text:
# Topological and Symbolic Dynamics for Axiom A Diffeomorphisms with Holes

## 1. Introduction

Let $`f`$ be an Axiom A diffeomorphism of a compact $`s`$–dimensional Riemannian manifold and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M`$ the nonwandering set of $`f`$. We fix a Markov partition, this yields a natural representation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a subshift of finite type $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. We cut out an open hole $`H`$ out of $`M`$ and consider the invariant set $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of nonwandering points whose orbit (forward and backwards) never falls in the hole. The set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ corresponds to a subshift $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_H\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}.`$ We call such a subshift $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ an exclusion subshift. We are interested in several questions about the topological structure of exclusion subshifts. More precisely for which holes are exclusion shifts subshifts of finite type (SFT), sofic shifts, or coded systems? As we vary the hole what is the typical type of an exclusion subshift?

Our first result is that an exclusion subshift has at most countably many topologically transitive components and exclusion subshifts are always coded systems on each topological transitive component. Under additional assumptions we can prove the finiteness of the number of transitive components. Next we give a criterion for when the hole leads to a SFT. We then apply this criterion to several different classes of holes (rectangles, polyhedra, holes with continuous boundary) with corresponding topologies/measures to show that the “typical” hole leads to a SFT. Finally we show that every $`\beta `$–shift is an exclusion shift, thus in particular there are exclusion shifts which are sofic and ones which are not sofic.

Dynamical systems with holes have been studied extensively by physicists. Cvitanovich and his coworkers have investigated how to characterize the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in various settings (see the survey ). They have introduced the notion of a pruning front which corresponds to $`H`$ in our setting. Some aspects of Cvitanovich’s work have been carried out by Carvalho in a mathematical framework for Smale’s horseshoe . Another kind of question about dynamical systems with holes have also been extensively studied by physicists, namely construction of a physical semi–invariant measure and the understanding of the speed of mass disappearance into the holes (the escape rate formula) . A series of mathematical works have confirmed the expectations of the physicists in many settings . Bäker and Krüger have initiated the study of the topological structure of exclusion subshifts in the one dimensional setting .

## 2. Definitions

Let $`M`$ be a compact $`s`$–dimensional ($`s2`$) Riemannian manifold and $`f:MM`$ an Axiom A diffeomorphism. Fix a proper111A Markov partition is called proper if each element of the partition is the closure of its interior., generating Markov partition222More generally, we can consider a map which is a local diffeomorphisms except on a singularity set which consists of a finite union of codimension one manifolds such that the map admits a finite proper generating Markov partition.. Let $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }},\sigma )`$ be the resulting SFT and $`\pi :\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}M`$ the projection map. We cut out an open333Occasionally we will discuss cases when the hole is not open. hole out of $`M`$ whose boundary $`H=\overline{H}\backslash H`$ consists of a finite union of topological $`(s1)`$–dimensional spheres and $`H=int(\overline{H})`$. Consider the invariant set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_H^{}`$ of points whose orbit (forward and backwards) never falls in the hole and the invariant set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of nonwandering points for $`f|_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_H^{}=\pi ^1\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\pi ^1\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the following convention444This convention is not needed in the case that the coding is always unique, for example for horseshoes: if $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is on the boundary of the hole and the preimage of $`x`$ is not unique, then we only consider those preimages of $`x`$ to be in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which can be approximated from outside the closure of $`H`$, i.e. those $`s\pi ^1(x)`$ such that $`x_j\overline{H}`$ such that $`x_jx`$ and $`s_j\pi ^1(x_j)`$ with $`s_js`$. We call such a subshift $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ an exclusion subshift. Remark: our standard examples will be two dimensional, the $`n`$–branch horseshoe map and the $`n`$–branch Bakers map.

If $`M`$ is two dimensional, call a hole a rectangle like hole if $`H`$ consists of a finite number of curves, each of which is a finite length piece of stable or unstable manifold of $`f`$. We call the corresponding exclusion shift a rectangle exclusion shift RES.

We will also consider the one dimensional situation, where $`M`$ is an interval or a circle. We will consider continuous maps of the circle or piecewise continuous maps of the interval which, when considered as a map of the circle are continuous (for example the doubling map $`f(x)=2x`$ mod 1). Additional we require the existence of a finite generating Markov partition $`𝒫`$ whose elements consist of intervals. Since the map is not invertible we only require that the forward orbit never falls into a hole. If the hole consists of a finite union of intervals we call the corresponding exclusion shift an interval exclusion shift IES. Our standard example in this framework is the doubling map.

## 3. SFTs and sofic systems

Consider the alphabet $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and a finite collection of forbidden words on length $`m`$ ($`m`$ fixed, usually taken to be 2). The subset of all sequences in $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}^{}`$ (resp. $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}^{}`$ ) where the forbidden word never appears is called a subshift of finite type (SFT).

###### Theorem 3.1.

Every SFT is an exclusion subshift.

###### Proof.

Consider a SFT $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`n`$ be the cardinality of the alphabet of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`m`$ the length of the forbidden blocks. Consider a horseshoe map $`f`$ with $`n`$–branches. We consider the standard Markov partition for $`f`$. Define $`H^{}`$ to be the (finite) union of Markov rectangles (for $`f^m`$) which correspond the forbidden $`m`$–blocks which define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Markov rectangles are by definition closed, however since a horseshoe is a Cantor set we can find an open hole $`H`$ containing $`H^{}`$ such that the intersection of $`H`$ with the horseshoe is exactly $`H^{}`$. This yields $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as an exclusion subshift. ∎

Remark: the same construction works for the $`n`$-fold Bakers map, except that we define the hole $`H`$ to be the interior of $`H^{}`$ and use the coding convention from section 2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}^+`$ be the one sided even shift, that is the set of all 0–1 half infinite sequences with the constraint that the number of consecutive ones which occur in between two zeros is always even.

###### Example 3.2.

Let $`M:=[0,1]`$, $`f(x):=2xmod1`$, $`𝒫=\{[0,\frac{1}{2}],[\frac{1}{2},1]\}`$. The even shift $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}^+`$ is not an interval exclusion system with respect to $`(f,𝒫).`$

###### Proof.

Suppose we have a hole which is a union of intervals and yields $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}^+`$ as an exclusion system. Consider the point $`x_n=01^{2n+1}0^{\mathrm{}}`$. The whole orbit of $`x_n`$, except $`x_n`$ itself is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$. Thus $`x_n`$ must lie in the hole.

Let $`y_n=01^{2n}0^{\mathrm{}}`$. Clearly $`y_n\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and $`x_{n1}<y_n<x_n`$. Thus the hole must consist of an infinite number of intervals: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}^+`$ can not be an IES. ∎

Remark: the exact same proof shows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}^+`$ is not an exclusion system with respect to $`(f,𝒫)`$ for any hole which is a finite union of intervals which are not necessarily open.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}`$ be the two sided even shift, that is the set of all 0–1 bi–infinite sequences with the constraint that the number of consecutive ones which occur in between two zeros is always an even number.

###### Example 3.3.

Let $`M=[0,1]^2`$, $`f:MM`$ be the Bakers map:

$$f(x,y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (2xmod1,y/2)& \text{if}x1/2\hfill \\ \hfill (2xmod1,(y+1)/2)& \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`𝒫:=\{P_0,P_1\}`$ be the standard Markov partition, i.e. $`P_0:=\{(x,y):x0.5\}`$ and $`P_1:=\{(x,y):x0.5\}`$ Then the even shift $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}`$ is not a RES with respect to $`(f,𝒫)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`x_n=0^{\mathrm{}}.1^{2n+1}0^{\mathrm{}}`$ (here the decimal point marks the position between the $`1`$st and $`0`$th elements of the sequence). The point $`x_n`$ is not in the even shift, it must fall into the hole under some iteration of $`f`$.

We treat several cases, first of all suppose that $`x_n`$ falls into the hole at the boundary of $`M`$. Then at the instant that $`x_n`$ falls into the hole all the $`1`$’s are to the right (or all are to the left) of the decimal point (i.e. $`f^jx_nM`$ with $`j0`$ or $`j2n+1`$). Note that the intersection of the rectangular holes with the boundary consists of a finite union of intervals. Thus we can apply the argumentation of the previous example to conclude that it is impossible to have an infinite number of the $`x_n`$ fall into the hole when they are on the boundary of $`M`$.

In other words all but finitely many $`x_n`$ which fall into the hole away from the boundary of $`M`$. For such an $`x_n`$ consider the code $`a`$ at the instance of falling into the hole. It has the form $`0^{\mathrm{}}1^p.1^{q+1}0^{\mathrm{}}`$ where $`p+q=2n`$.

Consider the sequence $`(u_i)_{i𝐙}`$ with $`u_i=0^{\mathrm{}}1^{2i}01^{p1}.1^{q+1}0^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the sequence $`(v_i)_{i𝐙}`$ with $`v_i=0^{\mathrm{}}1^p.1^q01^{2i}0^{\mathrm{}}`$. These two sequences get arbitrary near from the left and the bottom to $`a`$ and all their elements are in the even shift. Thus $`a`$ must be a corner of the hole. This contradicts to the assumption that the number of corners of the hole is finite. ∎

Remark: the same proof shows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}`$ is not a RES with respect to the $`n`$–fold Bakers map, it also shows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}`$ is not a RES for any hole which is a finite union of closed rectangular like holes. An even simpler proof can be given if $`f`$ is a standard horseshoe map with a standard Markov partition.

A closed shift invariant subset of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}^{}`$ (resp. $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}^{}`$) is called sofic if it a factor of a SFT. The even shift is an example of a sofic system.

###### Theorem 3.4.

1. In dimension one not every sofic system is an interval exclusion subshift.
2. In dimension two not every sofic system is a rectangular hole exclusion subshift.

###### Proof.

In the two examples we showed that the even shift (one sided even shift) can not be represented as a RES (IES) in our standard model: the Bakers map (the doubling map).

To prove part 2 we will show that if the even shift is representable as a RES for some Axiom A diffeomorphism then it is in fact an RES for the Bakers map. The proof of part one is similar.

Let $`(f,𝒫)`$ be the Bakers map with the standard Markov partition. We suppose by way of contradiction that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}`$ is a RES for some Axiom A diffeomorphism $`g`$ with respect to the Markov partition $`𝒬`$. Consider the SFT $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ defined by $`(g,𝒬)`$ and denote the projection $`\pi :\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_g`$. By assumption there is a rectangle like hole $`H`$, that is the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g`$ of points which never fall into $`H`$ satisfies $`\pi :\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}\mathrm{\Omega }_g`$.

By the proof of theorem 3.1 we can find an rectangle like hole $`H^{}`$ which yields $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a RES for $`(f,𝒫)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^{}`$ be the invariant set of points which never fall into $`H^{}`$ and let $`\pi ^{}:\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^{}`$ be the projection.

