence, as above, we conclude that $`𝔮_j`$ is prime of height $`1`$ and $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔮_j)=(tj)\mathrm{cl}(q_{t1})`$. Since we know already that $`\mathrm{cl}(q_{t1})=\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$, we are done. ∎

Now we can prove

###### Theorem 5.4.

The canonical class of $`A_t`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{cl}(\omega (A_t))=(mntmtn)\mathrm{cl}(𝔮).$$

###### Proof.

Assume that $`mn`$. Set $`W=(DT)S[T]A_t`$. We have seen that

$$\omega (A_t)=W𝔭.$$

Consequently

$$\mathrm{cl}(\omega (A_t))=\mathrm{cl}(W)+\mathrm{cl}(𝔭)=\mathrm{cl}(W)t\mathrm{cl}(𝔮).$$

Note that $`W`$ can be written as the intersection of $`(D)S[T]A_t`$ and $`(T)S[T]A_t`$. But the latter is the irrelevant maximal ideal of $`A_t`$, whence $`W=(D)S[T]A_t`$. Further $`(D)S[T]A_t`$ can be written as an intersection of ideals $`𝔮_j`$. Taking into consideration the shape of $`D`$ and 5.3, we have

$$\mathrm{cl}(W)=\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m1}{}}2(jt)+(nm+1)(mt)\right)\mathrm{cl}(𝔮).$$

Summing up, we get the desired result. ∎

As a corollary we have

###### Theorem 5.5.

The ring $`A_t`$ is Gorenstein if and only if $`mn=t(m+n)`$.

Note that we assume $`1<t<\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$ and $`mn`$ if $`t=\mathrm{min}(m,n)1`$ in the theorem. We have observed in the introduction that $`A_t`$ is indeed Gorenstein (and even factorial) in the remaining cases.

###### Remark 5.6.

It is also possible to derive Theorem 5.4 from Theorem 5.2 by a suitable generalization of \[BV, (8.10)\].

## 6. Algebras of minors of generic Hankel matrices

Let $`S`$ be the polynomial ring $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ over some field $`K`$. Choose a Hankel matrix $`X`$ with distinct entries $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$; this means that $`X`$ is an $`a\times b`$ matrix $`(x_{ij})`$ with $`x_{ij}=x_{i+j1}`$ and $`a+b1=n`$. Let $`I_t`$ be the ideal generated by the minors of size $`t`$ of $`X`$. It is known that $`I_t`$ does not depend on the size of the matrix $`X`$ (provided, of course, $`X`$ contains $`t`$-minors); it depends only on $`t`$ and $`n`$. For a given $`n`$ it follows that $`t`$ may vary from $`1`$ to $`m`$, where $`m=[(n+1)/2]`$ is the integer part of $`(n+1)/2`$. All the properties of the generic determinantal ideals that we have used in the previous sections to study their algebras of minors hold also for the determinantal ideals of Hankel matrices. This has been shown in Conca \[C\]. In particular:

(1) the symbolic powers $`I_t^{(k)}`$ and the primary decomposition of $`I_t^k`$ are described in terms of the $`\gamma `$-functions;

(2) the initial algebras are described in terms of the corresponding functions for monomials, the $`\rho `$-functions;

(3) the $`\rho `$-functions can be described in terms of the linear forms associated to the facets of the simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ of $`\mathrm{in}(I_i)`$; moreover $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is a pure simplicial complex;

(4) the determinantal ideal $`I_t`$ is prime and $`\mathrm{height}I_t=n2t+2`$; in particular the minors of $`X`$ are irreducible polynomials,

(5) the product of all the variables is a linear element for the $`\rho `$ functions, that is, if $`M`$ is a monomial and $`𝒳`$ is the product of all the variables then $`\rho _i(M𝒳)=\rho _i(M)+\rho _i(𝒳)`$.

