format: text

text:
# Intersection cohomology of representation spaces of surface groups

## 1 Introduction

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a closed Riemann surface of genus $`g2`$ and $`\pi `$ be its fundamental group. The representation space

$$X(G)=\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)/G$$

of $`\pi `$ into a compact connected Lie group $`G`$ has been playing important roles in differential geometry (the moduli space of flat connections), algebraic geometry (the moduli space of holomorphic principal bundles) and topology (Casson’s invariant). This is a compact pseudomanifold which can be thought of as the symplectic reduction of a Hamiltonian $`G`$-space, the extended moduli space. The purpose of this paper is to study the local structure of $`X(G)`$ in terms of the symplectic geometry of the extended moduli space and to show by the splitting theorem \[Kie, KW\] that its intersection cohomology is embedded into the $`G`$-equivariant cohomology of $`\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)`$, which can be computed by the equivariant Morse theory of Atiyah-Bott \[AB82\] §10 at least in principle. The image is identified with a subspace $`V_U^{}`$ truncated locally and this enables us to compute the intersection cohomology as a graded vector space with a nondegenerate pairing.

The extended moduli space $`𝒩^𝔤`$ for a simply connected compact Lie group $`G`$ was defined and studied by L. Jeffrey \[Jef94\]. Roughly, it is a “partial reduction” of the space of connections by the based gauge group and thus carries a symplectic structure on the smooth part together with a (residual) $`G`$ action. $`X(G)`$ is now the symplectic reduction of this partial reduction. In \[JK98\], L. Jeffrey and F. Kirwan applied their nonabelian localization principle to the extended moduli space and proved Witten’s formulas for the intersection numbers of the moduli spaces of vector bundles of coprime rank and degree. In §2, we review the definition and some key results for $`𝒩^𝔤`$. Then we determine the symplectic slice at a point in the zero set of the moment map. As is well-known, at a smooth point in $`X(G)`$, the tangent space is isomorphic to the symplectic slice. Our description of the symplectic slice is consistent with W. Goldman’s description of the tangent space \[Gol84\].

Given a singular reduction, R. Sjamaar and E. Lerman provided a useful local description \[SL91\] and showed that a singular reduction is a stratified space, symplectic on each stratum. In §3, we apply their results to study the local structures of $`X(G)`$. Locally, $`X(G)`$ looks like the symplectic reduction of the symplectic slice by a linear action of the stabilizer. This gives us a local description of $`X(G)`$, consistent with the result of Goldman-Millson in \[GM88\], where they obtained analytic results through deformation theory.

Since $`X(G)`$ is a singular pseudomanifold, intersection cohomology is an interesting invariant, at least as important as the ordinary cohomology because of its nice properties including Poincaré duality in spite of singularities. Generalizing the results of \[Kie\], we showed in \[KW\] that the intersection cohomology of a reduced space $`M//G`$ of a Hamiltonian $`G`$ space $`M`$ with proper moment map $`\mu `$ is naturally isomorphic to a subspace, called the truncated equivariant cohomology, of the equivariant cohomology $`H_G^{}(\mu ^1(0))`$ under an assumption named *weakly balanced*. This condition was devised to make the codimensions of the unstable strata in the blow-ups in the partial desingularization process, large enough. The truncated equivariant cohomology is defined by truncating the equivariant cohomology along each stratum and the splitting theorem111The isomorphism is a splitting of the Kirwan map $`\kappa :H_G^{}(\mu ^1(0))IH^{}(\mu ^1(0)/G)`$. enables us to compute the Betti numbers and intersection pairing of $`IH^{}(M//G)`$ in terms of the equivariant cohomology. In §4, we recall this theorem and show that the extended moduli space satisfies the assumption. Therefore, we can compute the intersection cohomology of $`X(G)`$ in terms of the $`G`$ equivariant cohomology of $`\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)`$.

The case where $`G=SU(2)`$ is discussed in §5. We can compute the intersection cohomology groups of $`X(SU(2))`$ by using the structure theorem of $`H_{SU(2)}^{}(\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2)))`$ from \[Kie00\].

If the Lie group $`G`$ is not simply connected, $`X(G)`$ is not connected. In fact, $`\pi _0(X(G))\pi _1(G)`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ denote the universal cover of $`G`$ with (finite) fiber $`C`$. Then there is a covering space $`X(\stackrel{~}{G})X(G)`$ onto a component we denote by $`X(G)_0`$. Then the intersection cohomology of $`X(G)_0`$ is the $`C^{2g}`$ invariant part of the intersection cohomology of $`X(\stackrel{~}{G})`$ which can be computed by the splitting theorem.

Every cohomology group in this paper has complex coefficients and every intersection cohomology has middle perversity.

Acknowledgements. I am grateful to Professors Ronnie Lee, Lisa Jeffrey, Frances Kirwan and Jon Woolf for useful discussions.

## 2 Extended moduli space

Let $`G`$ be a simply connected compact Lie group and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a closed Riemann surface of genus $`g2`$. Let $`\pi `$ denote the fundamental group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The representation space

$$X(G):=\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)/G$$

can be realized as the symplectic reduction of a Hamiltonian $`G`$ space $`𝒩^𝔤`$, called the *extended moduli space*. This was defined and studied by L. Jeffrey in \[Jef94\].

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`𝔤=Lie(G)`$. We define

$$𝒩^𝔤:=\{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2g},\mathrm{\Lambda })G^{2g}\times 𝔤|[a_i,a_{i+g}]=e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\}$$

More generally, for each central element $`c`$ in $`G`$, we define

$$𝒩_c^𝔤:=\{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2g},\mathrm{\Lambda })G^{2g}\times 𝔤|[a_i,a_{i+g}]=ce^\mathrm{\Lambda }\}.$$

Let $`P:G^{2g}\times 𝔤G`$ be the map defined by

$$P(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2g},\mathrm{\Lambda })=[a_i,a_{i+g}]e^\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

Then $`𝒩^𝔤=P^1(1)`$. $`dP_{(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ is surjective if $`P(a,\mathrm{\Lambda })=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ because $`d(exp)_0`$ is surjective. Hence, $`𝒩^𝔤`$ is smooth in a neighborhood of

$$\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)=\{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2g})G^{2g}|[a_i,a_{i+g}]=1\}$$

It is not hard to see that $`𝒩^𝔤`$ is connected. Also, from the work of A. Ramanathan \[Ram75\] and Atiyah-Bott \[AB82\], it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)`$ is connected.

The extended moduli space can be considered as a moduli space of flat connections as follows. Delete an open disk $`D`$ with boundary $`S`$ from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and denote the resulting surface by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Fix a parametrization of $`S`$ by a parameter $`s/`$ and a diffeomorphism of a neighborhood of $`S`$ to $`/\times [0,ϵ)`$. Let $`𝒜_{flat}^𝔤(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ denote the set of flat connections on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ whose restriction to a neighborhood of $`S`$ is $`\alpha ds`$ for some $`\alpha 𝔤`$. Let $`𝒢_0(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ be the space of maps $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}G`$ such that $`g=IG`$ in a neighborhood of $`S`$. Then, as usual, holonomy defines a map $`𝒜_{flat}^𝔤(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})/𝒢_0(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})𝒩^𝔤`$. We quote the following theorem from \[Jef94\].

###### Theorem 2.2

$`𝒩^𝔤`$ is homeomorphic to $`𝒜_{flat}^𝔤(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})/𝒢_0(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$.