Consider $`H_{\text{symb}}:=\{s\mathrm{\Sigma }:\pi (s)H\}`$ and $`H^{\prime \prime }:=\pi ^{}(H_{\text{symb}})`$. Since the maps $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ preserve local product structure the set $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ is a rectangle like hole. If $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ is open then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}`$ is a RES in the Bakers map, a contradiction. If $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ is not open then the interior of $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ is also a rectangular like hole, which using the convention defined in section 2 shows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{even}}`$ is an RES for the Bakers map, a contradiction. ∎

We do not know if every sofic system, or even if every coded system is an exclusion subshift. However, if we drop the requirement that the boundary consists of spheres then we get that all subshifts are weak exclusion subshifts, that is they are the complement of an open hole without any further assumptions on the boundary. To see this simply take the compliment of the invariant set which gives rise to the subshift as the hole.

###### Theorem 3.5.

Every $`\beta `$–shift is a RES.

###### Proof.

We begin by describing a one dimensional construction from . Consider the dynamical system $`h_\beta :[0,1)[0,1)`$ given by $`h_\beta x=\beta x\text{ mod }1.`$ Suppose $`\beta (1,2]`$ and consider the “partition” $`I_0:=[0,\beta ^1]`$ and $`I_1:=[\beta ^1,1]`$. Given $`\omega ,\alpha \{0,1\}^𝐍`$ we say $`\omega <\alpha `$ if there exists a positive integer $`N`$ such that $`\omega _i=\alpha _i`$ for $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$ and $`\omega _N=0<\alpha _N=1`$. It is well known that the code $`\widehat{\beta }`$ of the orbit of $`\beta `$ satisfies $`\sigma ^n\widehat{\beta }<\widehat{\beta }`$ for all $`n>0.`$ The set of all sequences which are the code of some orbit is called the one sided $`\beta `$–shift, it is characterized by

$$\{x\{0,1\}^𝐍:\sigma ^nx<\widehat{\beta }\text{ for all }n>0\}.$$

Let $`g:[0,1)[0,1)`$ be defined by $`g(x)=2x`$ mod $`1.`$ Inspired by the above a number $`\beta `$ is called a $`\beta `$–number if $`g^n\beta <\beta `$ for all $`n>0.`$ If $`\beta `$ is a $`\beta `$–number then the set $`X_\beta :=\{x[0,1):g^nx<\beta n>0\}`$ is conjugate to the one sided $`\beta `$–shift. If $`H[0,1)`$ is the interval $`(\beta ,1)`$ then the set of points whose forward $`g`$ orbit never falls in $`H`$ is exactly $`X_\beta .`$

Now let $`f`$ be the Bakers map. Fix $`\beta `$ a $`\beta `$ number and let $`HM`$ be the rectangular hole $`\{(x,y):x>\beta ,0y1\}.`$ Let $`(x_i,y_i)=f^i(x,y).`$ Since the hole stretches from the bottom to the top of $`M`$ it is easy to see that $`(x,y)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if and only if $`g^n(x_i)<\beta `$ for all $`n0`$ and all $`i0.`$ Thus the exclusion shift in this example is exactly the natural extension of the one sided $`\beta `$–shift. We remark that the two sided $`\beta `$–shift is of finite type, sofic, or not sofic if and only if the one sided one has the same property. It is well known that the $`\beta `$–shift is of finite type if the binary expansion of $`\beta `$ is finite, it is sofic if it eventually periodic and otherwise it is not sofic . ∎

Remark: for $`\beta (n1,n]`$ we must use the map $`g=nxmod1`$.

## 4. Transitive components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are coded

A homeomorphism $`T`$ of a compact metric space $`X`$ is called topologically transitive if there exists a dense orbit, or equivalently if every proper closed $`T`$-invariant subset is nowhere dense. A closed invariant set $`\widehat{X}`$ (i.e. $`T^1A=TA=A`$) is called a topological transitive component if $`\widehat{X}`$ contains a dense orbit and no closed invariant set $`\widehat{X}^{}\widehat{X}`$ contains a dense orbit.

We remark that the topologically transitive components of a SFT are exactly it’s irreducible components since, by convention (see section 2) we restrict the map to it’s nonwandering set (see for example ). In particular this implies that the topologically transitive components of a SFT are disjoint. Furthermore periodic points are dense in a topologically transitive component of a SFT or in a topologically transitive component of an Axiom A diffeomorphism.

We call a topologically transitive component $`\widehat{X}`$ boundary supported (BSC) if periodic points whose orbit avoids $`\overline{H}`$ are not dense in $`\widehat{X}`$ otherwise we call $`\widehat{X}`$ non boundary supported.

A subshift $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is called a coded system if it can be represented by an irreducible countable labeled graph . Equivalently, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is called coded if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contains an increasing sequence of irreducible subshifts of finite type (SFTs) whose union is dense in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ .

###### Theorem 4.1.

Every non boundary supported topologically transitive component is coded. There are at most countably many such topologically transitive components.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be an exclusion subshift, i.e. $`f`$ is an Axiom A map, $`𝒫`$ a fixed proper, generating Markov partition, and $`H`$ an open hole with compact boundary. Then $`𝒫^{(n)}:=_{i=n}^nf^i𝒫`$ is also a proper, generating Markov partition. Let $`H^{(n)}:=\text{int}(_{\{P𝒫^{(n)}:P\overline{H}\mathrm{}\}}P).`$ Clearly $`H^{(1)}H^{(2)}\mathrm{}`$ and $`\overline{H}_nH^{(n)}`$. Furthermore, since $`𝒫`$ is proper we have $`\text{diam}(𝒫^{(n)})0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ thus $`_nH^{(n)}=\overline{H}.`$ The “exclusion” system $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}:=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{H^{(n)}}`$ is a SFT.555We write quotes since the boundary of $`H^{(n)}`$ may not be the union of codimension 1 spheres. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}\mathrm{}`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}:=\overline{\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}}\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(4.1)
Clearly any topologically transitive component which is a subset of $`\overline{_n\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}}`$ is non boundary supported since periodic points are dense in SFTs. On the other hand if $`x\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ then $`x`$ is not an accumulation point of periodic points $`x_n`$ which avoid $`\overline{H}`$ since any such periodic point necessarily belongs to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}`$ for some $`n`$. Thus we have shown that every non boundary supported topologically transitive component is contained in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$.

If each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}`$ was topologically transitive then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ would be coded. Let $`A_i^{(n)}`$ be the topologically transitive components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}`$. The $`A_i^{(n)}`$ form a filtration in the sense that for each $`A_i^{(n)}`$ there exists $`A_j^{(n+1)}`$ such that $`A_i^{(n)}A_j^{(n+1)}`$. In other words the transitive components $`A_i^{(n)}`$ form an at most countable union of directed trees with each nodes out degree is exactly one. The equality in equation $`(\text{4.1})`$ implies that each topologically transitive component of $`\sigma |_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contains a set $`A_i^{(n)}`$ where the union is taken over a path in one of the trees (we call this a path limit). Noticing that such a path is uniquely defined by the root of the tree since the out degree is always one, implies that there are at most countably many such paths and thus $`\sigma |_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}`$ has at most countably many topologically transitive components. This finished the proof of the countability of the claim of the theorem.

Suppose $`C\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is a topologically transitive component of $`\sigma |_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}`$. To see that $`C`$ is coded we will define a new filtration. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}`$ is a subshift of finite type it has finitely many topologically transitive components $`A_i^{(n)}`$ which are pairwise disjoint. Consider those components $`A_i^{(n)}:i=1,\mathrm{},k_n`$ which are strictly contained in $`C`$. We can assume that the $`A_i^{(n)}`$ are so ordered that $`A_1^{(n)}A_1^{(n+1)}`$ for all $`n.`$ We only need to show that

$$\overline{\underset{n}{}A_1^{(n)}}=C.$$
(4.2)
The rest of the proof is devoted to establishing this equality.

If equation (4.2) is not true there is a $`n_0`$ such that for all $`nn_0`$ we can find another $`A_i^{(n)}C`$ which we denote without loss of generality $`A_2^{(n)}`$ such that $`A_2^{(n)}A_2^{(n+1)}`$ for all $`nn_0`$ but $`_nA_2^{(n)}_nA_1^{(n)}=\mathrm{}`$. In the terminology introduced above this means we can find two disjoint paths in the trees whose path limits are both contained in $`C`$.

Fix $`nn_0.`$ For $`i=1,2`$ consider a finite word $`w_iA_i^{(n)}`$ where each symbol and each transition which characterize $`A_i^{(n)}`$ appear in $`w_i.`$ Since $`C`$ is topologically transitive there is a point $`\underset{¯}{x}C`$ where the words $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ both appear in $`\underset{¯}{x}.`$ Thus we can find $`l`$ (which we assume positive without loss of generality) so that $`\underset{¯}{x}\sigma ^lw_1w_2.`$

Consider the point $`xM`$ with symbolic coding $`\underset{¯}{x}.`$ We can assume without loss of generality that $`f^ixH`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},l.`$ From our assumptions for any sufficiently large $`N`$ and for $`i=0,\mathrm{},l`$ the rectangles $`P_i𝒫^{(N)}`$ defined by $`f^ixP_i`$ are disjoint from $`H`$. We can form a new SFT, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, with alphabet the $`P_i`$ and all the transitions made by the orbit segment $`f^ix:i=0,\mathrm{},l`$ allowed. This is clearly a topologically transitive SFT. It also contains $`A_i^{(n)}`$ for $`i=1,2`$ since any legal transition in these sets is a legal transition in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. But, by the construction of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(m)}`$ we have $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(m)}`$ for sufficiently large $`m`$ and thus $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}A_1^{(m)}`$ and $`A_2^{(m)}`$ a contradiction. ∎

Remark: we actually have a stronger property than coded since our subshifts are well approximable from outside as well as inside.

### 4.1. Finiteness of topological transitive components in dimension 1

Suppose that $`M`$ is one dimensional, $`(f,𝒫)`$ is as described in section 2 and $`H=_{i=1}^pH_i`$ where the $`H_i`$ are disjoint open intervals. The definitions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{},\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are similar to the corresponding definitions in the invertible case with the only difference being that we only require that the forward orbit does not fall into $`H`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c:=I\backslash \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$ is open. Let $`\widehat{H}_i`$ be the maximal interval (as subsets of the circle) containing $`H_i`$ which is a subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$ and $`\widehat{H}=_{i=1}^r\widehat{H}_i`$. It is possible that several $`H_i`$ amalgamate into one $`\widehat{H}_j`$, thus $`rp.`$

Since our maps are not invertible we must modify the definition of topologically transitive component. We require the the forward orbit is dense, and that the set is forward invariant. We gather here some facts about topologically transitive components of continuous maps which we will use.

###### Proposition 4.2.

1) If a topologically transitive component contains an isolated point, then this point is periodic and the component coincides with this periodic orbit.

2) Topologically transitive components are finite or uncountable.