Now fix a number $`t`$, $`1tm=[(n+1)/2]`$. Denote by $`_t`$ the Rees algebra of $`I_t`$ and by $`A_t`$ the algebra generated by the minors of size $`t`$. These algebras have been studied in \[C, Section 4\]. It turns out that $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ are Cohen-Macaulay normal domains and that the dimension of $`A_t`$ is $`n`$, unless $`t=m`$. In the latter case, the minors are algebraically independent. The arguments of the previous sections apply also to the present situation. One deduces the following theorem:

###### Theorem 6.1.

* If $`t<m`$, then the divisor class group $`\mathrm{Cl}(_t)`$ of $`_t`$ is free of rank $`t`$ with basis $`\mathrm{cl}(P_1),\mathrm{},\mathrm{cl}(P_t)`$. Here $`P_i`$ is the prime ideal of $`_t`$ associated with the valuation $`\gamma _i`$ and $`P_iS=I_i`$. The canonical class is

$`\mathrm{cl}(\omega (_t))`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}\left(n+t+i\right)\mathrm{cl}(P_i)`$
$`=\mathrm{cl}(I_t_t)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}(1\mathrm{height}I_i)\mathrm{cl}(P_i)`$
* If $`t=m`$ and $`n`$ is even, then $`\mathrm{Cl}(_t)`$ is free of rank $`1`$ with basis $`\mathrm{cl}(P)`$ where $`P=I_m_t`$. In this case $`_t`$ is a complete intersection and $`\mathrm{cl}(\omega (_t))=0`$.
* If $`t=m`$ and $`n`$ is odd, then $`I_m`$ is principal.

To prove the theorem one argues like in the generic case. The only difference is that the product of minors $`D`$ such that $`\mathrm{in}(D)=𝒳`$ and $`\gamma _i(D)=\rho _i(𝒳)`$ now has shape $`m,m1`$ if $`n`$ is odd, and shape $`m,m`$ if $`n`$ is even.

For the algebra $`A_t`$ we have:

###### Theorem 6.2.

* Assume that $`1<t<m`$ and $`n`$ is even if $`t=m1`$. Then the divisor class group $`\mathrm{Cl}(A_t)`$ of $`A_t`$ is free of rank $`1`$ with basis $`\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$. Here $`𝔮`$ is the prime ideal of $`A_t`$ defined as $`𝔮=(f)S[T]A_t`$ where $`f`$ is a minor of size $`t+1`$. The canonical class is $`\mathrm{cl}(\omega (A_t))=(n3t)\mathrm{cl}(𝔮)`$.
* If $`t=m1`$ and $`n`$ is odd, then $`A_t`$ is isomorphic to the coordinate ring $`\mathrm{Grass}(m1,m+1)`$ of the Grassmann variety of the subspaces of dimension $`m1`$ in a vector space of dimension $`m+1`$. In particular $`A_t`$ is factorial.
* If $`t=m`$ or $`t=1`$, then $`A_t`$ is a polynomial ring.

The only assertion which still needs an argument is $`(2)`$. To this end note that $`I_t`$ is the ideal of maximal minors of the Hankel matrix of size $`t\times (n+1)t`$. This induces a surjective map from $`\mathrm{Grass}(t,n+1t)`$ to $`A_t`$. If we take $`n`$ odd and $`t=m1`$, then the dimension of $`\mathrm{Grass}(t,n+1t)`$ is $`n`$, which is also the dimension of $`A_t`$. Hence the map $`\mathrm{Grass}(t,n+1t)A_t`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Theorem 6.3.

The ring $`A_t`$ is Gorenstein if and only if one of the following conditions holds:

* $`3t=n`$,
* $`t=m1`$ and $`n`$ is odd,
* $`t=m`$ or $`t=1`$.

Despite of the analogy, let us point out that there are some important differences between the Rees algebras $`_t`$ and the algebras $`A_t`$ for generic matrices and those for Hankel matrices. In the Hankel case the algebras $`_t`$ and $`A_t`$ are defined by (Gröbner bases of) quadrics, one has $`\mathrm{in}(I_t^k)=\mathrm{in}(I_t)^k`$ for all $`t`$ and $`k`$, and all the results hold over an arbitrary field, no matter what the characteristic is.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

At present, we are at the beginning of the $`B`$-factory era in particle physics, which will provide valuable insights into CP violation and various tests of the Kobayashi–Maskawa picture of this phenomenon . Among the most interesting $`B`$-decay channels is the “gold-plated” mode $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ , which allows the determination of the angle $`\beta `$ of the unitarity triangle of the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix . In the summer of 2000 – after important steps at LEP  and by the CDF collaboration  – the first results on CP-violating effects in $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ were reported by the BaBar  and Belle  collaborations, which already led to some excitement in the $`B`$-physics community .