From this gauge theoretic description, we see that the tangent space at a smooth point in $`𝒩^𝔤`$ is isomorphic to the first cohomology $`\stackrel{~}{H}^1`$ of the complex (see \[Jef94\])

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})𝔤& \stackrel{d_A}{}& \mathrm{\Omega }^{1,𝔤}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})& & \mathrm{\Omega }_c^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})𝔤\end{array}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^i`$ is the space of $`i`$-forms with compact support in the interior of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{1,𝔤}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})=\{b\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})𝔤|b=\alpha ds\text{ in a neighborhood of }S\text{ for some }\alpha 𝔤\}`$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{1,𝔤}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_c^1(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})𝔤𝔤`$ by choosing a 1-form whose restriction to a neighborhood of $`S`$ is $`ds`$. Hence, the index of the complex is $`2g(dimG)`$ since the Euler characteristic of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is $`12g`$. Therefore, the dimension of $`𝒩^𝔤`$ is $`2g(dimG)`$.

Let $`a,b\mathrm{\Omega }^{1,𝔤}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ and define a pairing $`\omega `$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{1,𝔤}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ by

$$\omega (a,b)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}a,b$$
(2)
where $`,`$ is the nondegenerate invariant metric on $`𝔤`$. By Stokes’ theorem, $`\omega `$ defines a 2-form on $`\stackrel{~}{H}^1`$, which is shown to be symplectic in \[Jef94\]. Thus near $`\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)`$, $`𝒩^𝔤`$ is a symplectic manifold.

For $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2g},\mathrm{\Lambda })𝒩^𝔤`$ and $`hG`$, consider the action

$$h(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2g},\mathrm{\Lambda })=(ha_1h^1,\mathrm{},ha_{2g}h^1,h\mathrm{\Lambda }h^1).$$

This makes $`𝒩^𝔤`$ a $`G`$ space. In terms of gauge theory, this action can be described by the corresponding action on the space of connections. Suppose $`\zeta 𝔤`$ and let $`a\mathrm{\Omega }^{1,𝔤}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ be a $`d_A`$-closed 1-form whose restriction to a neighborhood of $`S`$ is $`\alpha ds`$. Then

$$\omega (d_A\zeta ,a)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}d_A\zeta ,a=\zeta ,\alpha .$$
(3)
Let $`\mu :𝒩^𝔤𝔤`$ be the map defined by $`\mu (a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2g},\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then the above computation shows that $`\mu `$ is a moment map222The sign depends on the convention. for the $`G`$ action on a neighborhood $`U=\mu ^1(B)`$, for a small open ball $`B`$ around 0, of $`\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)=\mu ^1(0)`$. In particular, the representation space $`X(G)`$ is the symplectic reduction $`U//G`$ of $`U`$ by the $`G`$ action.

Near a point $`\varphi =[A]`$ in $`\mu ^1(0)`$, $`𝒩^𝔤`$ is diffeomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{H}^1`$ of (1). The orbit direction is given by $`d_A\zeta `$ for $`\zeta 𝔤`$ and thus by (3) its symplectic orthogonal complement in $`\stackrel{~}{H}^1`$ is precisely $`H_c^1(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{};d_A)H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma },D;d_A)`$. Notice that the local system extends to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ because $`\varphi =[A]\mu ^1(0)`$. The infinitesimal action of $`𝔤`$ is given by the image of the map

$$H^0(D;d_A)H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma },D;d_A)$$

Therefore, from the long exact sequence, we deduce the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.3

The symplectic slice at a point $`\varphi =[A]`$ in $`\mu ^1(0)𝒩^𝔤`$ is $`H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma };d_A)=H^1(\pi ;𝔤_{Ad\varphi })`$.

Hence, the tangent space at a smooth point $`\varphi `$ of $`X(G)`$ is isomorphic to $`H^1(\pi ;𝔤_{Ad\varphi })`$. This is consistent with Goldman’s result \[Gol84\]. From (2), the symplectic structure on the slice is given by the cup product and $`,`$.

## 3 Local description

In this section, we apply the results of Sjamaar-Lerman \[SL91\] to study the local structure of $`X(G)`$ and $`U𝒩^𝔤`$ with the $`G`$ action.

Let $`M`$ be a Hamiltonian $`G`$ space with moment map $`\mu `$. We recall the following local normal form theorem.

###### Theorem 3.1

\[SL91\] Let $`p\mu ^1(0)`$ and $`\widehat{W}_p`$ be the symplectic slice of the orbit $`Gp`$. Then a neighborhood of the orbit is equivariantly symplectomorphic to a neighborhood of the zero section of

$$G\times _{Stabp}((𝔤/𝔥)^{}\times \widehat{W}_p)$$

with moment map $`\mu (a,\xi ,v)=Ad^{}(a)(\xi +\mu _{\widehat{W}}(v))`$ where $`\mu _{\widehat{W}}:\widehat{W}_p𝔥^{}`$ is the moment map for the linear $`Stabp`$ action and $`𝔥=Lie(Stabp)`$.

As a consequence, a neighborhood of $`x\mu ^1(0)/G`$, corresponding to $`p`$, is homeomorphic to $`\widehat{W}_p//Stabp`$ which is the reduction of $`G\times _{Stabp}((𝔤/𝔥)^{}\times \widehat{W}_p)`$ by $`G`$.

In the case of extended moduli space, we showed in the previous section that the symplectic slice at a point $`\varphi \mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)`$ is $`\widehat{W}_\varphi =H^1(\pi ,𝔤_{Ad\varphi })`$ on which $`Stabp`$ acts by conjugation on $`𝔤`$. The moment map for this action is given by $`\mu _{\widehat{W}_\varphi }(u)=[u,u]`$, $`\mu _{\widehat{W}_\varphi }:H^1(\pi ,𝔤_{Ad\varphi })H^2(\pi ,𝔤_{Ad\varphi })𝔥^{}`$ using the Lie bracket of $`𝔤`$ and the cup product.

The above local normal form theorem now shows that in a neighborhood of the image of a point $`\varphi \mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)`$, $`X(G)`$ is homeomorphic to the symplectic reduction $`H^1(\pi ,𝔤_{Ad\varphi })//Stab\varphi `$. This is again consistent with the deformation theory result of Goldman-Millson \[GM88\] but our approach is more in the spirit of symplectic geometry.

Let $`𝔥=Lie(Stab\varphi )`$ and $`𝔷(𝔥)=\{\zeta |[\zeta ,\zeta ^{}]=0\text{ for all }\zeta ^{}𝔥\}`$. Recall that $`H^1(\pi ,𝔤_{Ad\varphi })`$ is the quotient of the space of cocycles

$$Z^1(\pi ,𝔤_{Ad\varphi })=\{u:\pi 𝔤|u(rs)=u(r)+Ad\varphi (r)u(s)\}$$
(4)
by the space of coboundaries

$$B^1(\pi ,𝔤_{Ad\varphi })=\{u:\pi 𝔤|u(r)=Ad\varphi (r)u_0u_0\text{ for }u_0𝔤\}.$$
(5)
Since $`Ad\varphi `$ stabilizes $`𝔥`$, $`Ad\varphi `$ preserves $`𝔷(𝔥)`$ and $`𝔷(𝔥)^{}`$ for the orthogonal decomposition $`𝔤=𝔷(𝔥)𝔷(𝔥)^{}`$. Hence, each $`u:\pi 𝔤`$ is the sum of cocycles $`u_𝔥:\pi 𝔤𝔷(𝔥)`$ and $`u_𝔥^{}:\pi 𝔤𝔷(𝔥)^{}`$. Thus, we get the induced decomposition

$$H^1(\pi ,𝔤_{Ad\varphi })=H^1(\pi ,𝔷(𝔥)_{Ad\varphi })H^1(\pi ,𝔷(𝔥)_{Ad\varphi }^{}).$$

In terms of gauge theory, this is obtained by reduction of the structure group to the centralizer $`H^{}`$ of the identity component $`H`$ of $`Stab(\varphi )`$. Clearly, the first factor is $`𝔥`$ fixed while the second factor has no nonzero fixed point.333One easy way to see it is to consider $`H^1(\pi ,𝔷(𝔥)_{Ad\varphi }^{})`$ as the space of harmonic $`𝔷(𝔥)^{}`$ valued 1-forms. Hence, the $`𝔥`$-fixed subspace in $`\widehat{W}_\varphi `$ is $`\widehat{W}_\varphi ^𝔥:=H^1(\pi ,𝔷(𝔥)_{Ad\varphi })`$ and its orthogonal complement is $`W_\varphi :=H^1(\pi ,𝔷(𝔥)_{Ad\varphi }^{})`$

In fact, the (orbifold) stratum direction $`\widehat{W}_\varphi ^𝔥`$ can be integrated: since $`𝔥=𝔷(\varphi )`$ and $`𝔷(𝔷(𝔥))=𝔥`$, $`\varphi `$ is an irreducible point444Here, “irreducible” means that the infinitesimal stabilizer is of minimal dimension. in $`\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,H^{})`$ where $`H^{}`$ is the centralizer of $`H=Stab(\varphi )`$. We get the following decompositions

$$\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)=_{(H)I}G\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,H^{})^{irr}$$

$$\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)/G=_{(H)I}\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,H^{})^{irr}/N^H^{}$$

whose $`irr`$ denotes the irreducible part.