3) Any dense orbit is recurrent

###### Proof.

1) Let $`X`$ denote the topologically transitive component. If $`z`$ is isolated and the orbit of $`x`$ is dense then $`f^ix=z`$ for some $`i0`$. The point $`x`$ is also isolated, for if not then by continuity $`z`$ is not be isolated. If the orbit of $`x`$ is not periodic then since $`x`$ is isolated we have $`fX=X\{x\}`$ and $`X`$ is not forward invariant. This contradiction implies that $`x`$ is periodic. Since $`x`$’s orbit is dense it must coincide with the topologically transitive component.

2) A component which is not finite can not contain any isolated points. It is a simple exercise to show that a closed set without isolated points can not be countable.

3) If $`X`$ is finite then this is clear. Suppose $`X`$ is uncountable and the forward orbit of $`x`$ is dense in $`X`$. Since $`x`$ is not isolated the forward orbit of $`x`$ must come arbitrarily close to $`x`$ to be dense. ∎

Let $`\{X_i:X_iM\}`$ be the topologically transitive components of $`f|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\{Y_i:Y_i\mathrm{\Sigma }\}`$ the topologically transitive components of $`\sigma |_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $``$ be the index set of the topologically transitive components of $`f|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Every interval exclusion system has a finitely many topologically transitive components, in particular the number is bounded by the equation:

$$\mathrm{}\{i:X_i\text{ at most countable}\}+2\mathrm{}\{i:X_i\text{ uncountable}\}2r+\mathrm{}𝒫.$$

###### Proof.

For all $`z\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$ let $`G(z)`$ be the maximal interval containing $`z`$ which is a subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$, we refer to $`G(z)`$ as a gap. Let $`n(z)`$ be the smallest positive integer such that $`f^{n(z)}z\widehat{H}.`$ Let $`k=k(z)`$ be the index such that $`f^{n(z)}\widehat{H}_k.`$ Let $`J(z)`$ be the set of $`xG(z)`$ such that the orbit of $`x`$ falls into the same component $`\widehat{H}_k`$ of the maximal hole at the same time, i.e. $`n(x)=n(z)`$ and $`k(x)=k(z)`$. We claim that the continuity of $`f`$ implies that $`J(z)=G(z).`$ Indeed, if this is not the case, then $`J(z)f^n\widehat{H}_k.`$ Since $`\widehat{H}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ this contradicts the definition of the gap $`G(z)`$.

Until further notice we assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a SFT. Each topologically transitive component $`X_i`$ is closed, thus we can define $`a_i:=\mathrm{min}(X_i)`$ and $`b_i:=\mathrm{max}(X_i)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a SFT it has only a finite number of topologically transitive components $`Y_i`$ and these components are disjoint. Until further notice we also suppose that all the points $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ have unique coding (i.e. the orbits of $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ do not intersect $`𝒫`$). With this additional assumption the disjointness of the $`Y_i`$ implies that $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ do not belong to any transitive component other than $`X_i`$. This implies that there are gaps $`G_{a_i}`$ ($`G_{b_i}`$) on the left (right) side of $`a_i`$ ($`b_i`$). Fix $`xG_{a_i}`$. As we saw above all $`z`$ between $`x`$ and $`a_i`$ fall into the same hole at the same time $`n(z)`$. By the continuity of $`f`$ this implies that $`f^{n(z)}a_i\widehat{H}`$. A similar statement holds for $`G_{b_i}`$.

Consider the ordering on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which is compatible with the ordering on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This ordering can always be defined in an inductive manner by simply considering the relative order of the elements of $`𝒫^{(n)}:=_{i=0}^nf^i𝒫`$. (if $`f`$ is locally order preserving then this is simply the lexicographical order on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). Fix an $`i.`$ Consider the symbolic coding of $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$. Call these codings $`s=(s_j)_{j𝒩}`$ and $`t=(t_j)_{j𝒩}`$ (here the dependence on $`i`$ is suppressed since $`i`$ is fixed). We claim that if $`X_i`$ is uncountable then $`s`$ is not a preimage of $`t`$ and vice versa $`t`$ is not a preimage of $`s`$. To see this fix a higher block coding which defines Markov transition graph of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The fact that $`a_i`$ is defined via a minimum implies that if there are several followers of the symbol $`s_j`$ in the Markov graph, then $`s_{j+1}`$ is minimal follower in the sense that in the ordering it is smaller than all other followers. In a similar fashion the sequence $`t`$ is maximal.

If $`s`$ is a preimage of $`t`$ or vice versa, then $`s`$ and $`t`$ are eventually maximal and minimal at the same time. This means that from the point on that they agree there the maximal follower of $`s_j`$ is also the minimal follower of $`s_j`$, so there is only one follower of $`s_j`$. Thus $`s`$ and $`t`$ are eventually periodic and the $`Y_i`$ is simply this periodic orbit. In particular $`Y_i`$ is finite, finishing the proof of the claim.

If $`X_i`$ is uncountable, then we have just shown the disjointness of the codes of $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$. Since we are still assuming that the points $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ have unique coding this implies the disjointness of their $`f`$–orbits. Thus at least two point of $`X_i`$ lie on $`\widehat{H}`$.

On the other hand if $`X_i`$ is at most countable, then by proposition 4.1 it is finite and consists of a single periodic orbit. The points $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ lie on this orbit.

Under the above assumptions we have shown that for every uncountable $`X_i`$ there are at least two points of $`X_i`$ on the border of $`\widehat{H}`$ and for every at most countable $`X_i`$ there is at least one such point. Thus, since the endpoints can only belong to a single $`X_i`$ we have shown

$$\mathrm{}\{i:X_i\text{ at most countable}\}+2\mathrm{}\{i:X_i\text{ uncountable}\}2r.$$

Since $`\pi `$ is at most 2 to 1, if we drop the assumption that the $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ have unique coding then (at most) two symbolically disjoint topologically transitive components can share such a point when projected to the interval $`I`$. This can happen at most $`\mathrm{}P`$ times yielding the formula in the statement of the theorem in the case that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a SFT.

Finally if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is not a SFT we approximate $`H`$ by Markov holes $`H^{(n)}`$ in the same way as in theorem 4.1. Arguing similarly to the proof of theorem 4.1 we have $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}:=\overline{_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_j}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the difference consists of BSCs. Note that the number of transitive component of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is less than or equal to the limsup of the number of components of the approximating sequence. It remains to bound the number of BSCs.

Let $`u2r`$ be the number of points in $`\widehat{H}`$ which are boundary points of non BSCs. By the definition of a BSC such a point can not belong to a BSC. We claim that the number of BSCs is at most $`2ru`$. Let $`𝒞:=\{c_j\}`$ be the set of points in $`H`$ which belong to a BSC. By definition of BSCs $`𝒞`$ must be disjoint from $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$ or else they would be approximable by periodic points. Also by definition every $`c_j`$ must belong to $`\widehat{H}`$. If two holes $`H_i`$ and $`H_j`$ amalgamate to a single $`\widehat{H}_k`$ then two points in $`H`$ belong to $`\widehat{H}_k`$ and (i.e. their orbit falls into $`H`$) and thus can not belong to $`𝒞`$. Thus the cardinality of $`𝒞`$ is at most $`2ru`$. Clearly any BSC $`X_i`$ contains at least one of the points $`c_j`$. We will associate with each BSC $`X_i`$ a subset $`I(X_i)`$ of $`HX_i`$ of “insertable boundary points”. We claim that two distinct BSCs must have nonintersecting sets $`I`$. Once this claim has been established it immediately follows that the number of BSCs is at most $`2ru`$ which will complete the proof of the theorem.

We turn to the proof of the claim. Fix $`X=X_i`$ a BSC. Let $`\widehat{c}_j=\pi ^1c_j\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Note that $`\widehat{c}_j`$ is uniquely defined by the convention we made in section 2. Fix $`xX`$ such that the orbit of $`x`$ is dense in $`X`$. Consider any $`\widehat{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`\pi (\widehat{x})=x`$. For each $`k0`$ we define $`n_k(\widehat{x})`$ in the following way: $`n_k(\widehat{x})`$ is the longest initial block of one of the $`\widehat{c}_j`$ which agrees with the initial block of the same length of $`\sigma ^k\widehat{x}`$. We call $`n_k(\widehat{x})`$ the flag of $`x`$ at time $`k`$. We remark that $`n_k(\widehat{x})<\mathrm{}`$ if $`f^kxH`$. By proposition 4.1 either $`x`$ is an isolated periodic point which hits $`H`$ or it visits $`H`$ only a finite number of times. In the second case since by the proposition $`x`$ is recurrent, we can assume by replacing $`x`$ by $`f^ix`$ for sufficiently large $`i`$ that the orbit of $`x`$ does not visit $`H`$ at all.

We remind that $`x`$ is fixed and thus we drop the $`x`$ dependence of the notations. We say that a flag $`n_k`$ is covered by another flag if there is a $`k^{}<k`$ such that $`n_k^{}+k^{}n_k+k`$ (see figure 1). If a flag is not covered by any other flag we say it is uncovered. The motivation for this terminology is the following fact: if the flag of $`x`$ is uncovered at time $`k`$ then we can concatenate $`\widehat{x}`$’s initial segment of length $`k`$ with any orbit in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose initial segment agrees with the next $`n_k`$ entries of $`\widehat{x}`$ and the concatenated orbit belongs to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ (it may be wandering and thus not belong to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$).

We claim that there are infinitely many indices $`t_l`$ such that the flags at these times are uncovered. To see this this consider $`n_1+1`$. Clearly there must be a $`k>1`$ such that $`n_k+k>n_1+1`$. Let $`t_1`$ be the smallest such $`k`$, this flag must be uncovered. Arguing inductively the flags at times $`t_{l+1}:=\mathrm{min}\{k>t_l:n_k+k>n_{t_l}+t_l\}`$ are uncovered.

For each $`k0`$ we define the color(s) of $`x`$ at time $`k`$ to be the set of $`c_j`$ such that the initial blocks of length $`n_k(\widehat{x})`$ of $`\widehat{c}_j`$ and $`\sigma ^k\widehat{x}`$ coincide. We assume that we start with a fine enough Markov partition that each $`c_j`$ belongs to a different element of the time zero partition. This implies that the color of $`x`$ is unique for each $`k`$. Let $`I(X):=I(X,x)`$ be the set of colors which occur infinitely often at uncovered times. Clearly this set is nonempty.