In this paper, we consider the neutral mode $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ together with its charged counterpart $`B^\pm J/\psi K^\pm `$. Making use of the isospin symmetry of strong interactions, we derive a model-independent parametrization of the corresponding decay amplitudes. After a careful analysis of the Standard-Model contributions, we include possible new-physics amplitudes and introduce – in addition to the usual “mixing-induced” CP asymmetry in $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ – a set of three observables, allowing a general analysis of new-physics effects in the $`BJ/\psi K`$ system; the generic size of these effects is estimated with the help of arguments borrowed from effective field theory. The four observables provided by $`BJ/\psi K`$ decays are affected by physics beyond the Standard Model in two different ways: through $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing, and new-physics contributions to the $`BJ/\psi K`$ decay amplitudes. Usually, $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing is considered as the preferred mechanism for new physics to manifest itself in the mixing-induced $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ CP asymmetry . Here we focus on new-physics effects arising at the $`BJ/\psi K`$ decay-amplitude level ; we emphasize that the extraction of the CKM angle $`\beta `$ from mixing-induced CP violation in $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ may be significantly disturbed by such effects. As is well known, the value of “$`\beta `$” itself, i.e. the CP-violating weak $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing phase, may deviate strongly from the Standard-Model expectation because of new-physics contributions to $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing.

The three observables introduced in this paper allow us to search for “smoking-gun” signals of new-physics contributions to the $`BJ/\psi K`$ decay amplitudes, which would also play an important role for mixing-induced CP violation in $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$. Employing an isospin decomposition and imposing a hierarchy of amplitudes, we argue that one of these observables may be sizeable and could already be accessible at the first-generation $`B`$-factories. On the other hand, the remaining two observables are expected to be dynamically suppressed, but may be within reach of the second-generation $`B`$ experiments, BTeV and LHCb. In the presence of large rescattering effects, all three observables could be of the same order of magnitude. However, we do not consider this as a very likely scenario and note that also the “QCD factorization” approach is not in favour of such large rescattering processes .

The outline of this paper is as follows: in Section 2, we investigate the isospin structure of the $`B^\pm J/\psi K^\pm `$, $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ decay amplitudes, and parametrize them in a model-independent manner; a particular emphasis is given to the Standard-Model case. In Section 3, we then have a closer look at the impact of new physics. To this end, we make use of dimensional estimates following from effective field theory, and introduce a plausible dynamical hierarchy of amplitudes. The set of observables to search for “smoking-gun” signals of new-physics contributions to the $`BJ/\psi K`$ decay amplitudes is defined in Section 4, and is discussed in further detail in Section 5. In Section 6, our main points are summarized.

## 2 Phenomenology of $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ Decays

The most general discussion of the $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ system can be performed in terms of an isospin decomposition. Here the corresponding initial and final states are grouped in the following isodoublets:

$$\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{;}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\\ \mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{;}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{:}\underset{𝓒𝓟}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{|}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\\ \mathbf{|}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\\ \mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}}}\mathbf{,}\underset{𝓒𝓟}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{|}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\\ \mathbf{|}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{|}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\\ \mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(1)
which are related by CP conjugation. As usual, the $`𝑲_𝐒`$ state in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ is the superposition of the two neutral kaon states $`\mathbf{|}𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}`$ corresponding to CP eigenvalue $`\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The decays $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ are described by an effective low-energy Hamiltonian of the following structure:

$$𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left(}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒄\mathbf{}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left(}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖\mathbf{}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(2)
where the $`𝓠`$ are linear combinations of perturbatively calculable Wilson coefficient functions and four-quark operators, consisting of current–current (CC), QCD penguin and electroweak (EW) penguin operators. For an explicit list of operators and a detailed discussion of the derivation of (2), the reader is referred to . For the following considerations, the flavour structure of these operators plays a key role:

$$𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒄}𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(3)
$$𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒄}𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒅}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(4)
$$𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒄}𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒅}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(5)
where the factors of $`\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ in (5) are due to electrical quark charges. In (3)–(5), we have suppressed all colour and spin indices. Since

$$\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\underset{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{\left(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{+}\overline{𝒅}𝒅\mathbf{\right)}}}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\underset{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{\left(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝒅}𝒅\mathbf{\right)}}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒅}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\underset{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{\left(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{+}\overline{𝒅}𝒅\mathbf{\right)}}}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\underset{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{\left(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝒅}𝒅\mathbf{\right)}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(6)
we conclude that the Hamiltonian (2) is a combination of isospin $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ pieces:

$$𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{=}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{+}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}$$
(7)
where $`𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ receives contributions from all of the operators listed in (3)–(5), whereas $`𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ is only due to $`𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖`$ and $`𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}`$. Taking into account the isospin flavour symmetry of strong interactions, we obtain