## 4 Weakly balanced action and the splitting theorem

In this section, we show that the $`G`$ action on the extended moduli space is weakly balanced in the sense of \[Kie, KW\] and hence we get an isomorphism of the truncated equivariant cohomology of $`\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)`$ with the intersection cohomology of the representation space $`X(G)`$.

First, we recall the weakly balanced condition. Let $`U`$ be a Hamiltonian $`G`$ space with moment map $`\mu `$ and $`Z=\mu ^1(0)`$. Let $`H`$ be the identity component of $`Stabp`$ for a point $`pZ`$ and $`\widehat{W}_p`$ denote the symplectic slice at $`p`$. We decompose $`\widehat{W}_p=\widehat{W}_p^𝔥W_p`$ into the $`H`$ fixed subspace and its complement. Choose a compatible complex structure on the symplectic vector space $`W_p`$ and let $`W_p`$ denote the complex projective space associated to $`W_p`$. The unstable strata in $`W_p`$ are parametrized by a finite set $``$ in the Weyl chamber. Namely, $``$ is the set of the closest points from the origin to the convex hulls of some weights of the action of $`H`$ on $`W_p`$. (See \[Kir84\].) Given $`\beta `$, let $`n(\beta )`$ denote the number of weights $`\alpha `$ such that $`\alpha ,\beta <\beta ,\beta `$ with respect to the invariant metric.

###### Definition 4.1

We say the $`H`$ action on $`W_p`$ is *linearly balanced* if $`2n(\beta )\frac{1}{2}dimW_p`$.

This condition makes the codimensions of the unstable strata large enough.

For any subgroup $`KH`$ which also appears as the identity component of the stabilizer of a point in $`Z`$, we consider the $`N^KH/K`$ action on the $`K`$ fixed point subspace $`W_p^𝔨`$ where $`N^K`$ is the normalizer of $`K`$.

###### Definition 4.2

We say the $`G`$ action on a Hamiltonian space $`U`$ is *balanced* if for all $`pZ`$ the action of the identity component $`H`$ of its stabilizer on $`W_p`$ is linearly balanced and if for a subgroup $`K`$ as above the $`N^KH/K`$ action on $`W_p^𝔨`$ is also linearly balanced.

The usefulness of this condition becomes evident from the splitting theorem in \[Kie, KW\]. To describe this theorem, we need to recall the “truncated equivariant cohomology”. For each connected subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$, which is the identity component of the stabilizer of a point in $`Z`$, let $`Y_H`$ denote the subset of $`Z`$ fixed by $`H`$. Consider the obvious map

$$GY_HG\times _{N^H}Y_H.$$

This composed with the inclusion induces a map of equivariant cohomology groups

$$H_G^{}(Z)H_G^{}(GY_H)H_{N^H}^{}(Y_H)$$

which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_H`$. Note that $`H_{N^H}^{}(Y_H)[H_{N_0^H/H}^{}(Y_H)H_H^{}]^{\pi _0N^H}`$ where $`H_H^{}`$ denotes the cohomology of the classifying space of $`H`$ and $`N_0^H`$ is the identity component of $`N^H`$. We define the truncated equivariant cohomology by

$$V_U^{}:=\{\xi H_G^{}(Z)|\mathrm{\Psi }_H(\xi )H_{N_0^H/H}^{}(Y_H)H_H^{<n_H}\}$$

where $`n_H=\frac{1}{2}dim(W_p//H)`$ for $`pZ`$ whose stabilizer has $`H`$ as its identity component.

###### Theorem 4.3

\[Kie, KW\] Suppose the proper Hamiltonian $`G`$ space $`U`$ is balanced. Then there is an isomorphism $`\rho :IH^{}(X)V_U^{}`$ such that the intersection pairing $`,`$ of $`IH^{}(X)`$ is given by

$$\rho (\alpha )\rho (\beta )=\alpha ,\beta \rho (\tau )$$

for all $`\alpha ,\beta IH^{}(X)`$ of complementary degrees with respect to the real dimension of $`X=U//G`$ where $`\tau `$ is the fundamental class.

In fact, the theorem is proved in a more general context, namely under the “weakly balanced” assumption. For our purpose in this paper, we will need only the balanced condition.

Let us now return to the extended moduli space. For each point $`\varphi `$ in $`\mu ^1(0)=\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)`$, we have $`W_\varphi =H^1(\pi ,𝔷(𝔥)_{Ad\varphi }^{})`$ where $`Stab\varphi `$ acts on $`𝔷(𝔥)^{}`$ by conjugation and $`𝔥=Lie(Stab\varphi )`$. There is a geometric way to assign a compatible complex structure on this space. Choose a complex structure on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and consider the holomorphic vector bundle over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with fiber $`𝔷(𝔥)^{}`$ given by $`\varphi `$

$$E=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\times _\pi (𝔷(𝔥)^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is the universal cover. Then $`W_\varphi `$ is canonically isomorphic to the complex vector space $`H^{0,1}(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝔷(𝔥)^{})`$.

Consider the root space decomposition of the complex semisimple Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ with respect to a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ containing a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔱_𝔥`$ of $`𝔥`$. Of course, $`\lambda `$ is a root iff $`\lambda `$ is a root. Hence, the weights of the $`𝔱_𝔥`$ action on $`𝔤`$ are symmetric with respect to the origin and clearly $`𝔷(𝔥)`$ lies in the zero eigenspace. Therefore, the weights of the $`𝔱_𝔥`$ action on $`𝔷(𝔥)^{}`$ are symmetric with respect to the origin. Now, because $`𝔱_𝔥`$ commutes with $`\varphi `$, the eigenspace decomposition of the fiber $`𝔷(𝔥)^{}=_\lambda F_\lambda `$ provides us with a decomposition $`E=_\lambda E_\lambda `$ of the vector bundle into subbundles of eigenspaces. The degrees of the $`E_\lambda `$ are all zero and by the invariant metric of $`𝔤`$, $`E_\lambda E_\lambda ^{}`$. In particular, the subbundles $`E_\lambda ,E_\lambda `$ have the same Riemann-Roch number. Moreover, $`H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },E_\lambda )H^0(\pi ,F_\lambda )=\{vF_\lambda |Ad\varphi \text{ fixes }v\}`$ gives rise to the maximal trivial subbundle of $`E_\lambda `$ and a similar description for $`E_\lambda `$ gives us the equality $`dimH^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },E_\lambda )=dimH^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },E_\lambda )`$ via the isomorphism $`E_\lambda E_\lambda ^{}`$. Therefore, we conclude that $`dimH^{0,1}(\mathrm{\Sigma },E_\lambda )=dimH^{0,1}(\mathrm{\Sigma },E_\lambda )`$ and thus the weights of the $`𝔱_𝔥`$ action on $`W_𝔥`$ are symmetric with respect to the origin. In particular, the action is linearly balanced.