We are now ready to prove the above claim. Consider $`I(X,x)`$ and $`I(Z,z)`$ which have nonempty intersection, and let $`c=c_j`$ belong to this intersection. We will recursively construct a point $`w\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that the orbit of $`\pi (w)`$ is dense in $`XZ`$. To construct $`w`$ fix a positive sequence $`\epsilon _m0`$. Consider an initial segment of $`\widehat{x}`$ of length $`t_{l_0}`$ where $`t_{l_0}`$ is the smallest $`t_l(x)`$ such that the orbit segment $`f^ix:i=0,\mathrm{},t_{l_0}`$ is $`\epsilon _0`$ dense in $`X`$. Consider the smallest $`k_1`$ such that $`\sigma ^{k_1}\widehat{z}`$ and $`\widehat{c}`$ agree at at least $`n_{t_{l_0}}(\widehat{x})`$ places. Furthermore consider am initial segment of $`\sigma ^{k_1}\widehat{z}`$ of length $`t_{l_1}`$ where $`t_{l_1}`$ is the smallest $`t_l(f^kz)`$ such that the orbit segment $`f^iz:i=0,\mathrm{},t_{l_0}`$ is $`\epsilon _1`$ dense in $`Z`$. Consider the smallest $`k_2`$ such that $`\sigma ^{k_2}\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{c}`$ agree at at least $`n_{t_{l_1}}(\sigma ^{k_1}\widehat{z})`$ places. These definitions guarantee that the sequence $`\widehat{x}(t_{l_0})\sigma ^{k_1}\widehat{z}(t_{l_1})\sigma ^{k_2}\widehat{x}`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Here the symbol $``$ mean concatenation and $`\widehat{x}(n)=\widehat{x}_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_n`$. Recursively repeating this construction produces the sequence

$$w:=\widehat{x}(t_{l_0})\sigma ^{k_1}\widehat{z}(t_{l_1})\sigma ^{k_2}\widehat{x}(t_{l_2})\sigma ^{k_3}\widehat{z}(t_{l_3})\mathrm{}.$$

By construction $`w\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and the orbit of $`\pi (w)`$ is clearly dense in $`XZ`$. In particular $`\pi (w)`$ in nonwandering and thus $`w\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This finishes the proof of the claim. ∎

## 5. Genericity results

### 5.1. A criterion for SFTs

###### Lemma 5.1.

If for each $`xH`$ there is an $`i`$ such that $`f^ixH`$ then $`f|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a uniformly hyperbolic diffeomorphism and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a SFT.

###### Proof.

Fix a generating Markov partition $`𝒫`$ and let $`𝒫^{(n)}:=_{i=n}^nf^i𝒫`$. Let $`P_x^{(n)}:=_{\{P𝒫^{(n)}:xP\}}P`$. If $`xH`$ and $`f^ixH`$ then since $`𝒫`$ is generating by continuity there is a $`n(x)`$ such that $`f^iP_x^{(n(x))}H`$. Since $`H`$ is compact we can cover $`H`$ by a finite collection of the sets $`P_x^{(n(x))}`$ to obtain a neighborhood $`N`$ of $`H`$ such that $`N\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{}.`$ Since we used a finite collection of $`P_x`$, the hole $`H^{}:=NH`$ consists of a finite union of element of $`𝒫^{(N)}`$ for some sufficiently large integer $`N`$ and thus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a SFT. ∎

### 5.2. Results in the Hausdorff metric

Let $`s`$ denote the dimension of $`M`$. Consider the set $`C`$ of all holes such that $`H`$ is a continuous, i.e. there is a continuous map $`h:𝐒^{𝐬\mathrm{𝟏}}M`$ whose image is $`H`$. For $`HC`$ let $`H^ϵ:=_{xH}B(x,ϵ).`$ For $`H_1,H_2C`$ we define

$$d(H_1,H_2):=inf\{ϵ>0:H_1H_2^ϵ,H_2H_1^ϵ\}.$$

###### Lemma 5.2.

If the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ is totally disconnected then for every $`\epsilon >0`$ there is a hole $`H^{}C`$ with $`d(H^{},H)<\epsilon `$ and an open neighborhood $`𝒰C`$ of $`H^{}`$ such that for all holes $`H^{\prime \prime }𝒰`$ the subshift $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a SFT.

###### Proof.

Consider the set $`𝒱:=\{H^{}C:HH^{},d(H,H^{})<ϵ\}.`$ Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ is totally disconnected there are holes $`H^{}𝒱`$ such that $`H^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_H=\mathrm{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_H^{}`$ such an $`H^{}`$ satisfies the requirements of lemma 5.1 and so defines a SFT.

Next we will show that an open set $`𝒰`$ of holes satisfy the requirements of lemma 5.1. By compactness of $`H^{}`$ we can find an open set $`BH^{}`$ with $`d(B,H^{})>0`$ and a positive integer $`N`$ such that for all $`xH`$ there exists an integer $`i`$, satisfying $`|i|N`$ such that $`f^ixB.`$ Then, just as in the proof of lemma 5.1 there is a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`H^{}`$ such that for each $`xU`$ for some $`i`$ satisfying $`|i|N`$ we have $`f^ixB.`$ This immediately implies that we can choose a small neighborhood $`𝒰C`$ of $`H^{}`$ such that for any hole $`H^{\prime \prime }𝒰`$ the boundary of $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ satisfies the requirements of lemma 5.1 and thus the corresponding shift $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }`$ is a SFT. ∎

###### Theorem 5.3.

In the two dimensional case the set of $`HC`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a SFT is open and dense.

###### Proof.

Consider an arbitrary hole $`HC`$ and the associated invariant set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$. If $`x`$ is a generic point in the sense that it visits (in both forward and backwards time) any cylinder set (defined by the Markov partition) with the correct frequency, then $`W^s(x)`$ and $`W^u(x)`$ completely fall into $`H`$ and thus are both disjoint from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$. Both $`W^s(x)`$ and $`W^u(x)`$ are curves which are dense in $`M`$, thus since $`M`$ is two dimensional the complement of their union is totally disconnected (i.e. no two points are in the same connected component). Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ is a subset of this set it is also totally disconnect. Apply Lemma 5.2 finishes the proof. ∎

### 5.3. Rectangle like holes

In this section we assume that $`M`$ is two dimensional. We call a hole a rectangle like hole if $`H`$ consists of a finite number of curves, each of which is a piece of a stable or unstable manifold of $`f`$. We assume that at each point where two curves meet, that one is stable, the other is unstable. Thus the number of corners is always even, and if we fix an orientation of the boundary we only need to give the coordinates of every other corner point to describe a rectangle like hole. If we fix the number $`2n`$ of corners of a rectangle like hole $`(n2)`$ then we can parameterize the set of all such rectangles by an open subset $`R^{(n)}`$ of $`T^{2n}.`$ We will consider the Lebesgue measure on $`R^{(n)}.`$

###### Theorem 5.4.

For every $`n2`$, the set of rectangle like holes with $`2n`$ corners for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a SFT is of full measure and contains an open dense subset of $`R^{(n)}.`$

###### Proof.

Consider the set $`G`$ of generic points in the same sense as in the proof of theorem 5.3. The set $`G`$ is of full Lebesgue measure. Suppose $`H`$ is a rectangle like hole with the property that every other corner point (those which are noted in the description of $`HR^{(n)}`$) is in $`G.`$ Such a hole satisfies the requirements of lemma 5.1 and thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a SFT. Clearly the set of such holes is dense and of full measure. The proof of openness is the same as in the proof of the previous theorem. ∎

### 5.4. Polyhedral holes

In this section we suppose that $`M`$ is $`s`$–dimensional and has a flat structure (i.e. $`M𝐑^𝐬`$ or $`M𝐓^𝐬`$). We consider holes which are the interior of arbitrary polyhedron. Fix the number of corners $`ns+1`$. The set of $`n`$-gons is an open subset of $`M^n`$ which we denote by $`P^{(n)}`$.

###### Theorem 5.5.

For every $`ns+1`$ the set of polyhedral holes for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a SFT has positive Lebesgue measure.

###### Proof.

We call a polyhedral hole $`HP^{(n)}`$ large if the Hausdorff dimension of the associated invariant set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is less than or equal to one. We note that if $`HH^{}`$ then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_H.`$ Thus if $`H`$ is a large hole then so is $`H^{}.`$

Our proof is local. Fix an open set $`B`$. Consider the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_B`$ of points which never fall into $`B`$. Suppose $`B`$ is large enough that $`a:=\text{dim}(\mathrm{\Omega }_B)1.`$ This implies that $`\text{dim}(\text{proj}_\theta (\mathrm{\Omega }_B))=a1`$ for almost every $`\theta `$ (, Theorem 6.9). Here $`\text{proj}_\theta `$ denotes the orthogonal projection from $`M`$ onto $`L_\theta `$, the line through the origin in the direction $`\theta 𝐒^{𝐬\mathrm{𝟏}}.`$ The term almost every $`\theta `$ refers to the Lebesgue measure on the $`𝐒^{𝐬\mathrm{𝟏}}`$.

Consider the set of $`(s1)`$–dimensional polyhedra contained in a co-dimension one hyperplane with normal direction $`\theta `$. Such a polyhedron plays the role of a face of a polyhedral hole. Let $`t`$ be the parameter on $`L_\theta .`$ The projection of any such face onto $`L_\theta `$ is simply a point $`tL_\theta `$. The pair of parameters $`\{\theta ,t\}`$ determine a family of faces which lie in a common co–dimension one hyperplane.

Suppose $`\theta `$ is a generic direction, i.e. $`\text{dim}(\text{proj}_\theta (\mathrm{\Omega }_B))=a1`$. Then for a.e. $`t`$, any polyhedral face normal to $`\theta `$ will be disjoint from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B.`$

Now consider any polyhedron $`H`$ which contains $`B`$ in it’s interior and for which all the faces are generic in the above sense, i.e. they do not intersect the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$. This immediately implies that the boundary $`H`$ satisfies the requirements of lemma 5.1. The set of such polyhedra is clearly open, and locally dense, and locally of full measure. ∎

In fact we can show a bit more. Let $`\widehat{P}^{(n)}P^{(n)}`$ be the set of all large polyhedral holes. If we choose $`B\widehat{P}^{(n)}`$ in the above proof then we have shown:

###### Theorem 5.6.

For every $`ns+1`$ the set of large polyhedral holes for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a SFT is of full measure and contains an open dense subset of $`\widehat{P}^{(n)}`$.

Remark: We believe that the set of polyhedral holes defining a SFT is of full measure and contains an open and dense set. Our strategy of proof can not be used since the projection onto a line $`L_\theta `$ of a set of dimension greater than one has positive one dimensional measure for a.e. $`\theta `$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Rare $`B`$ Decays (induced in the quark language by transitions such as $`bs\gamma `$, $`bd\gamma `$, $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`bd\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$,…) and particle-antiparticle mixings ($`B^0`$ \- $`\overline{B^0}`$, $`B_s^0`$ \- $`\overline{B_s^0}`$,…) represent flavour-changing-neutral-current (FCNC) processes. In standard model (SM), FCNC processes are not allowed in the Born approximation and are induced by loops which impart them a sensitivity to higher scales. These transitions are either dominated by the top quark in the SM, or else the contribution of the lighter ($`u,d,s,c`$)-quarks can be estimated using QCD and the knowledge of the entries in the first two rows of the CKM (Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa) matrix . In either case, FCNC $`B`$ decays can be used to determine the CKM matrix elements involving the top quark, $`V_{td},V_{ts}`$, and $`V_{tb}`$. Since direct determination of only $`|V_{tb}|`$ in the decay $`tWb`$ is presently available , and there is no credible method to measure the other two directly, FCNC $`B`$ (and $`K`$)-decays are the only feasible alternatives in quantifying our knowledge about $`V_{td}`$ and $`V_{ts}`$.