$`\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{|}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{|}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ (8)
$`\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{|}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{|}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}`$ (9)
and finally arrive at

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left\{}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{+}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left\{}𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(10)
$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left\{}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{+}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left\{}𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(11)
where

$$𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒄\mathbf{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}$$
(12)
$$𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^{𝒖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^{𝒖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}$$
(13)
denote hadronic matrix elements $`\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲\mathbf{|}𝓠\mathbf{|}𝑩\mathbf{}`$, i.e. are CP-conserving strong amplitudes. The CKM factors in (10) and (11) are given by

$$𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨\mathbf{,}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}𝑨𝑹_𝒃𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{,}$$
(14)
with

$$𝝀\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.22}\mathbf{,}𝑨\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{/}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.81}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝝀𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.41}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}\mathbf{,}$$
(15)
and $`𝜸`$ is the usual angle of the unitarity triangle of the CKM matrix . Consequently, we may write

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨\mathbf{\left\{}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹_𝒃}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left\{}\frac{𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}{𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right\}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(16)
$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨\mathbf{\left\{}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹_𝒃}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left\{}\frac{𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}{𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right\}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(17)
Let us note that (17) takes the same form as the parametrization derived in , making, however, its isospin decomposition explicit. An important observation is that the CP-violating phase factor $`𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}`$ enters in (16) and (17) in a doubly Cabibbo-suppressed way. Moreover, the $`𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ amplitudes are governed by penguin-like topologies and annihilation diagrams, and are hence expected to be suppressed with respect to $`𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$, which originates from tree-diagram-like topologies . In order to keep track of this feature, we introduce a “generic” expansion parameter $`\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.2}\mathbf{)}`$ , which is of the same order as the Wolfenstein parameter $`𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.22}`$:

$$\mathbf{\left|}𝑨_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{/}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(18)
Consequently, the $`𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}`$ terms in (16) and (17) are actually suppressed by $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$. Since $`𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ is due to dynamically suppressed matrix elements of EW penguin operators (see (12)), we expect

$$\mathbf{\left|}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{/}𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(19)
Therefore, we obtain – up to negligibly small corrections of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ – the following expression:

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$
(20)
with

$$𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨𝑨_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(21)
Let us note that the plausible hierarchy of strong amplitudes given in (18) and (19) may be spoiled by very large rescattering processes . In the worst case, (20) may receive corrections of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, and not at the $`\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ level. However, we do not consider this a very likely scenario and note that also the “QCD factorization” approach developed in  is not in favour of such large rescattering effects.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of physics beyond the Standard Model on $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ decays. In the next section, we investigate the generic size of such effects using dimensional arguments following from the framework of effective field theory.

## 3 Effects of Physics Beyond the Standard Model

The generic way of introducing physics beyond the Standard Model is to use the language of effective field theory and to write down all possible dim-6 operators. Of course, this has been known already for a long time and lists of the dim-6 operators involving all the Standard-Model particles have been published in the literature . After having introduced these additional operators, we construct the generalization of the Standard-Model effective Hamiltonian (2) at the scale of the $`𝒃`$ quark. The relevant operators are again dim-6 operators, the coefficients of which now contain a Standard-Model contribution, and a possible piece of “new physics”.

The problem with this point of view is that the list of possible dim-6 operators contains close to one hundred entries, not yet taking into account the flavour structure, making this general approach almost useless. However, we are dealing with non-leptonic decays in which we are, because of our ignorance of the hadronic matrix elements, sensitive neither to the helicity structure of the operators nor to their colour structure. The only information that is relevant in this case is the flavour structure, and hence we introduce the notation

$$\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑸}𝒒_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒒}_\mathrm{𝟐}𝒒_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{[}\text{Wilson coefficient}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{[}\text{dim-6 operator mediating }𝑸\mathbf{}𝒒_\mathrm{𝟏}\overline{𝒒}_\mathrm{𝟐}𝒒_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{.}$$
(22)
Clearly, this sum is renormalization-group-invariant, and involves, at the scale of the $`𝒃`$ quark, Standard-Model as well as possible non-Standard-Model contributions. In particular, it allows us to estimate the relative size of a possible new-physics contribution.