Next, we consider the $`𝔨`$ fixed point subspace $`W_\varphi ^𝔨`$ for another infinitesimal stabilizer $`𝔨𝔥`$. Let $`K`$ be the connected subgroup of $`Stab\varphi `$ whose Lie algebra is $`𝔨`$. Notice that in our case

$$W_\varphi ^𝔨=H^1(\pi ,(𝔷(𝔥)^{}𝔷(𝔨))_{Ad\varphi }).$$

$`𝔷(𝔨)`$ is an ideal in the complexification of the Lie algebra of $`N^K`$ and thus the weights of the $`N^K`$ action on $`𝔷(𝔨)`$ by conjugation are symmetric with respect to the origin. As $`K`$ fixes $`𝔷(𝔨)`$, the same is true for the action of $`N^K/K`$ on $`𝔷(𝔨)`$ and hence so is the action of the subgroup $`HN^K/K`$. Now, $`HN^K/K`$ acts trivially on $`𝔷(𝔥)`$ and therefore the weights of the $`N^KH/K`$ action on $`(𝔷(𝔥)^{}𝔷(𝔨))`$ are symmetric with respect to the origin. As in the previous paragraph, we can deduce that the $`N^KH/K`$ action on $`W_\varphi ^𝔨`$ is also linearly balanced. In summary, we proved the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.4

The $`G`$ action on $`U=\mu ^1(B)𝒩^𝔤`$ is balanced. Therefore, we have the isomorphism

$$IH^{}(X(G))V_U^{}H_G^{}(\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G)).$$

Moreover, the above isomorphism preserves the mapping class group action since it is defined by pulling back certain differential forms \[Kie\] via the quotient map $`UX`$ which is equivariant with respect to the mapping class group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{g,1}`$ of the punctured Riemann surface.

The equivariant cohomology $`H_G^{}(\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,G))`$ is isomorphic to the gauge group equivariant cohomology of the space of flat $`G`$ connections on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which can be computed by the Morse theory of \[AB82\]. The cohomology ring $`H_{SU(2)}^{}(\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2)))`$ was completely determined in \[Kie00\] and hence the above theorem can be applied to compute the intersection cohomology of the representation space as we will see in the next section.

## 5 $`SU(2)`$ case

In this section, we focus on the case where $`G=SU(2)`$. First, we recall the structure theorem of the equivariant cohomology which determines the cup product structure.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ be the universal cover of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Consider

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\times _\pi (\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2))\times End(^2))\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2))$$

where $`g\pi `$ maps $`(\varphi ,v)\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2))\times End(^2)`$ to $`(\varphi ,Ad\varphi (g)v).`$ It is a vector bundle of rank 4 which induces $`End𝒰`$ over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times (\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2))\times _{PU(2)}EPU(2))`$ by pulling back and taking quotient. We define equivariant classes $`\alpha ,\beta ,\psi _i`$ of degree 2,4,3 respectively by

$$c_2(End(𝒰))=2\alpha [\mathrm{\Sigma }]+4\underset{i=1}{\overset{2g}{}}\psi _ie_i\beta 1$$

where $`e_i`$ is a symplectic basis of $`H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ so that $`e_ie_{i+g}=[\mathrm{\Sigma }]`$.

###### Theorem 5.1

\[Kie00\] Let $`\gamma =2_{i=1}^g\psi _i\psi _{i+g}`$ and consider the Lefschetz decompositon of the exterior algebra

$$(\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _{2g})=\underset{l=1}{\overset{g}{}}Prim_l[\gamma ]/\gamma ^{gl+1}$$

where $`Prim_l`$ is the degree $`3l`$ primitive part. Then we have

$$H_{SU(2)}^{}(\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2)))_{l=0}^gPrim_l[\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ]/I_{gl}.$$

Here $`I_k`$ is the ideal of the polynomial ring $`[\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ]`$ generated by $`c_{k+1},c_{k+2},c_{k+3}`$ where the sequence $`\{c_n\}`$ is defined by

$$nc_n=\alpha c_{n1}+(n2)\beta c_{n2}+2\gamma c_{n3}$$

with $`c_0=1,c_1=\alpha ,c_2=\frac{\alpha ^2}{2}`$, etc.

Because $`Prim_l`$s are the irreducible $`Sp_{2g}`$ modules, this theorem completely describes the mapping class group action as it factors through the symplectic group action on $`\psi _i`$. Furthermore, a Gröbner basis for $`I_k`$ was given in \[Kie00\] so that the cup product can be computed efficiently.

Now by the splitting theorem above, $`IH^{}(X(SU(2)))`$ is isomorphic to $`V_U^{}`$ which we intend to compute. Note that up to conjugation $`\{SU(2),S^1\}`$ are the only possible stabilizers of points in $`\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2))`$. It turns out that we don’t have to think about truncation on the $`SU(2)`$ fixed point set because it is taken care of by that for $`S^1`$. For that one has only to observe that $`Y_{SU(2)}Y_{S^1}`$ and that $`n_{SU(2)}=3g3>n_{S^1}=2g3`$.

We have to consider the following map

$$H_{SU(2)}^{}(\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2)))H_{SU(2)}^{}(SU(2)\times _{N^{S^1}}Y_{S^1})=[H^{}(Jac)[u]]^{/2}$$

where $`Jac`$ denotes the Jacobian variety and $`/2`$ acts as $`1`$ on both components. Let $`d_i`$ be the basis of $`H^1(Jac)`$ defined as the Künneth coefficients of the first Chern class of a universal line bundle corresponding to $`e_i`$. According to \[CLM00\], $`\alpha `$ is mapped to $`w=2_{i=1}^gd_id_{i+g}`$, $`\beta `$ to $`4u^2`$, and $`\psi _i`$ to $`2ud_i`$.

Let $`P_t^{SU(2)}(\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2)))`$ denote the Poicaré series for the equivariant cohomology $`H_{SU(2)}^{}(\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2)))`$. Then it is well known from \[AB82\] that

$$P_t^{SU(2)}(\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2)))=\frac{(1+t^3)^{2g}t^{2g+2}(1+t)^{2g}}{(1t^2)(1t^4)}.$$

For the intersection Poicaré series $`IP_t(X)=t^idimIH^i(X)`$, we have only to subtract out the Poincare series of

$$Im\{H_{SU(2)}^{}(\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2)))[H^{}(Jac)[u]]^{/2}\}\{H^{}(Jac)u^{g1}[u]\}.$$

By the Lefshetz decomposition and a trivial combinatorial argument, one can easily see that the intersection is actually

$$[H^{}(Jac)u^{g1}[u]]^{/2}$$

whose Poincare series is precisely

$$\frac{1}{2}\{\frac{(1+t)^{2g}(t^2)^{g1}}{1t^2}+\frac{(1t)^{2g}(t^2)^{g1}}{1+t^2}\}.$$

###### Proposition 5.2

$$IP_t(X(SU(2)))=P_t^{SU(2)}(\mathrm{Hom}(\pi ,SU(2)))\frac{1}{2}\{\frac{(1+t)^{2g}(t^2)^{g1}}{1t^2}+\frac{(1t)^{2g}(t^2)^{g1}}{1+t^2}\}.$$

It is an elementary exercise to check that Proposition 5.2 indeed coincides with Kirwan’s computations \[Kir86\].

A little bit more careful examination of the truncation map together with Theorem 5.1 described above gives us the following.

###### Theorem 5.3

Let $`E_m`$ be the vector space spanned by

$$\{\alpha ^i\beta ^j\xi ^k|\text{(1) }i+2km,\text{ (2) }j+2km,\text{ (3) if }k=0\text{ then }j<[\frac{m}{2}]\}$$

where $`\xi =\alpha \beta +2\gamma `$. Then

$$IH^{}(X(SU(2)))_{i=0}^gPrim_lE_{gl}.$$

Again, this theorem precisely describes the action of the mapping class group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{g,1}`$ as our isomorphism is equivariant and hence the action also factors through the symplectic group action on $`Prim_l`$.