With the advent of the $`B`$-factories, the era of precision $`B`$-physics is already upon us. With definite plans to accumulate $`O(500)`$ fb<sup>-1</sup> luminosity at the BABAR detector within the next five years (and a similar projection for BELLE), a large number of rare decays and CP-violating asymmetries in partial decay rates of the $`B^\pm `$ or $`B^0/\overline{B^0}`$ mesons will be measured. Hadron machines will push this frontier even beyond, in particular in the $`B_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ sectors, as discussed at this meeting  and elsewhere . In anticipation of this, a lot of theoretical effort has gone in consolidating the $`B`$-physics profile in the SM and in suggesting search strategies for physics beyond the SM. The prime candidate in new physics searches is supersymmetry. While not expected to provide a ”smoking gun” proof of supersymmetry, for which high energy colliders are arguably more suited, yet precise measurements in low energy processes may also reveal effects anticipated in supersymmetric theories. Typical of these are incremental contributions to the mass differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ in the $`B`$ \- $`\overline{B}`$ system, the effective FCNC vertices $`bs\gamma `$, $`bsg`$, $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$, inducing the $`bs`$ transitions (likewise, in $`bd`$ transitions), and CP-violating phases. We review here some selected topics in the photonic and leptonic rare $`B`$-meson decays from the point of view of their impact on the CKM phenomenology and/or their potential for the discovery of induced supersymmetric effects.

## 2 Radiative Decays $`B(X_s,X_d)+\gamma `$ and the CKM Phenomenology

### 2.1 $`(BX_s\gamma )`$ and determination of $`|V_{ts}|`$

We start with the inclusive radiative decays $`BX_s\gamma `$. The lowest order (one-loop) contribution to the decay $`bs+\gamma `$ is described by the amplitude

$$(bs+\gamma )=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{e}{2\pi ^2}\underset{i=u,c,t}{}\lambda _iF_2(x_i)q^\mu ϵ^\mu \overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\left(m_bR+m_sL\right)b,$$
(1)
where $`L=(1\gamma _5)/2`$, $`R=(1+\gamma _5)/2`$, and $`x_i=m_i^2/m_W^2`$, with $`m_i`$ and $`m_W`$ being the quark and $`W^\pm `$-boson masses, respectively; $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling constant and $`e`$ is the electromagnetic coupling, with $`e^2/4\pi =\alpha _{em}1/137.`$ The quantity $`F_2(x_i)`$ is the Inami-Lim Function

$$F_2(x)=\frac{x}{24(x1)^4}\left[6x(3x2)\mathrm{ln}x(x1)(8x^2+5x7)\right],$$
(2)
and $`\lambda _i`$ are the CKM factors, $`\lambda _iV_{ib}V_{is}^{}`$. Since $`\lambda _u/\lambda _c1`$, CKM Unitarity implies $`\lambda _c\lambda _t`$, yielding the GIM-amplitude :

$`(bs+\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2\pi ^2}}\lambda _t`$ (3)
$`\times \left(F_2(x_t)F_2(x_c)\right)q^\mu ϵ^\mu \overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\left(m_bR+m_sL\right)b.`$
With $`m_t`$ already measured , this amplitude depends on $`\lambda _t`$.

To quantify this, one has to incorporate QCD corrections to the decay rate. A truly cooperative effort by several theoretical groups has led to a determination of the branching ratio $`(BX_s\gamma )`$ up to and including the next-to-leading order (NLO) accuracy . The result is the following NLO (in $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$) and power (in $`1/m_b^2`$ and $`1/m_c^2`$) corrected branching ratio in the SM :

$$(BX_s\gamma )=[(3.29\pm 0.33)\times 10^4][|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}/V_{cb}|/0.976]^2.$$
(4)
Explicit dependence on the CKM factor $`|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}/V_{cb}|`$ and the default value following from the (indirect) unitarity fit  of this quantity are displayed. The present world average for the branching ratio, based on the CLEO , ALEPH  and the more recent BELLE  measurements, is $`(BX_s\gamma )=[(3.21\pm 0.39)\times 10^4`$. This yields the CKM ratio:

$$|\frac{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}{V_{cb}}|=0.964\pm 0.075,$$
(5)
to be compared with the unitarity fits of this quantity: $`|\frac{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}{V_{cb}}|=0.976\pm 0.010`$. Using the present measurements of the matrix element $`|V_{cb}|=0.04\pm 0.002`$  and assuming $`|V_{tb}|1.0`$, yields $`|V_{ts}|=0.038\pm 0.003`$. Using, instead, the value $`|V_{tb}|=0.97_{0.12}^{+0.16}`$, measured by the CDF collaboration , gives $`|V_{ts}|=0.04\pm 0.007`$, which corresponds to a measurement with an error of $`\pm 18\%`$. This error will be greatly reduced in future.

The determination of $`|V_{ts}|`$ from the $`BX_s\gamma `$ is occasionally questioned . The issue raised is the following: The dominance of the top-quark contribution, manifest in the lowest order GIM-amplitude in Eq. (3), is no longer present after including the QCD corrections in the decay rate. This deserves a closer look. Internal book keeping of the decay rate for $`BX_S\gamma `$ shows that the QCD corrections do not significantly change the intermediate $`u\overline{u}`$ contribution which remains small and at the level of $`2\%`$ and can be neglected. However, the QCD-corrected amplitude $`(bs\gamma )`$ receives a very large contribution from the matrix element of the four-quark operator $`O_2=(\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ic)(\overline{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ib)`$, involving the intermediate $`c\overline{c}`$ loop, proportional to $`\alpha _s(m_b)C_2(m_b)\lambda _c`$, where $`\lambda _c=V_{cs}^{}V_{cb}`$. The CKM dependence of the $`c\overline{c}`$ contribution to the branching ratio is hence proportional to $`(\lambda _c^2/V_{cb})^2=V_{cs}^2`$. Fortunately, this CKM matrix element is known very precisely thanks to LEP $`|V_{cs}|=0.989\pm 0.016`$ . Putting in the other relevant dynamical quantities, the $`c\overline{c}`$ contribution by itself gives a branching ratio which is twice the present experimental value of $`(BX_s\gamma )`$ . Were it not for the top quark, SM would have been ruled out by data on $`(BX_s\gamma )`$! Hence, the top qaurk contribution proportional to $`\lambda _t`$ is absolutely crucial in bringing the SM prediction for this branching ratio in accord with data. This evidently constrains the CKM ratio $`|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}/V_{cb}|`$ whose present estimate is given above.

### 2.2 $`(BX_d\gamma )`$ and $`a_{CP}(BX_d\gamma )`$ in the SM

Measuring the CKM-suppressed inclusive radiative decay $`BX_d+\gamma `$ will be an experimental Tour de Force! The CKM-allowed ($`BX_s\gamma `$) and the CKM-suppressed ($`BX_d\gamma `$) decays are anticipated to have rather similar photon energy spectra . However, the excellent $`K/\pi `$-separation at the B-factory experiments (and at CLEO) could be used in effectively separating the two radiative branches. With an estimated branching ratio $`(BX_d+\gamma )=𝒪(10^5)`$ , one would need $`O(10^8)`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ events, which are well within reach of the $`B`$-factories in the next several years. The experimental effort will yield high dividends, as one also expects direct CP violation in the decay rates for $`BX_d\gamma `$ and its charge conjugate $`\overline{B}X_d\gamma `$ which is measurably large in the SM, with typical estimates being $`O(20\%)`$ .

The effective Hamiltonian for the $`BX_d\gamma `$ decays can be written in the form

$$_{eff}(bd)=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\xi _t\underset{j=1}{\overset{8}{}}C_j(\mu )\widehat{O}_j(\mu ).$$
(6)
The CKM factors are given by $`\xi _jV_{jb}V_{jd}^{},j=u,c,t`$. The Wilson coefficients $`C_j(\mu )`$ are the same as in the decays $`BX_s\gamma `$, but the four-quark operators have now an implicit CKM-parametric dependence

$`\widehat{O}_1={\displaystyle \frac{\xi _c}{\xi _t}}(\overline{c}_{L\beta }\gamma ^\mu b_{L\alpha })(\overline{d}_{L\alpha }\gamma _\mu c_{L\beta }){\displaystyle \frac{\xi _u}{\xi _t}}(\overline{u}_{L\beta }\gamma ^\mu b_{L\alpha })(\overline{d}_{L\alpha }\gamma _\mu u_{L\beta })`$
$`\widehat{O}_2={\displaystyle \frac{\xi _c}{\xi _t}}(\overline{c}_{L\alpha }\gamma ^\mu b_{L\alpha })(\overline{d}_{L\beta }\gamma _\mu c_{L\beta }){\displaystyle \frac{\xi _u}{\xi _t}}(\overline{u}_{L\alpha }\gamma ^\mu b_{L\alpha })(\overline{d}_{L\beta }\gamma _\mu u_{L\beta }).`$ (7)
Using the Wolfenstein parametrization , one has:

$$\xi _u=A\lambda ^3(\overline{\rho }i\overline{\eta }),\xi _c=A\lambda ^3,\xi _t=\xi _u\xi _c.$$
(8)
Here, $`A0.84,\lambda =0.22`$, but $`\overline{\rho }`$ and the phase $`\overline{\eta }`$ are only poorly determined, typically lying in the correlated range $`0.05\overline{\rho }0.40`$ and $`0.25\overline{\eta }0.50`$ (at 95% C.L.) . The quantities $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ are the $`O(\lambda ^2)`$ corrected Wolefenstein parameters $`\overline{\rho }=\rho (1\lambda ^2/2)`$ and $`\overline{\eta }=\eta (1\lambda ^2/2)`$ . Thus, all three CKM factors in Eq. (8) are comparable and of order $`\lambda ^3`$. This yields the following expression for the branching ratio in the SM:

$`(BX_d+\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2[(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2]D_t`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}}\widehat{D}_u+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }(1\overline{\rho })\overline{\eta }^2}{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}}\widehat{D}_r{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\eta }}{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}}\widehat{D}_i\right],`$
where, typically, $`D_t=3.6\times 10^4`$, $`\widehat{D}_u=0.078`$, $`\widehat{D}_r=0.136`$, and $`\widehat{D}_i=0.27`$ . Using the range of the parameters $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ given above yields

$$6.0\times 10^6(BX_d+\gamma )2.0\times 10^5,$$
(10)
The direct CP-asymmetry in the decay rates defined as

$$a_{CP}(BX_d+\gamma )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_d+\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\overline{X_d}+\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_d+\gamma )+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\overline{X_d}+\gamma )},$$
(11)
has not so far been calculated in the NLL precision. We recall that, as opposed to the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }((BX_d+\gamma ))`$, which receives contributions starting from the lowest order, i.e., terms of the form $`(\alpha _s^n(m_b)\mathrm{ln}^n(m_W/m_b))`$, the CP-odd numerator in Eq. (11) is suppressed by an extra factor $`\alpha _s`$, i.e., it starts with terms of the form $`\alpha _s(m_b)(\alpha _s^n\mathrm{log}^n(m_W/m_b))`$. This results in a moderate scale dependence of $`a_{CP}`$.