### 3.1 $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ Mixing: $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐}`$ Operators

Using this language, we now consider the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐}`$ operators relevant to $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing. We have

$$𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑮\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(23)
as the relevant flavour structure. Within the Standard Model, (23) originates from the well-known box diagrams, which are strongly suppressed by the CKM factor $`\mathbf{(}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, as well as by a loop factor

$$\frac{𝒈_\mathrm{𝟐}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}$$
(24)
making the Standard-Model contribution very small, of the order of111Note that we do not write the Inami–Lim function coming from the box diagram; this function is of order one and is ignored in our estimates. A similar comment applies to perturbative QCD corrections.

$$𝑮_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑮_𝐅𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{(}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}$$
(25)
A new-physics contribution therefore could in principle be as large as the Standard-Model piece. If $`𝚲`$ is the scale of physics beyond the Standard Model, we have

$$𝑮_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑮_𝐅𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\frac{𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊\mathrm{𝟐}𝝍}\mathbf{,}$$
(26)
where $`𝝍`$ is a possible weak phase, which is induced by the new-physics contribution. Finally, we arrive at

$$𝑮\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑮_𝐅𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊\mathrm{𝟐}𝝍}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑹\mathbf{|}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊\mathit{\varphi }_𝐌}\mathbf{.}$$
(27)
The relevant quantity is the (weak) phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝐌`$ of this expression, which enters the “mixing-induced” CP-violating asymmetries . Using the standard parametrization

$$𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟑}𝑨𝑹_𝒕𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝜷}\mathbf{,}$$
(28)
where $`𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝝀𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }_𝐌\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝍\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝍\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$
(29)
with

$$\mathit{\varrho }\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟑}𝑨𝑹_𝒕}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑴_𝑾}{𝚲}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(30)
Since the factor $`\mathit{\varrho }`$ can be of order one even for large $`𝚲`$, there can be a large phase shift in the mixing phase. If we assume, for example, $`𝑨𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, this term equals 1 for a new-physics scale of $`𝚲\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}`$ TeV. Such contributions affect of course not only the CP-violating phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝐌`$, but also the “strength” $`\mathbf{|}𝑹\mathbf{|}`$ of the $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing, which would manifest itself as an inconsistency in the usual “standard analysis” of the unitarity triangle .

### 3.2 Decay Amplitudes: $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}`$ Operators

We can discuss the operators mediating $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}`$ processes on the same footing as $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing. In the presence of new physics, the corresponding low-energy effective Hamiltonian can also be composed in $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ pieces, as in (7). In Section 2, we had a closer look at the Standard-Model contributions, arising from current–current, QCD and EW penguin operators. New physics may affect the corresponding Wilson coefficients, and may introduce new dim-6 operators, modifying (20) as follows:

$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{𝒊𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒋}{\mathbf{}}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{𝒊𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}`$ (31)
$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{𝒊𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒋}{\mathbf{}}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{𝒊𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}`$ (32)
Here $`𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}`$ correspond to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ pieces, respectively, $`𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}`$ are CP-conserving strong phases, and $`𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}`$ the corresponding CP-violating weak phases. The amplitudes for the CP-conjugate processes can be obtained straightforwardly from (31) and (32) by reversing the signs of the weak phases. The labels $`𝒌`$ and $`𝒋`$ distinguish between different new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sectors.

For the following discussion, we have to make assumptions about the size of a possible new-physics piece. We shall assume that the new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ sector are smaller compared to the leading Standard-Model amplitude (21) by a factor of order $`\overline{𝝀}`$, i.e.

$$𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(33)
In the case where the new-physics effects are even smaller, it is difficult to disentangle them from the Standard-Model contribution; this will be addressed, together with several other scenarios, in Section 5. Parametrizing the new-physics amplitudes again by a scale $`𝚲`$, we have

$$\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\frac{𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(34)
corresponding to $`𝚲\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ TeV. Consequently, as in the example given after (30), also here we have a generic new-physics scale in the TeV regime.

As far as possible new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sector are concerned, we assume a similar “generic strength” of the corresponding operators. However, in comparison with the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ pieces, the matrix elements of the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ operators, having the general flavour structure

$$𝓠\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝒅}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(35)
are expected to suffer from a dynamical suppression. As in (18) and (19), we shall assume that this brings another factor of $`\overline{𝝀}`$ into the game, yielding

$$𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(36)
Employing this kind of counting, the new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sector would be enhanced by a factor of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}`$ with respect to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ Standard-Model pieces. This may actually be the case if new physics shows up, for example, in EW penguin processes.