Also the intersection pairing can be computed in terms of the cup product structure. One can prove that

$$\alpha ^m\beta ^n=m!b_{gn1}\frac{\alpha ^{g2}\beta ^{g2}\xi }{(g2)!}$$

where $`m+2n=3g3`$, $`n<g1`$ and $`b_k`$ are given by

$$\frac{t}{\mathrm{tanh}t}=\underset{k0}{}b_kt^{2k},$$

directly from the structure theorem at least for low genus case. Hence, if we take $`\frac{\alpha ^{g2}\beta ^{g2}\xi }{(g2)!(4)^{g1}}`$, as our fundamental class then we get

$$\kappa (\alpha ^i\beta ^j),\kappa (\alpha ^k\beta ^l)=(4)^{g1}m!b_{gn1}$$

for $`i+k=m`$, $`j+l=n`$, $`m+2n=3g3`$, $`n<g1`$. In principle, it is a number theoretic or combinatorial exercise to deduce the above formula from the structure theorem but it seems very difficult to achieve in practice.

However the above pairing formula can be justified by using the computation of intersection numbers on the moduli spaces of parabolic bundles by Jeffrey and Kirwan \[JK98\]. This will be done in \[JKKW\].


text:
# Six - Vertex Model with Domain wall boundary conditions. Variable inhomogeneities.

## 1 Introduction

The six-vertex model was first introduced in . It was solved exactly by E. Lieb  and B. Sutherland  in 1967 by means of a Bethe Ansatz for periodic boundary conditions. Later the six-vertex model was studied also in the presence of several other boundary conditions . Domain wall boundary conditions were introduced in 1982 . These boundary conditions are interesting because they allow for the derivation of determinant representations for correlation functions . It was realised recently that the six-vertex model in the presence of such boundary conditions is extremely helpful in the enumeration of alternating sign matrices . The bulk free energy for these boundary conditions was calculated in .

In this paper we show that for special choices of inhomogeneities, one can compute the free energy and some correlation functions of the system. This observation might be useful because we expect some properties of the model to be independent of the inhomogeneities i.e. to depend only on the anisotropy parameter. In the simplest situation, the correlation functions coincide with the ones for periodic boundary conditions. We will continue the line of research of  and will primarily be interested in the emptiness formation probability (EFP) which was first introduced in . In the latter paper a multiple integral expression for the EFP was obtained for the first time for the ground state of the XXX antiferromagnet. Here we will consider the EFP for more general Bethe states and will generalize the multiple integral expression to these cases.

## 2 Quantum inverse scattering

### 2.1 Setup and notation

We consider the inhomogeneous six-vertex model with domain wall boundary conditions. It is defined as the six-vertex model on a $`M\times M`$ square lattice with fixed boundary conditions: arrows on the horizontal (vertical) edges are outgoing (ingoing). Furthermore, spectral parameters $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\mu _k`$ are attached to line $`i`$ and column $`k`$. We choose the following parametrization of the usual Boltzmann weights $`a,b`$ and $`c`$,

$`a(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`b(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta /2)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\eta /2)}},`$ (1)
$`c(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\eta }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\eta /2)}}.`$
We want to make use of the formalism of the algebraic Bethe Ansatz. For that purpose the Boltzmann weights are collected in a matrix $`L`$,

$$L(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& b(\lambda )& c(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& c(\lambda )& b(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
The monodromy matrix is then defined as an ordered product of the $`L`$-operators,

$$T(\lambda ;\{\mu _k\})=L(\lambda \mu _M)\mathrm{}L(\lambda \mu _2)L(\lambda \mu _1),$$
(3)
where $`L(\lambda \mu _k)`$ acts on the $`k`$th factor of the physical space $`^{2^M}`$, and the auxiliary space $`^2`$. For clarity, we will in the following often suppress the explicit dependence of $`T`$ on $`\{\mu _k\}`$. As an operator on the two-dimensional auxiliary space, $`T(\lambda )`$ can be written as

$$T(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐀(\lambda )& 𝐁(\lambda )\\ 𝐂(\lambda )& 𝐃(\lambda )\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
where $`𝐀`$, $`𝐁`$, $`𝐂`$, $`𝐃`$ are operators on the physical space $`^{2^M}`$. The trace of the monodromy operator,

$$𝐓(\lambda )=𝐀(\lambda )+𝐃(\lambda )$$
(5)
is the usual transfer matrix corresponding to the model with periodic boundary conditions. Because of the parametrization (1), the monodromy matrix $`T(\lambda )`$ satisfies the following intertwining relation,

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(\lambda \mu )\left[T(\lambda )T(\mu )\right]=\left[T(\lambda )T(\mu )\right]\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(\lambda \mu ),$$
(6)
The R-matrix $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}`$ is defined by,

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(\lambda )=PL(\lambda +\eta /2),$$
(7)
where $`P`$ is the permutation operator on the space $`^2^2`$. Equation (6) embodies several commutation relations between the operators $`𝐀,𝐁,𝐂`$ and $`𝐃`$ defined in (4).

The fixed boundary conditions imply the following formal expression for the partition function ,

$$Z_M(\{\lambda _i\},\{\mu _k\})=\left|𝐁(\lambda _1;\{\mu _k\})\mathrm{}𝐁(\lambda _M;\{\mu _k\})\right|,$$
(8)
where $`|`$ ($`|`$) is the state with all spins up (down). In this paper we shall be interested only in the case where $`M`$ is even and the $`\{\lambda _i\}`$ are chosen as $`\{\lambda _i\}_{i=N+1}^M=\{\lambda \}_{i=1}^N`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, where $`N=M/2`$. This allows us to rewrite the partition function in a convenient way . First define the states,

$$|N=𝐁(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}𝐁(\lambda _N)|,N|=|𝐂(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}𝐂(\lambda _N).$$
(9)
Let $`𝐑=_{k=1}^M\sigma _k^x`$ be the flip operator on the physical space that flips all arrows. We then find that,

$`Z_M(\{\lambda _i\},\{\mu _k\})=N\left|𝐑\right|N.`$ (10)
Formal expressions for correlation functions can also be written concisely in this notation. E.g., the probability that all arrows located at the columns $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n`$ and between the lines $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ are down is given by,

$$\pi _{k_1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k_n}=\frac{N\left|𝐑\pi _{k_1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k_n}\right|N}{N\left|𝐑\right|N},$$
(11)
where $`\pi _k=\frac{1}{2}(1\sigma _k^z)`$. Averages like (11) can be calculated using the solution of the quantum inverse scattering problem for the operators $`\pi _k`$ ,

$$\pi _k=\underset{l=1}{\overset{k1}{}}𝐓(\mu _l+\eta /2)𝐃(\mu _k+\eta /2)\underset{l=k+1}{\overset{M}{}}𝐓(\mu _l+\eta /2).$$
(12)
From this expression it is clear that the correlation function (11) simplifies when the $`k_i`$ are nearest neighbours.