Using the LL expression for the denominator in eq. (11), the CP rate asymmetry can be written as

$$a_{CP}(BX_d+\gamma )=\frac{Im(\xi _t^{}\xi _u)D_i}{|\xi _t|^2D_t^{(0)}}=\frac{D_i\overline{\eta }}{D_t^{(0)}[(1\overline{\rho })^2\overline{\eta }^2]},$$
(12)
where $`D_t^{(0)}`$ stands for the LL part of $`D_t`$, and its typical value is $`D_t^{(0)}2.7\times 10^4`$. Varying the CKM parameters in the range given above yields:

$$0.10a_{CP}(BX_d+\gamma )0.35.$$
(13)
Hence, a measurement of $`(BX_d+\gamma )`$ and $`a_{CP}(BX_d+\gamma )`$ will have a big impact on the CKM Phenomenology.

The corresponding CP-asymmetry in the CKM-allowed decay $`BX_s\gamma `$ in the SM is small, $`a_{CP}(BX_s+\gamma )\lambda ^2\eta `$ yielding $`a_{CP}(BX_s+\gamma )1\%`$, reflecting the fact that the complex phases in the matrix elements $`V_{ts}`$ and $`V_{tb}`$ are absent in leading order. Hence, a measurement of the CP-asymmetry $`a_{CP}(BX_s+\gamma )`$ will be a sure signal of new physics . Present bounds from CLEO imply that $`a_{CP}(BX_s+\gamma )`$ lies between $`0.27`$ and $`+0.10`$ at 90% C.L. , which is consistent with being zero and with the SM. It should be stressed that in the experimental analysis of the CP-asymmetries in inclusive radiative decays $`BX\gamma `$, it is imperative to separate the hadrons $`X`$ into $`X_s`$ (emerging from $`bs`$ transitions) and $`X_d`$ (emerging from $`bd`$ transitions). Else, as pointed out by Soares , the sum of the rate difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_d+\gamma )+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_s+\gamma )`$ vanishes in the SM in the limit $`m_d=m_s=0`$.

## 3 Exclusive Decays $`BV+\gamma `$

Inclusive decay $`BX_d\gamma `$ is theoretically more robust but experimentally very challenging to measure. The exclusive decays $`BV\gamma `$, with $`V=\rho ^0,\rho ^\pm `$ and $`\omega `$, should be relatively easier to measure, given the large statistics at the B factories. In anticipation of this, considerable effort has gone in studying the theoretical profile of the exclusive radiative $`B`$-decays . We shall first review some of these estimates in terms of the predicted branching ratios for $`BV\gamma (V=K^{},\rho ,\omega )`$, which are being used to constrain the CKM ratio $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|`$ from the current experiments.

Using the effective Hamiltonian

$$(bd\gamma )=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\xi _u(𝒞_1(\mu )𝒪_1(\mu )+𝒞_2(\mu )𝒪_2(\mu ))\xi _t𝒞_7^{eff}(\mu )𝒪_7(\mu )+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(14)
where the Four-quark operators are now defined as:

$$𝒪_1=(\overline{d}_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu u_\beta )(\overline{u}_\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu b_\alpha ),𝒪_2=(\overline{d}_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu u_\alpha )(\overline{u}_\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu b_\beta ),$$
(15)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)`$, and $`𝒪_7=\frac{em_b}{8\pi ^2}\overline{d}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }(1\gamma _5)F_{\mu \nu }b`$, the crucial step is to calculate the form factors in $`BV`$ transitions involving these operators. Defining the form factor in $`BV+\gamma `$ from $`O_7`$ ($`\overline{\psi }=\overline{d},\overline{s}`$)

$$V,\lambda |\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu b|B=iϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }e_\nu ^{(\lambda )}p_B^\rho p_V^\sigma F_S^{BV}(0),$$
(16)
the form factor $`B_S^{BK^{}}(0)`$ has been measured in the decays $`BK^{}\gamma `$. There are several estimates of this quantity based on the light cone QCD-sum rules  and lattice-QCD , yielding branching ratios in agreement with the CLEO , BELLE  and BABAR  data.

Assuming only the $`O_7`$ contribution (SD-Dominance) leads to simple relations among the decay rates for $`B\rho \gamma `$ and $`BK^{}\gamma `$. For example, one has

$$R(\rho /K^{})\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B\rho +\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BK^{}+\gamma )}\kappa _{u,d}\left[\frac{|V_{td}|}{|V_{ts}|}\right]^2,$$
(17)
where $`\kappa _i[F_S(B_i\rho \gamma )/F_S(B_iK^{}\gamma )]^2`$ is the ratio of the form factors entering in the SD-part of the amplitudes. (In the limit of $`SU(3)`$) symmetry $`\kappa _i=1`$.) Isospin symmetry implies $`(B^+\rho ^+\gamma )=2(B^0\rho ^0\gamma )`$ and $`(B^+K^+\gamma )=(B^0K^0\gamma )`$. In addition using SU(3) symmetry, one has $`(B^0\omega \gamma )=(B^0\rho ^0\gamma )`$. These relations are frequently used in the current experimental analyses. Present upper limits on $`R(\rho /K^{})`$ are: $`R(\rho /K^{})<0.32`$  and $`R(\rho /K^{})<0.28`$ , yielding $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|<0.75`$ and $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|<0.70`$, respectively, at 90% C.L., using $`\kappa _i=0.58`$ . This is not yet competitive with the bound from the ratio on the mass differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d/\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$, which currently yields $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|<0.24`$ at 95% C.L. . Experiments at $`B`$ factories will be able to reach the sensitivity of the SM, $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|0.2`$.

Next, we discuss the isospin-violating ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^0\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\rho ^{}\gamma )}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B^0}\rho ^0\gamma )}1,\mathrm{\Delta }^{+0}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+\rho ^+\gamma )}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0\rho ^0\gamma )}1.$$
(18)
The charge-conjugate averaged ratio

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Delta }^0+\mathrm{\Delta }^{+0}],$$
(19)
and the direct CP-asymmetry

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )\frac{(B^{}\rho ^{}\gamma )(B^+\rho ^+\gamma )}{(B^{}\rho ^{}\gamma )+(B^+\rho ^+\gamma )},$$
(20)
(likewise, $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^0\rho \gamma )`$) are the quantities of principal interest in this talk.

The isospin-breaking effects in the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{+0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ due to the long-distance contributions in the decays $`B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma `$ may turn out to be sizable. Hence, given enough data, one should analyze the ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{+0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ for anticipated deviations from the isospin value of unity. In fact, as argued in Ref. , the interference of the LD and SD-amplitudes in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \rho ^\pm )`$ may provide a sensitive probe for physics beyond the SM.

The long-distance contributions arise from the matrix elements of the operators $`𝒪_1`$ and $`𝒪_2`$. There are two form factors in the matrix elements $`V,\lambda |𝒪_{1,2}|B`$, which we denote as $`F_1^L(q^2)`$ and $`F_2^L(q^2)`$. QCD sum rule-based estimates put them almost equal , $`F_{1,L}^{BV}(q^2)F_{2,L}^{BV}(q^2)=F_L^{BV}(q^2)`$. Taking ino account the dominant LD-contributions arising from $`W^\pm `$-annihilation and $`W^\pm `$-exchange, one has

$`(B^{}\rho ^{}\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _ta_P^{()}(1{\displaystyle \frac{|\xi _u|}{|\xi _t|}}R_L^{()}e^{i\alpha }),`$
$`(\overline{B^0}\rho ^0\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _ta_P^{(0)}(1{\displaystyle \frac{|\xi _u|}{|\xi _t|}}R_L^{(0)}e^{i\alpha }),`$ (21)
where $`\alpha `$ is one of the inner angles of the unitarity triangle; $`a_P^{()}`$ and $`a_P^{(0)}`$ are SD (Penguin)-amplitudes and $`R_L^{(\pm )}`$ and $`R_L^{(0)}`$ are model-dependent quantities involving the form factors and other dynamical variables. Typical estimates obtained using factorization of the matrix elements of $`𝒪_1`$ and $`𝒪_2`$ and the Light-cone QCD sum rules are :

$$a_P^{()}a_P^{(0)},R_L^{()}0.3\pm 0.07,R_L^{(0)}0.03\pm 0.01.$$
(22)
The quantity $`R_L^{(0)}`$ entering in $`\overline{B^0}\rho ^0\gamma `$ decay is suppressed due to the electric charge of the down quark ($`e_{\overline{d}}=+1/3)`$ in $`\overline{B^0}=b\overline{d}`$, as opposed to the up quark charge ($`e_{\overline{u}}=2/3)`$ in $`B^{}=b\overline{u}`$, as radiation from the light quarks dominates, and the color-suppression factor, which phenomenologically has a relative weight of about 0.25.

Dropping $`R_L^{(0)}`$ and rewriting $`R_L^{()}=ϵ_A\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _A}`$, where $`\varphi _A`$ is a strong interaction phase, on has in the lowest order

$$\frac{(B^{}\rho ^{}\gamma )}{2(\overline{B^0}\rho ^0\gamma )}\left|1ϵ_A\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _A}\frac{|\xi _u|}{|\xi _t|}e^{+i\alpha }\right|^2.$$
(23)
The isospin ratios can now be expressed as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{\pm 0}=2ϵ_A\left[\mathrm{cos}\varphi _AF_1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _AF_2+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_A(F_1^2+F_2^2)\right].$$
(24)
Here, $`F_{1,2}`$ are functions of the Wolfenstein parameters $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$, with

$$F_1=\left|\frac{\lambda _u^{(d)}}{\lambda _t^{(d)}}\right|\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,F_2=\left|\frac{\lambda _u^{(d)}}{\lambda _t^{(d)}}\right|\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,(F_1^2+F_2^2)=\left|\lambda _u^{(d)}/\lambda _t^{(d)}\right|^2.$$
(25)
The charge-conjugated ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the leading order is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LO}}=2ϵ_A\left[\mathrm{cos}\varphi _AF_1+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_A(F_1^2+F_2^2)\right]2ϵ_A\left[F_1+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_A(F_1^2+F_2^2)\right],$$
(26)
the second equality follows from assuming $`\varphi _A=0`$, obtaining in the factorization approximation.

Recently, the leading-twist non-factorizable contribution to the weak annihilation amplitude has been computed in perturbation theory by Grinstein and Pirjol, using heavy quark expansion techniques . In the chiral limit $`(m_u,m_d0)`$, these authors show that the one-loop non-factorizable corrections in weak annihilation amplitude vanish in the leading twist and one recovers the factorization result. Interestingly, the weak annihilation contribution, which is the dominant long-distance amplitude, can be determined model independently from the radiative decays $`B^\pm \gamma \mathrm{}^\pm \nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ . To generate non-zero $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}`$, it is necessary to compute the NLO corrections , which generates $`\varphi `$ perturbatively in the penguin amplitude. Of course, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LO}}`$ is also renormalized by perturbative QCD corrections.