Consequently, we obtain

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(37)
In the presence of large rescattering effects, the assumed dynamical suppression through a factor of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}`$ would no longer be effective, thereby modifying (37) as follows:

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐬}\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{=}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(38)
However, as we have noted above, we do not consider this as a very likely scenario, and shall use (37) in the following discussion, neglecting the Standard-Model pieces of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$, which are not under theoretical control.

Concerning the analysis of CP violation, it is obvious that possible weak phases appearing in the new-physics contributions play the key role. As was the case for the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐}`$ operators, also the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}`$ operators could carry such new weak phases, which would then affect the CP-violating $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ observables.

## 4 Observables of $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ Decays

The decays $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and their charge conjugates provide a set of four decay amplitudes $`𝑨_𝒊`$. Measuring the corresponding rates, we may determine the $`\mathbf{|}𝑨_𝒊\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Since we are not interested in the overall normalization of the decay amplitudes, we may construct three independent observables with the help of the $`\mathbf{|}𝑨_𝒊\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$:

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(39)
$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(40)
$$𝑩\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}$$
(41)
where the “CP-averaged” amplitudes are defined as follows:

$`\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}`$ (42)
$`\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}`$ (43)
If we consider the neutral decays $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$, where the final state is a CP eigenstate with eigenvalue $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, the following time-dependent CP asymmetry provides an additional observable, which is due to interference between $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing and decay processes :

$$\frac{𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(44)
Here the rates correspond to decays of initially, i.e. at time $`𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, present $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$\- or $`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$-mesons, and $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ denotes the mass difference between the $`𝑩_𝒅`$ mass eigenstates. The “direct” CP-violating contribution $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}`$ was already introduced in (40), and the “mixing-induced” CP asymmetry is given by

$$𝓐_{\text{CP}}^{\text{mix}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\text{Im}𝝃}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝝃\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(45)
with

$$𝝃\mathbf{=}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊\mathit{\varphi }}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_𝒌𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_𝒋𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_𝒌𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{\mathbf{+}𝒊𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_𝒋𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{\mathbf{+}𝒊𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(46)
In (46), we have used the parametrization (32) to express the corresponding decay amplitudes. The CP-violating weak phase $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ is given by $`\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{=}\mathit{\varphi }_𝐌\mathbf{+}\mathit{\varphi }_𝑲`$, where $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝐌`$ was introduced in (27), and $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝑲`$ is the weak $`𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing phase, which is negligibly small in the Standard Model. Owing to the small value of the CP-violating parameter $`𝜺_𝑲`$ of the neutral kaon system, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝑲`$ can only be affected by very contrived models of new physics .

In order to search for new-physics effects in the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ system, it is useful to introduce the following combinations of the observables (39) and (40):

$$𝑺\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left[}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{+}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}𝑫\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left[}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(47)
Using the parametrizations (31) and (32), and assuming the hierarchy in (37), we obtain

$$𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\underset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\underset{𝒍}{\mathbf{}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒍\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒍\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒍\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}$$
(48)
$$𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\underset{𝒋}{\mathbf{}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}$$
(49)
$$𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\underset{𝒋}{\mathbf{}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(50)
where terms of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$, including also a Standard-Model contribution, which is not under theoretical control, have been neglected. Note that if the dynamical suppression of the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ contributions would be larger, $`𝑩`$ and $`𝑫`$ would be further suppressed relative to $`𝑺`$.

The corresponding expression for the mixing-induced CP asymmetry (45) is rather complicated and not very instructive. Let us give it for the special case where the new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sectors involve either the same weak or strong phases:

$`𝓐_{\text{CP}}^{\text{mix}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }`$ (51)
$`\mathbf{+}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$
Expressions (48)–(50) also simplify in this case:

$$𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{.}$$
(52)
In the following section, we discuss the search for new physics with these observables in more detail, and have also a closer look at the present experimental situation.

## 5 Discussion

Let us begin our discussion by turning first to the present experimental situation. Concerning the direct CP asymmetries (39) and (40), we have

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟗}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\%}\text{(BaBar }\text{[6]}\text{)}\mathbf{,}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{[6]}\text{)}\hfill \\ \mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.8}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{4.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.4}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}\hfill & \text{(CLEO }\text{[21]}\text{).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(53)
The present status of the mixing-induced $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ CP asymmetry (45) is given as follows:222The values for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ reported in  are dominated by $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$, but actually correspond to an average over various modes.