## 3 Bethe Ansatz

A marvelous aspect of formulæ (11) and (12) is that the set of inhomogeneities can be chosen such that the state $`|N`$ is an eigenstate of $`𝐓`$. In fact, there are many choices possible that have this property. In this section we will derive explicit expression for the correlation function (11) corresponding to such choices. We will closely follow a similar derivation given in  for one particular choice of the inhomogeneities, namely those corresponding to the groundstate of the antiferromagnetic XXZ quantum spin chain. To begin with, we fix the set of inhomogeneities $`\{\lambda _i\}`$ to be a solution of the Bethe Ansatz equations,

$$\frac{a(\lambda _j)}{d(\lambda _j)}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k=1}{kj}}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{b(\lambda _j\lambda _k+\eta /2)}{b(\lambda _k\lambda _j+\eta /2)}=1,1jN,$$
(13)
where $`a(\lambda )=1`$ and $`d(\lambda )=_{k=1}^Mb(\lambda \mu _k)`$ are the eigenvalues of operators $`𝐀(\lambda )`$ and $`𝐃(\lambda )`$ respectively on the reference state $`|`$. Note that these equations imply that $`_{j=1}^Nd(\lambda _j)=1`$. It will be useful to rewrite the Bethe Ansatz equations in their logarithmic form,

$$\phi (\lambda _j)=\pi (mod2\pi ),1jN,$$
(14)
where the function $`\phi `$ is defined by,

$`\phi (\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a(\lambda )}{d(\lambda )}}\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{b(\lambda \lambda _k+\eta /2)}{b(\lambda _k\lambda +\eta /2)}}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{d(\lambda )}{a(\lambda )}}+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\eta +\lambda \lambda _k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\eta \lambda +\lambda _k)}}\right).`$
If the $`\{\lambda _i\}`$ are a solution of the Bethe Ansatz equations, the state $`|N`$ is a common eigenstate of $`𝐑`$ with eigenvalue $`\pm 1`$, and of $`𝐓(\lambda )`$ with eigenvalue $`t(\lambda )`$ given by,

$`t(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`a(\lambda ){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b^1(\lambda _i\lambda +\eta /2)+d(\lambda ){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b^1(\lambda \lambda _i+\eta /2)`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`a(\lambda )\left(1+\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi (\lambda )}\right){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b^1(\lambda _i\lambda +\eta /2).`$
If $`\{\lambda _i\}`$ obey the Bethe Ansatz equations (13) and $`\{\xi _j\}`$ are a set of parameters, then the following holds ,

$$\left|\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝐂(\xi _j)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝐁(\lambda _j)\right|=\frac{dett^{}}{detV},$$
(17)
where,

$$t_{ij}^{}=\frac{t(\xi _i)}{\lambda _j},V_{ij}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\xi _i\lambda _j)}.$$
(18)
A useful formula that we will use in the following is,

$$detV\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\xi _k\lambda _l)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k,l=1}{k<l}}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _k\lambda _l)\mathrm{sinh}(\xi _l\xi _k).$$
(19)
From (10) it follows that the partition sum is given by the norm of the Bethe state $`|N`$. An expression for the norm of a Bethe state in terms of a determinant is given by the following formula which may be obtained by specializing the $`\{\xi _j\}`$ in (17) to $`\{\lambda _i\}`$,

$`N|N`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}𝐂(\lambda _i){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}𝐁(\lambda _i)\right|`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )^N\left({\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,j=1}{ij}}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _i\lambda _j+\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _i\lambda _j)}}\right)det\phi ^{},`$
where,

$$\phi _{ij}^{}=\mathrm{i}\left(\frac{\phi (\lambda )}{\lambda _j}+\delta _{ij}\frac{\phi (\lambda )}{\lambda }\right)|_{\lambda =\lambda _i}$$
(21)
The determinant formula for the norm of a Bethe wavefunction was first conjectured by Gaudin . Due to the complicated nature of the Bethe wavefunction a proof was not available till the development of the quantum inverse scattering method. The first proof of the determinant formula of the norm of the Bethe wavefunction for the XXZ spin chain was given by Korepin .

More work has to be done to obtain an expression for the correlation function (11). Here we will treat the case when the $`k_i`$ are nearest neighbours. Using the solution for the quantum inverse scattering (12) and the fact that $`|N`$ is an eigenstate of $`𝐓(\lambda )`$ and $`𝐑`$ one finds,

$$\pi _{k+1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k+n}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}t^1(\mu _{k+j}+\eta /2)\frac{N\left|_{j=1}^n𝐃(\mu _{k+j}+\eta /2)\right|N}{N|N}.$$
(22)
Since $`d(\mu _k+\eta /2)=0`$, the inverse eigenvalue $`t^1(\mu _k+\eta /2)`$ takes the simple form,

$$t^1(\mu _k+\eta /2)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _i\mu _k\eta /2)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _i\mu _k+\eta /2)}.$$
(23)
The action of a product of the operators $`𝐃`$ on $`|N`$ can be calculated and is given by,

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝐃(\lambda _{N+j})\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝐁(\lambda _k)|=\underset{i_1=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_2=1}{i_2i_1}}{\overset{N+2}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_n=1}{i_ni_1,\mathrm{},i_{n1}}}{\overset{N+n}{}}G_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_n}(\{\lambda _i\}_{i=1}^{N+n})\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k=1}{ki_1,\mathrm{},i_n}}{\overset{N+n}{}}𝐁(\lambda _k)|,$$
(24)
where the function $`G`$ is given by,

$$G_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_n}(\{\lambda _i\}_{i=1}^{N+n})=\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}d(\lambda _{i_l})c(\lambda _{i_l}\lambda _{N+l}+\eta /2)\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k=1}{ki_1,\mathrm{},i_l}}{\overset{N+l}{}}b^1(\lambda _{i_l}\lambda _k+\eta /2).$$
(25)
We will set $`\lambda _{N+j}=\mu _{k+j}+\eta /2`$ to calculate the $`n`$-point correlation function (22). Since $`d(\mu _k)=0`$ this means that the sums in (24) only run up to $`i_l=N`$.

From (24) it is seen that we need to calculate the scalar products of the type,

$$S(\{\lambda _i\},\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{Nn},\mu _{k+1},\mathrm{},\mu _{k+n}\})=\frac{N\left|_{i=1}^{Nn}𝐁(\lambda _i)_{j=1}^n𝐁(\mu _{k+j}+\eta /2)\right|}{N|N}.$$
(26)
Using (17) and (19) one may express $`S`$ as a ratio of determinants,

$`S(\{\lambda _i\},\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{Nn},\mu _{k+1},\mathrm{},\mu _{k+n}\})={\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,j=1}{i<j}}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _{Nn+j}\lambda _{Nn+i})}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _{k+j}\mu _{k+i})}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{Nn}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _i\lambda _{Nn+j})}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _i\mu _{k+j}\eta /2)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _i\mu _{k+j}+\eta /2)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _i\lambda _{Nn+j}+\eta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{det\psi ^{}(\{\lambda _i\},\{\mu _{k+j}\})}{det\phi ^{}(\{\lambda _i\})}}.`$ (27)
The first $`Nn`$ rows of the $`N\times N`$ matrix $`\psi ^{}`$ are equal to those of the matrix $`\phi ^{}`$, but the other $`n`$ rows are different.

$`\psi _{ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{ij}^{},1iNn,`$ (28)
$`\psi _{ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\eta }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _j\mu _{k+i}\eta /2)\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _j\mu _{k+i}+\eta /2)}},Nn+1iN.`$ (29)
Finally, we can rewrite the ratio of the determinants in (27) as one determinant by inverting $`\phi ^{}`$,

$$\frac{det\psi ^{}}{det\phi ^{}}=det\left(\psi ^{}\phi ^1\right).$$
(30)
To proceed we have to calculate the matrix $`\psi ^{}\phi ^1`$. The first $`Nn`$ rows of this matrix can be easily calculated using (28),

$$\left(\psi ^{}\phi ^1\right)_{ij}=\delta _{ij},1iNn.$$
(31)
In the next section we will calculate the other rows in the limit ($`M\mathrm{}`$) for a particular set of solutions of the Bethe Ansatz equations.