### 3.1 NLO Effects in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`𝒜_{CP}(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )`$

Ignoring contributions which are formally power ($`1/m_b`$)-suppressed, the NLO corrections to the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B\rho \gamma )`$ can be retrieved from the corresponding corrections to the inclusive radiative decays $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_s\gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_d\gamma )`$. The isospin-violating ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ in the NLO approximation and the CP-violating decay rate asymmetry $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )`$ have been calculated to $`O(\alpha _s)`$ in Ref. : The isospin-violating ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LO}}`$ are shown as functions of the angle $`\alpha `$ in Fig. 1. As can be seen in this figure, the NLO corrections to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{LO}`$ are small for all values of $`\alpha `$. The anticipated range of $`\alpha `$ from the CKM-unitarity fits with 95% C.L. is also indicated. Note, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LO}}`$ (but numerically also $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{NLO}}`$) is essentially proportional to $`F_1`$, while $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )`$ is proportional to $`F_2`$. Thus, for the central value of the CKM-unitarity fits, yielding $`\alpha \pi /2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ is very small, implying that isospin symmetry in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ holds to a very high precision, while for this value of $`\alpha `$, $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )`$ takes its maximum value. Conversely, if the value of $`\alpha `$ is sufficiently different from $`\pi /2`$, the CP asymmetry $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )`$ decreases while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ increases, reaching $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{NLO}}\pm 0.2`$ for extreme allowed values of $`\alpha `$. Thus, measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )`$ determine the angle $`\alpha `$ in the SM , providing complementary information on this angle.

As a possible candidate for new physics, we discuss supersymmetric effects on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ which enter through the modification of the Wilson coefficient $`C_7^{(0)eff}(m_b)`$ and some $`O(\alpha _s)`$ functions (called $`A_R^{(1)t}`$ and $`A_I^{(1)t}`$ in Ref. ). In addition, $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are also in general modified. We shall restrict ourselves to the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM) case, in which one expects additional contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$, and $`ϵ_K`$, but no new phases, leading to a shift in the apex of the CKM-unitarity triangle. The branching ratio $`(BX_s\gamma )`$ constrains the real and imaginary parts of $`C_7^{eff}`$. Including upper bounds from the electric dipole moment of the neutron leads to $`\mathrm{Im}(C_7/C_7^{\mathrm{SM}})1`$ . Depending on the supersymmetric parameters, one has typically three different situations: (i) Small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-solution (say, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$): $`\mathrm{Re}(C_7^{eff}/C_7^{eff,\mathrm{SM}})=1\pm 15\%`$; (ii)Medium $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-solution (say, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$): $`\mathrm{Re}(C_7^{eff}/C_7^{eff,\mathrm{SM}})=0.7`$$`1.2`$; (iii) Large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-solution (say, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$). In the last case, two possible branches are: either $`\mathrm{Re}(C_7^{eff}/C_7^{eff,\mathrm{SM}})=0.7`$$`1.2`$, or $`\mathrm{Re}(C_7^{eff}/C_7^{eff,\mathrm{SM}})=(0.8)`$$`(1.5)`$. It is this second possibility involving a flip of the sign of $`C_7^{eff}`$, compared to the SM, which is of particular interest in the context of the isospin-violating ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ and the CP asymmetry $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )`$. The interference of the SD- and LD-contribution in the amplitude, impacting on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )`$, is indeed sensitive to the sign of $`C_7^{eff}`$. Possible supersymmetric effects on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )`$ are shown in Figs. 2, where the assumed values of $`\mathrm{Re}(C_7^{eff}/C_7^{eff,\mathrm{SM}})`$ are also indicated.

## 4 The decays $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ in the SM

### 4.1 The effective Hamiltonian approach

The decays $`B(X_s,X_d)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, as well as their exclusive counterparts such as the decays $`B(K,K^{},\pi ,\rho )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, provide the possibility of measuring Dalitz-distributions in a number of variables from which the effective vertices in the underlying theory can be extracted . Inclusive decays are theoretically more robust than exclusive decays which require additionally the knowledge of the relevant form factors. However, despite comparatively larger branching ratios, inclusive decays are more difficult to measure, in particular, in experiments operating at hadron machines. Exclusive semileptonic decays are accessible to a wider variety of experiments . We review here the anticipated profiles for the decays $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ in the SM and some variants of supersymmetry.

At the quark level, the semileptonic decay $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ can be described in terms of the effective Hamiltonian

$$^{\mathrm{eff}}=4\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}𝒞_i(\mu )𝒪_i(\mu ),$$
(27)
where unitarity of the CKM matrix and the numerical hierarchy $`V_{us}^{}V_{ub}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}`$ are implicit. The definitions of the operators and the expressions for the Wilson coefficients in the SM can be seen in Ref. . Restricting ourselves to the SM and SUSY, the short-distance contributions in the decays $`BX_s\gamma `$ and $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, and the exclusive decays of interest to us, are determined by three coefficients, called $`𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}C_7C_5/3C_6`$, $`𝒞_9`$ and $`𝒞_{10}`$ .In general, more operators are present in supersymmetric theories and their possible effects are discussed in Ref. .

The above Hamiltonian leads to the following free quark decay amplitude for $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$:

$`(bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\{𝒞_{9}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}\left[\overline{s}\gamma _\mu Lb\right]\left[\overline{\lambda }\gamma ^\mu \lambda \right]+𝒞_{10}\left[\overline{s}\gamma _\mu Lb\right]\left[\overline{\lambda }\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\lambda \right]`$ (28)
$`2\widehat{m}_b𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}\left[\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{q}^\nu }{\widehat{s}}}Rb\right]\left[\overline{\lambda }\gamma ^\mu \lambda \right]\}.`$
Here, $`s=q^2`$, $`q=p_++p_{}`$, $`p_\pm `$ are the four-momenta of the leptons, respectively, and the hat on a variable denotes its normalized value with respect to the $`B`$-meson mass, $`m_B`$, e.g., $`\widehat{s}=s/m_B^2`$, $`\widehat{m}_b=m_b/m_B`$, and we denote by $`m_bm_b(\mu )`$ the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass evaluated at a scale $`\mu `$. Note that $`(bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$, although a free quark decay amplitude, contains certain long-distance effects from the matrix elements of four-quark operators, $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}s|𝒪_i|b`$, $`1i6`$, which usually are absorbed into a redefinition of the short-distance Wilson-coefficients. Thus, the effective coefficient of the operator $`𝒪_9`$ is defined as

$$𝒞_{9}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}(\widehat{s})=C_9+Y(\widehat{s}),$$
(29)
where $`Y(\widehat{s})`$ stands for the above-mentioned matrix elements of the four-quark operators. A perturbative calculation yields :

$`Y_{\mathrm{pert}}(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`g(m_c,\widehat{s})C^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(1,\widehat{s})\left(4C_3+4C_4+3C_5+C_6\right)`$ (30)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(0,\widehat{s})\left(C_3+3C_4\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\left(3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6\right),`$
with $`C^{(0)}3C_1+C_2+3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6`$. The functions $`g(\widehat{m},\widehat{s})`$ are given in Ref. . Thus, whereas the coefficients $`C_7^{eff}`$ and $`C_{10}`$ are constants, the effective coefficients $`C_9^{eff}`$ is an $`\widehat{s}`$-dependent function and has a non-local character.

Nonperturbative effects originate in particular from resonance contributions. It is essentially only the $`c\overline{c}`$-resonant contribution that matters. Ref.  suggests to add the contributions from $`J/\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\mathrm{}`$ to the perturbative result, with the former parametrized in the form of Breit-Wigner functions with known widths. The function $`Y(\widehat{s})`$ is then replaced by

$$Y_{\mathrm{amm}}(\widehat{s})=Y_{\mathrm{pert}}(\widehat{s})+\frac{3\pi }{\alpha ^2}C^{(0)}\underset{V_i=\psi (1s),\mathrm{},\psi (6s)}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(V_i\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})m_{V_i}}{m_{V_i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{s}m_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}im_{V_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V_i}}.$$
(31)
The phenomenological factors $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ can be fixed from the relation

$`(BK^{()}V_iK^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})=(BK^{()}V_i)(V_i\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}),`$ (32)
where the right-hand side is given by data .

In Ref. , Krüger and Sehgal have argued that the perturbative/non-perturbative dichotomy in $`Y(\widehat{s})`$ can be avoided by using the measured cross-section $`\sigma (e^+e^{}`$hadrons) together with the assumption of the quark-hadron duality for large $`\widehat{s}`$ to reconstruct $`Y(\widehat{s})`$ from its imaginary part by a dispersion relation. In principle, this approach has a merit. However, the quark-hadron duality argument is not completely quantitative either, as perturbative contributions in $`\sigma (e^+e^{}`$hadrons) and $`(BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ are not identical. In particular, the (non-local) perturbative part of $`Y(\widehat{s})`$ has genuine hard contributions proportional to $`m_b^2`$, which can neither be ignored nor taken care of by the $`e^+e^{}`$ data. The issue remains as to how much of the genuine perturbative contribution in $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ arising from the $`c\overline{c}`$-continuum should be kept and there is at present no unique solution to this problem. Luckily, the inherent theoretical uncertainty in the two approaches is not overwhelming and the SD-contribution can be meaningfully extracted from data.

### 4.2 Dilepton invariant mass and the forward-backward asymmetry

Exclusive decays $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ are described in terms of matrix elements of the quark operators in Eq. (28) over meson states, which can be parametrized in terms of form factors. For $`BK`$ transition, there are three of them, called $`f_+(s)`$, $`f_0(s)`$, involving the vector current, and $`f_T(s)`$, entering in the matrix element of the tensor current. For the vector meson $`K^{}`$, there are five form factors in the $`VA`$ current, but only four are independent which we call as $`A_1,A_2,A_0`$ and $`V`$. The tensor part involves three form factors, called $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ and $`T_3`$ , with $`T_1(0)=T_2(0)`$.

The dilepton mass spectrum for the decays $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and the forward backward asymmetry (FBA), defined as

$$\frac{d𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}}{d\widehat{s}}=_0^{\widehat{u}(\widehat{s})}𝑑\widehat{u}\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{u}d\widehat{s}}+_{\widehat{u}(\widehat{s})}^0𝑑\widehat{u}\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{u}d\widehat{s}},$$
(33)
where the variable $`\widehat{u}`$ corresponds to $`\theta `$, the angle between the momentum of the $`B`$ meson and the positively charged lepton $`\mathrm{}^+`$ in the dilepton center of mass system, are worked out in a number of papers (see, for example, Ref. ). Assuming CP-symmetry, the forward-backward asymmetry in the decays of the $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ mesons are equal and opposite .