$$\mathbf{}𝓐_{\text{CP}}^{\text{mix}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{0.79}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.44}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.41}}\hfill & \text{(CDF }\text{[5]}\text{)}\hfill \\ \mathbf{}\mathbf{0.10}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.42}\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{[6]}\text{)}\hfill \\ \mathbf{0.49}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.57}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.53}}\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{[7]}\text{).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(54)
Using the rates listed in , as well as $`𝝉_{𝑩^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{/}𝝉_{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.060}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.029}`$, and adding the experimental errors in quadrature, we obtain333Phase-space effects play a negligible role in this expression.

$$𝑩\mathbf{=}\frac{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲\mathbf{)}𝝉_{𝑩^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{/}𝝉_{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}}{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲\mathbf{)}𝝉_{𝑩^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{/}𝝉_{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{+}\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{2.9}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{4.3}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{,}$$
(55)
where the numerical value depends rather sensitively on the lifetime ratio. On the other hand, the BaBar results for the CP asymmetries listed in (53) yield

$$𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{,}𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{.}$$
(56)
In view of the large experimental uncertainties, we cannot yet draw any conclusions. However, the situation should improve significantly in the future. As can be seen in (48)–(50), the observable $`𝑺`$ provides a “smoking-gun” signal of new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ sector, while $`𝑫`$ and $`𝑩`$ allow us to probe new physics affecting the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ pieces. As the hierarchy in (37) implies that $`𝑺`$ receives terms of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}`$, whereas $`𝑫`$ and $`𝑩`$ arise both at the $`\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ level, we conclude that $`𝑺`$ may already be accessible at the first-generation $`𝑩`$-factories (BaBar, Belle, Tevatron-II), whereas the latter observables will probably be left for second-generation $`𝑩`$ experiments (BTeV, LHCb). However, should $`𝑩`$ and $`𝑫`$, in addition to $`𝑺`$, also be found to be at the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ level, i.e. should be measured at the first-generation $`𝑩`$-factories, we would not only have signals for physics beyond the Standard Model, but also for large rescattering processes.

A more pessimistic scenario one can imagine is that $`𝑺`$ is measured at the $`\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ level in the LHC era, whereas no indications for non-vanishing values of $`𝑫`$ and $`𝑩`$ are found. Then we would still have evidence for new physics, which would then correspond to $`𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$. However, if all three observables are measured to be of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, new-physics effects cannot be distinguished from Standard-Model contributions, which could also be enhanced to the $`\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ level by large rescattering effects. This would be the most unfortunate case for the strategy to search for new-physics contributions to the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ decay amplitudes proposed in this paper. However, further information can be obtained with the help of the decay $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$, which can be combined with $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ through the $`𝑼`$-spin symmetry of strong interactions to extract the angle $`𝜸`$ of the unitarity triangle, and may shed light on new physics even in this case .

As can be seen in (51), the mixing-induced CP asymmetry is affected both by $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and by $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ new-physics contributions, where the dominant $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}`$ effects are expected to be due to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ sector. Neglecting terms of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, we may write

$$𝓐_{\text{CP}}^{\text{mix}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{+}𝜹\mathit{\varphi }_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(57)
with

$$𝜹\mathit{\varphi }_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\underset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(58)
The phase shift $`𝜹\mathit{\varphi }_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}`$ may be as large as $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. Since the Standard-Model range for $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ is given by $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ , the mixing-induced CP asymmetry (57) may also be affected significantly by new-physics contributions to the $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ decay amplitude, and not only in the “standard” fashion, through $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing, as discussed in Subsection 3.1. This would be another possibility to accommodate the small central value of the BaBar result in (54), which was not pointed out in . In order to gain confidence in such a scenario, it is crucial to improve also the measurements of the observables $`𝑺`$, $`𝑫`$ and $`𝑩`$. Let us note that if, in addition to $`𝑺`$, also $`𝑫`$ and $`𝑩`$ should be found to be sizeable, i.e. of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}`$, also the terms linear in $`𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}`$ have to be included in (58):

$$𝜹\mathit{\varphi }_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐬}\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\underset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}\underset{𝒋}{\mathbf{}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(59)
So far, our considerations were completely general. Let us therefore comment briefly on a special case, where the strong phases $`𝜹_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}`$ take the trivial values $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ or $`𝝅`$, as in “factorization”. In this case, (48)–(50) would simplify as follows:

$$𝑺\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝑫\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝑩\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\underset{𝒋}{\mathbf{}}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(60)
whereas (51) would yield