## 4 Thermodynamic limit

In this section we will describe the thermodynamic limit $`M\mathrm{}`$. To be able to take this limit we need some information on the distribution of the solutions of the Bethe Ansatz equations. The solutions of (13) fall into two classes depending on the value of $`\eta `$. These are the socalled massive regime, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{cosh}\eta >1`$ and the massless regime where $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|1`$. In this paper we will concentrate on the massless case only. Since $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|1`$ we will use the parametrization $`\gamma =\mathrm{i}\eta `$ and furthermore, we will restrict our attention to the interval $`\pi /2>\gamma 0`$. We will consider the class of solutions of (13) for which the imaginary part of each $`\lambda _j`$ is either $`0`$ or $`\pi /2`$. These are the so called 1-strings in the language of . In the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$, the solutions we consider thus belong to a directed contour $`𝒞`$ (Figure 1) which is defined by,

$$𝒞=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{i}\pi /2,\mathrm{}+i\pi /2).$$
(32)
Now we will derive the logarithmic form of the Bethe Ansatz equations in a more precise manner than was done in for (14). For that purpose we define the function $`p_n`$ by,

$$p_n(\lambda )=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\mathrm{arctan}\left(\mathrm{tanh}\lambda \mathrm{cot}n\gamma /2\right),\hfill & \mathrm{for}Im\lambda =0,\hfill \\ 2\mathrm{arctan}\left(\mathrm{coth}\lambda \mathrm{tan}n\gamma /2\right),\hfill & \mathrm{for}Im\lambda =\pi /2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
For $`\mathrm{sin}n\gamma >0`$ this function is monotonously increasing (decreasing) on the line $`Im\lambda =0`$ $`(Im\lambda =\pi /2)`$. The logarithmic version of the Bethe Ansatz equations can then be written as,

$$\varphi (\lambda _i)=2\pi n_i,$$
(34)
where the function $`\varphi `$ is given by,

$$\varphi (\lambda )=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}p_1(\lambda \mu _k)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_2(\lambda \lambda _j).$$
(35)
The numbers $`n_i`$ appearing in the right hand side of (34) are integers for $`N`$ odd and half integers for $`N`$ even. For every (half) integer $`\{n_i\}`$ there are two solutions of the Bethe Ansatz equations, corresponding to the two different values of the imaginary part. A solution thus is uniquely specified by a set of integers and a corresponding set of parities, where the parity of a solution is defined by,

$$v=1\frac{4}{\pi }Im\lambda .$$
(36)
Given a set of (half) integers $`\{n_i\}`$ and a set of parities $`\{v_i\}`$, a solution $`\lambda _j`$ of (34) is called a particle. A solution $`\lambda _\mathrm{h}=\overline{\lambda }_\mathrm{h}+\mathrm{i}\pi (1v_\mathrm{h})/4`$ to the equation,

$$\varphi (\lambda _\mathrm{h})=2\pi m,m\{n_i\}\mathrm{or}v_\mathrm{h}\{v_i\},$$
(37)
is called a hole. In the thermodynamic limit, the particles and holes have finite distribution densities $`\rho _\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{h}`$, defined by,

$`M\rho _\mathrm{p}(\lambda )\mathrm{d}\lambda `$ $`\mathrm{number}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{particles}\mathrm{in}`$ $`[\lambda ,\lambda +\mathrm{d}\lambda ],`$ (38)
$`M\rho _\mathrm{h}(\lambda )\mathrm{d}\lambda `$ $`\mathrm{number}\mathrm{holes}\mathrm{in}`$ $`[\lambda ,\lambda +\mathrm{d}\lambda ].`$ (39)
Note that the 1-form $`\mathrm{d}\lambda `$ has a direction corresponding to that of $`𝒞`$. The density $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ of the total possible solutions, or vacancies, is given simply by,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda )=\rho _\mathrm{p}(\lambda )+\rho _\mathrm{h}(\lambda ).$$
(40)
Since we are dealing with an inhomogeneous model, it will be useful to define the densities $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ by,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{M}\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda \mu _k),$$
(41)
The corresponding particle and hole densities are given by,

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\mathrm{p}(\lambda \mu _k)`$ $`=`$ $`\vartheta (\lambda )\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda \mu _k),`$ (42)
$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\mathrm{h}(\lambda \mu _k)`$ $`=`$ $`(1\vartheta (\lambda ))\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda \mu _k),`$ (43)
where the Fermi weight $`\vartheta (\lambda )`$ is given by,

$$\vartheta (\lambda )=\frac{\rho _\mathrm{p}(\lambda )}{\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda )}.$$
(44)
Using these densities we can take the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$. It follows that (34) in the thermodynamic limit can be written as,

$$\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{M}\varphi (\lambda )=\pi \left(1+2_{\mathrm{}}^\lambda \rho _{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda ^{})d\lambda ^{}\right),$$
(45)
where the integration is along the contour $`𝒞`$, Figure 1. Differentiating with respect to $`\lambda `$ we find the formula,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda )=K_1{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda )_𝒞K_2(\lambda \lambda ^{})\rho _\mathrm{p}(\lambda ^{})\mathrm{d}\lambda ^{},$$
(46)
The function $`K_1^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is defined by,

$$K_1{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda )=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{M}\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}K_1(\lambda \mu _k),$$
(47)
and $`K_n`$ is given by,

$$K_n(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2\pi }p_n^{}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}n\gamma }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mathrm{i}n\gamma /2)\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\mathrm{i}n\gamma /2)}.$$
(48)
The thermodynamic limit of $`\phi ^{}`$ is found using (45) and the fact that $`\varphi (\lambda )=\phi (\lambda )mod\pi `$,

$$\phi _{ij}^{}=2\pi \mathrm{i}\left(M\delta _{ij}\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda _i)+K_2(\lambda _i\lambda _j)\right).$$
(49)
Now we are in a postion to return to the calculation at the end of the previous section. Remember that we want to calculate the last $`n`$ rows of the matrix $`\psi ^{}\phi ^1`$. For that purpose we recall from (29) that,

$`\psi _{Nn+i,j}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \mathrm{i}K_1(\lambda _j\mu _{k+i})`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`2\pi \mathrm{i}\left(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda _j\mu _{k+i})+{\displaystyle _𝒞}K_2(\lambda _j\lambda ^{})\vartheta (\lambda ^{})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda ^{}\mu _{k+i})d\lambda ^{}\right),`$
where in the second line we have used (42) and (46). From (49) however and the fact that $`K_2`$ is symmetric it follows that this is precisely equal to,

$$\psi _{Nn+i,j}^{}=\frac{1}{M}\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda _l\mu _{k+i})}{\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda _l)}\phi _{lj}^{}.$$
(51)
We thus conclude that,

$`\left(\psi ^{}\phi ^1\right)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij},1iNn`$ (52)
$`\left(\psi ^{}\phi ^1\right)_{Nn+i,j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda _j\mu _{k+i})}{M\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda _j)}},1in.`$ (53)
The determinant of this matrix can be written concisely as,

$$det\left(\psi ^{}\phi ^1\right)=det\stackrel{~}{S}\frac{1}{M^n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}^1(\lambda _{Nn+j}),$$
(54)
where the $`n\times n`$ matrix $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is given by,

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}(\lambda _{Nn+j}\mu _{k+i}).$$
(55)
Finally, using (22), (24), (27) and (54), the emptiness formation probability can be written as,

$$\pi _{k+1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k+n}=\frac{1}{M^n{\displaystyle \underset{l<m}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _{k+l}\mu _{k+m})}\underset{i_1=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{i_n=1}{\overset{N}{}}H(\{\lambda _{i_l}\},\{\mu _{k+l}\})\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}^1(\lambda _{i_l}),$$
(56)
where the function $`H`$ is given by,