For $`BK`$ transitions, the dilepton invariant mass spectrum is simplified

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{s}}|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}|^2\left(|C_9^{eff}f_+(s)+\frac{2\widehat{m}_b}{1+\widehat{m}_K}C_7^{eff}f_T(s)|^2+|C_{10}f_+(s)|^2\right).$$
(34)
Note, there is no dependence on the form factor $`f_{}`$ for $`m_{\mathrm{}}=0`$. Also, since $`|C_7^{eff}||C_9^{eff}|,|C_{10}|`$, to a good approximation $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }/d\widehat{s}|f_+|^2`$, with the effect from the $`C_7^{eff}f_T`$ term of order $`10\%`$. Hence, the $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay is dominated by the matrix element of the vector current, just like the charged current induced transition $`B\pi \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$. This observation could be put to good use to determine the CKM ratio $`|V_{ub}/V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}|`$ . The FBA vanishes in $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays.

For the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ transition, there is no dependence on the form factor $`A_0`$ for $`m_{\mathrm{}}=0`$. However, in general, the dilepton invariant mass distribution depends on all the three effective Wilson coefficients and the form factors discussed above .The expression for the FBA for the decay $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is rather simple and instructive

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}}{d\widehat{s}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha ^2m_B^5}{2^8\pi ^5}}\left|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\right|^2\widehat{s}\widehat{u}(\widehat{s})^2`$
$`\times 𝒞_{10}\left[\mathrm{Re}(𝒞_{9}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}})VA_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_b}{\widehat{s}}}𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}(VT_2(1\widehat{m}_K^{})+A_1T_1(1+\widehat{m}_K^{}))\right].`$
The position of the zero $`\widehat{s}_0`$ of the FBA is given by

$`\mathrm{Re}(𝒞_{9}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}(\widehat{s}_0))={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_b}{\widehat{s}_0}}𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{T_2(\widehat{s}_0)}{A_1(\widehat{s}_0)}}(1\widehat{m}_K^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{T_1(\widehat{s}_0)}{V(\widehat{s}_0)}}(1+\widehat{m}_K^{})\right\},`$ (36)
which depends on the value of $`m_b`$, the ratio of the effective coefficients $`𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{Re}(𝒞_{9}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}(\widehat{s}_0))`$, and the ratio of the form factors shown above. It is interesting to observe that using the heavy quark symmetry, formulated in the form of a Large Energy Effective Theory (LEET) , both the ratios of the form factors appearing in Eq. (36) can be shown to have essentially no hadronic uncertainty, i.e. , all dependence on the form factors cancels:

$$\frac{T_2}{A_1}=\frac{1+\widehat{m}_K^{}}{1+\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}\left(1\frac{\widehat{s}}{1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2}\right),\frac{T_1}{V}=\frac{1}{1+\widehat{m}_K^{}}.$$
(37)
With these relations, one has a particularly simple form for the right hand side in Eq. (36) determining $`\widehat{s}_0`$, namely

$$\mathrm{Re}(𝒞_{9}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}(\widehat{s}_0))=2\frac{\widehat{m}_b}{\widehat{s}_0}𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{1\widehat{s}_0}{1+m_K^{}^2\widehat{s}_0}.$$
(38)
Thus, the zero-point of the FB-asymmetry in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is determined essentially by the precision of the ratio of the effective coefficients and $`m_b`$, putting it on almost same footing as the corresponding quantity in the inclusive decays $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, for which the zero-point of the FBA is given by the solution of the equation $`\mathrm{Re}(𝒞_{9}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}(\widehat{s}_0))=\frac{2}{\widehat{s}_0}𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The insensitivity of $`\widehat{s}_0`$ to the decay form factors in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ has also been pointed out in Ref.  based on a comparative study of a number of form factor models. Perturbative stability of the LEET results given in Eqs. (37) has recently been studied by Beneke and Feldmann , who find that the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections, modifying the above relations, are within $`10\%`$. Thus, the LEET-based result in Eq. (38) stands theoretically on quite rigorous grounds, making the zero-point of the FBA a precision test of the SM. Typically, $`\widehat{s}_0=0.10`$ (i.e. $`s_0=2.9\text{GeV}^2`$) in the SM.

While none of the experiments has so far reached the SM-sensitivity in $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays, some do provide interesting upper limits on the parameter space of models with new physics. This has been worked out in the context of the SUSY models in Ref. . The exclusive decay $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ provides at present the most stringent bounds on the effective coefficients in the SM. The current upper limit  and the SM-expectations  are:

$`_{nr}(BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})_{\text{SM}}`$ $`=`$ $`2.0\pm 0.5\times 10^6,`$
$`_{nr}(BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})_{\text{CDF}}`$ $`<`$ $`4.0\times 10^6(\text{at 90\% C.L.}).`$ (39)
## 5 The decays $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ in SUSY

Rare $`B`$-decays $`BX_s\gamma `$ and $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ have been extensively studied in the context of supersymmetric theories. Recent developments can be seen in Refs. . We do not consider models with broken R-parity and assume that there are no new phases from new physics beyond the SM. This covers an important part of the supersymmetric parameter space, but not all.

Possible contributions from new physics (NP) in the relevant Wilson coefficients can be taken into account by the (correlated) ratios, ($`i=7,9,10`$):

$$R_i(\mu )\frac{𝒞_i^{NP}+𝒞_i^{SM}}{𝒞_i^{SM}}=\frac{𝒞_i}{𝒞_i^{SM}},$$
(40)
which depend on the renormalization scale (except for $`𝒞_{10}`$). The experimental constraint from $`BX_s\gamma `$ translates into the bound

$$0.80<|R_7(\mu =4.8\text{GeV})|<1.20,$$
(41)
where the coefficients are understood to be calculated in the LLA precision. Some representative cases are discussed below.

### 5.1 $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ in SUGRA models

The parameter space of these models may be decomposed into two qualitatively different regions, which can be characterized by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values. For small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, say $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 3`$, the sign of $`𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the same as in the SM. Here, no spectacular deviations from the SM can be expected in the decays $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the situation is more interesting due to correlations involving the branching ratio for $`BX_s\gamma `$, the mass of the lightest CP-even Higgs boson, $`m_h`$, and sign$`(\mu _{susy})`$, appearing in the Higgs superpotential. The interesting scenario for SUSY searches in $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is the one in which sign$`(\mu _{susy})`$ and $`m_h`$ admit $`𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to be positive . In this case one expects a constructive interference of the terms depending on $`𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`𝒞_9`$ in the dilepton invariant mass spectra. For the sake of illustration, we use

$$R_7=1.2,R_9=1.03,R_{10}=1.0,$$
(42)
obtained for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ , as a representative large-$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ solution.

In Fig. 4, we show the dilepton invariant mass spectrum for the decay $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. Below the $`J/\psi `$ mass, the decay rate is enhanced in SUSY by about $`30\%`$ compared to the SM. This enhancement is difficult to disentangle from the non-perturbative uncertainties attendant with the SM-distributions (shown as the shaded band in this figure). The dilepton mass distribution for $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ is more promising, as in this case the SUSY enhancement is around $`100\%`$, see Fig. 4, and this is distinguishable from the SM-related theoretical uncertainties (shown as the shaded band in this figure). The supersymmetric effects in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ are very similar to the ones worked out for the inclusive decays $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ , where enhancements of ($`50`$$`100`$)% were predicted in the low-$`q^2`$ branching ratios. The effect of $`R_7`$ being negative is striking in the FB asymmetry as shown in Fig. 5, in which the two SUGRA curves are plotted using Eq. (42) (for $`R_7<0`$) and by flipping the sign of $`R_7`$ but keeping the magnitudes of $`R_i`$ to their values given in this equation. Summarizing for the SUGRA theories, large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ solutions lead to $`𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ being positive, which implies that FB-asymmetry below the $`J/\psi `$-resonant region remains negative (hence, no zero in the FB-asymmetry in this region) and one expects an enhancement up to a factor two in the dilepton mass distribution in $`BK^{}e^+e^{}`$ and $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$.

### 5.2 $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ in the MIA Approach

The minimal insertion approach aims at including all possible squark mixing effects in a model independent way. Choosing a $`q,\stackrel{~}{q}`$ basis where the $`q\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ and $`q\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ couplings are flavor diagonal, flavor changes are incorporated by a non-diagonal mass insertion in the $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ propagator, which can be parametrized as ($`A,B=`$Left, Right)

$`(\delta _{ij}^{up,down})_{A,B}={\displaystyle \frac{(m_{ij}^{up,down})_{A,B}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}},`$ (43)
where $`(m_{ij}^{up,down})_{A,B}^2`$ are the off-diagonal elements of the up(down) squark mass squared matrices that mix flavor $`i`$ and $`j`$, for both the right- and left-handed scalars, and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2`$ is the average squark mass squared. The sfermion propagators are expanded in terms of the $`\delta `$s. The Wilson coefficients have the following structure ($`k=7,9,10`$):

$$𝒞_k=𝒞_k^{SM}+𝒞_k^{diag}+𝒞_k^{MIA},$$
(44)
where $`𝒞^{MIA}`$ is given in terms of $`(\delta _{ij}^{up,down})_{A,B}^2`$ up to two mass insertions , and $`𝒞_k^{diag}`$ being the SUSY contribution in the basis where only flavor-diagonal contributions are allowed.

The MIA-SUSY approach has been recently used in the analysis of the decays $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ , taking into account the present bounds on the coefficient $`𝒞_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}(m_B)`$ following from the decay $`BX_s\gamma `$. The other two coefficients $`𝒞_9^{MIA}`$ and $`𝒞_{10}^{MIA}`$ are calculated by scanning over the allowed supersymmetric parameter space . Illustrative examples of the dilepton invariant mass spectrum in the decays $`BK\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ in the MIA approach are shown in Figs. 4 and 4, respectively. They have been calculated for the following values:

$$R_7=\pm 0.83,R_9=0.92,R_{10}=1.61,$$
(45)
which are allowed by the present experimental bounds. The characteristic difference in this case, as compared to the SUGRA models, lies in the significantly enhanced value of $`𝒞_{10}`$.

A characteristic of the MIA approach is that the sign of $`𝒞_{10}`$ ($`C_{10}^{SM}<0`$) depends on the quantities $`(\delta _{23}^u)_{LR}`$ and $`(\delta _{23}^u)_{LL}`$. In particular, in this scenario, SUSY effects could change the sign of the Wilson coefficient $`C_{10}`$. This has no effect on the dilepton invariant mass distributions, as they depend quadratically on $`C_{10}`$, but it would change the sign of $`A_{FB}`$ in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. To illustrate this, we use the following parameters

$$R_7=\pm 0.83,R_9=0.79,R_{10}=0.38,$$
(46)
and plot the resulting normalized FB asymmetry in Fig. 5. The positive FB-asymmetry in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ (as well as in $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ shown in ) for the dilepton invariant mass below the resonant $`J/\psi `$ region is rather unique to the MIA approach.

With $`O(10^9)`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ events anticipated at the B-factories, and much higher yields at the Tevatron and LHC experiments, measurements of the differential rates and the forward-backward asymmetry in $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ will allow precision tests of the SM. If we are lucky, some of these measurements may lead to the discovery of new physics. We illustrated the case for supersymmetry.