$`𝓐_{\text{CP}}^{\text{mix}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }`$ (61)
$`\mathbf{+}𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝋_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$
The important point is that $`𝑺`$ and $`𝑫`$ are governed by sines of the strong phases, whereas the new-physics contributions to $`𝑩`$ and $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$ involve cosines of the corresponding strong phases. Consequently, these terms do not vanish for $`𝜹\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝝅`$. The impact of new physics on $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$ may still be sizeable in this scenario, whereas $`𝑩`$ could only be measured in the LHC era . If $`𝑺`$ and $`𝑫`$ should be observed at the $`\overline{𝝀}`$ and $`\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ levels, respectively, we would not only get a “smoking-gun” signal for new-physics contributions to the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ decay amplitudes, but also for non-factorizable hadronic effects. A measurement of all three observables $`𝑺`$, $`𝑫`$ and $`𝑩`$ at the $`\overline{𝝀}`$ level would imply, in addition, large rescattering processes, as we have already emphasized above.

## 6 Summary

We have presented a general analysis of new-physics effects in the $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ system. To this end, we have taken into account the constraints that are implied by the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ isospin symmetry of strong interactions, and have estimated the generic size of the new-physics contributions through dimensional arguments following from the picture of effective field theory. In addition to the usual mixing-induced CP asymmetry $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$ of the $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ mode, we have introduced a set of three observables, $`𝑺`$, $`𝑫`$ and $`𝑩`$, which play the key role to search for “smoking-gun” signals of new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ decay-amplitude sectors. Imposing a plausible dynamical hierarchy of amplitudes, we argue that $`𝑺`$ may already be accessible at the first-generation $`𝑩`$-factories, whereas the remaining ones will probably be left for second-generation $`𝑩`$ experiments of the LHC era. However, in the presence of large rescattering effects, all three new-physics observables $`𝑺`$, $`𝑫`$ and $`𝑩`$ may be sizeable. At present, the large experimental uncertainties on these quantities do not allow us to draw any conclusions, and we strongly encourage our experimental colleagues to focus not only on $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$, but also on $`𝑺`$, $`𝑫`$ and $`𝑩`$. A future measurement corresponding to the central values given in (56), i.e. $`𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{\%}`$, would be as exciting as $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$. Also the latter result could be due to new-physics contributions to the $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ decay amplitudes, and would not necessarily be an indication of new physics in $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing. We look forward to better data on $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ decays, which will, hopefully, open a window to the physics beyond the Standard Model.

## Acknowledgements

The work of T.M. is supported by the DFG Graduiertenkolleg “Elementarteilchenphysik an Beschleunigern”, by the DFG Forschergruppe “Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra und Monte Carlo Simulationen”, and by the “Ministerium für Bildung und Forschung” (bmb+f).


text:
# Diffusion of Neutrinos in Proto-Neutron Star Matter with Quarks

## Figure Captions

Figure 1: $`\nu _e`$ cross sections per unit volume in pure quark matter, for $`T=5`$ MeV. Solid lines show complete results from Eq. (4), and dashed lines indicate limiting forms from . The labels “Degenerate” and “Non-Degenerate” refer to neutrinos. Upper panels show results for two times nuclear matter density, and the lower panels show results for a neutrino energy of 50 MeV ($`\mu `$ is the chemical potential of the incoming quark).

Figure 2: $`\nu _e`$ cross sections with various particles in matter containing a mixed phase of quarks and hadrons ($`n_0=0.16\mathrm{fm}^3`$). The left panels show scattering cross sections for neutrinos with the indicated incoming hadrons, quarks, or leptons. Thick lines show the extent of the mixed phase region. The right panels show absorption cross sections on nucleons and quarks. The upper panels correspond to the neutrino-trapped era when $`s=1`$ and $`Y_L=0.4`$, and the lower panels to the time following deleptonization when $`s=2`$ and $`Y_\nu =0`$. The vertical dashed lines labelled $`u_{1.4}`$ and $`u_{max}`$ indicate the central densities of a $`M_G=1.4`$ M star and the maximum mass star ($`M_G=2.22`$ M for the upper panels and $`M_G=1.89`$ M for the lower panels), respectively.

Figure 3: Diffusion coefficients for the neutrino-trapped era (left panel) and hot deleptonized era (right panel). Thick lines show the extent of the mixed phase. Solid lines correspond to matter with a mixed phase, and dashed lines to matter containing only nucleons. The vertical dashed lines have the same meaning as in Fig. 2.