$`H(\{\lambda _{i_l}\},\{\mu _{k+l}\})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{det\stackrel{~}{S}(\{\lambda _{i_l}\},\{\mu _{k+l}\})}{{\displaystyle \underset{l<m}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _{i_m}\lambda _{i_l}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}}\times `$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{l1}{}}}\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _{i_l}\mu _{k+m}\mathrm{i}\gamma /2){\displaystyle \underset{m=l+1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda _{i_l}\mu _{k+m}+\mathrm{i}\gamma /2)\right).`$
The last step in deriving an expression for the emptiness formation probability in the thermodynamic limit is to replace the sums in (56) by integrals using the discussion above. We then arrive at the following multiple integral expression,

$$\pi _{k_1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k_n}=\frac{1}{{\displaystyle \underset{l<m}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _{k+l}\mu _{k+m})}_𝒞\mathrm{}_𝒞H(\{\lambda _l\},\{\mu _{k+l}\})\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}\vartheta (\lambda _l)\mathrm{d}\lambda _l,$$
(58)
where the Fermi weight $`\vartheta (\lambda )`$ is define in (44). We remind the reader that the integration is along the directed contour $`𝒞`$, equation (32), Figure 1.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we have obtained a multiple integral expression for the emptiness formation probability (EPF) on the central horizontal line of the inhomogeneous six-vertex model with domain wall boundaries. We derived this expression in the thermodynamic limit when the inhomogeneities are chosen from a particular set of solutions of the Bethe Ansatz equations, namely those without a bound states but otherwise arbitrary. This result is a first step to obtain an expression for the EPF for general solutions of the Bethe Ansatz equations, i.e. also for bound state solutions. We expect that certain properties of the EPF are independent of the special choice of inhomogeneities. Ultimately we hope to learn more about such properties by studying the EPF averaged over Bethe Ansatz solutions.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We thank R. Martinez for his involvement in this paper. This work has been supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) and by the National Science Foundation under grant number PHY-9605226.


text:
# Charmless Hadronic Decays of 𝐵 Mesons to a Pseudoscalar and a Tensor Meson

## I Introduction

The CLEO Collaboration has reported new experimental results on the branching ratios of a number of exclusive $`B`$ meson decay modes where $`B`$ decays into a pair of pseudoscalars ($`P`$), a vector ($`V`$) and a pseudoscalar meson, or a pair of vector mesons. Motivated by the new data, many works have been done to understand those exclusive hadronic $`B`$ decays in the framework of the generalized factorization, QCD factorization, or flavor SU(3) symmetry. In the next few years $`B`$ factories operating at SLAC and KEK will provide plenty of new experimental data on $`B`$ decays. It is expected that improved new bound will be put on the branching ratios for various decay modes and many decay modes with small branching ratios will be observed for the first time. Thus more information on rare decays of $`B`$ mesons will be available soon.

There have been a few works  studying two-body hadronic $`B`$ decays involving a tensor meson $`T`$ ($`J^P=2^+`$) in the final state using the non-relativistic quark model of Isgur, Scora, Grinstein and Wise (ISGW)  with the factorization ansatz. Most of them studied $`B`$ decays involving a $`bc`$ transition, to which only the tree diagram contributes. In a recent work , the authors considered the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM)-suppressed hadronic $`B`$ decays involving a $`bu`$ transition as well as a $`bc`$ transition. However, they included only the tree diagram contribution even in charmless $`B`$ decays to $`PT`$ and $`VT`$, such as $`B\eta ^{()}a_2`$ and $`B\varphi f_2^{()}`$. In most cases of the charmless $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ processes, the dominant contribution arises from the tree diagram and the contributions from the penguin diagrams are very small. But in some cases such as $`B\eta ^{()}a_2`$ and $`\eta ^{()}f_2^{()}`$, the penguin diagrams provide sizable contributions. Furthermore, in the charmless $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ decay processes, the penguin diagram contribution is enhanced by the CKM matrix elements $`V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}`$ and becomes dominant.

Experimentally several tensor mesons have been observed , such as the isovector $`a_2`$(1320), the isoscalars $`f_2`$(1270), $`f_2^{}`$(1525), $`f_2`$(2010), $`f_2`$(2300), $`f_2`$(2340), $`\chi _{c2}(1P)`$, $`\chi _{b2}(1P)`$ and $`\chi _{c2}(2P)`$, the isospinor $`K_2^{}`$(1430) and $`D_2^{}`$(2460). Experimental data on the branching ratios for $`B`$ decays involving a tensor meson in the final state provide only upper bounds, as follows :

$`(B^{+(0)}D_2^{}(2460)^{0()}\pi ^+)`$ $`<`$ $`1.3(2.2)\times 10^3,`$ (1)
$`(B^{+(0)}D_2^{}(2460)^{0()}\rho ^+)`$ $`<`$ $`4.7(4.9)\times 10^3,`$ (2)
$`(B^+K_2^{}(1430)^0\pi ^+)`$ $`<`$ $`6.8\times 10^4,`$ (3)
$`(B^{+(0)}K_2^{}(1430)^{+(0)}\rho ^0)`$ $`<`$ $`1.5(1.1)\times 10^3,`$ (4)
$`(B^{+(0)}K_2^{}(1430)^{+(0)}\varphi )`$ $`<`$ $`3.4(1.4)\times 10^3,`$ (5)
$`(B^+\pi ^+f_2(1270))`$ $`<`$ $`2.4\times 10^4,`$ (6)
$`(B^+\rho ^0a_2(1320)^+)`$ $`<`$ $`7.2\times 10^4,`$ (7)
$`(B^0\pi ^\pm a_2(1320)^{})`$ $`<`$ $`3.0\times 10^4.`$ (8)
In this work, we analyze two-body charmless hadronic decays of $`B`$ mesons to a pseudoscalar meson and a tensor meson in the frameworks of *both* flavor SU(3) symmetry and generalized factorization. Purely based on the flavor SU(3) symmetry, we first present a model-independent analysis in $`BPT`$ decays. Then we use the *full* effective Hamiltonian including all the penguin operators and the ISGW quark model to calculate the branching ratios for $`BPT`$ decays. Since we include both the tree and the penguin diagram contributions to decay processes, we are able to calculate the branching ratios for all the charmless $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ decays and the relevant CP asymmetries. In order to bridge the flavor SU(3) approach and the factorization approach, we present a set of relations between a flavor SU(3) amplitude and a corresponding amplitude in factorization in $`BPT`$ decays. Certain ways to test validity of the generalized factorization are proposed by emphasizing interplay between both approaches.

We organize this work as follows. In Sec. II we discuss the notations for SU(3) decomposition and the full effective Hamiltonian for $`B`$ decays. In Sec. III we present a model- independent analysis of $`BPT`$ decays based on SU(3) symmetry. In Sec. IV the two-body decays $`BPT`$ are analyzed in the framework of generalized factorization. The branching ratios and CP asymmetries are calculated using the form factors obtained in the ISGW quark model. Finally, in Sec. V our results are summarized.

## II Framework

In the flavor SU(3) approach, the decay amplitudes of two-body $`B`$ decays are decomposed into linear combinations of the SU(3) amplitudes, which are reduced matrix elements defined in Ref. . In SU(3) decomposition of decay amplitudes of the $`BPT`$ processes, we choose the notations given in Refs.  as follows: We represent the decay amplitudes in terms of the basis of quark diagram contributions, $`T`$ (tree), $`C`$ (color-suppressed tree), $`P`$ (QCD-penguin), $`S`$ (additional penguin effect involving SU(3)-singlet mesons), $`E`$ (exchange), $`A`$ (annihilation), and PA (penguin annihilation). The amplitudes $`E`$, $`A`$ and PA may be neglected to a good approximation because of a suppression factor of $`f_B/m_B5\%`$. For later convenience we also denote the electroweak (EW) penguin effects explicitly as $`P_{EW}`$ (color-favored EW penguin) and $`P_{EW}^C`$ (color-suppressed EW penguin), even though in terms of quark diagrams the inclusion of these EW penguin effects only leads to the following replacement without introducing new SU(3) amplitudes; $`TT+P_{EW}^C`$, $`CC+P_{EW}`$, $`PP\frac{1}{3}P_{EW}^C`$, $`SS\frac{1}{3}P_{EW}`$. The phase convention used for the pseudoscalar and the tensor mesons is

$`\pi ^+(a_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`u\overline{d},\pi ^0(a_2^0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(u\overline{u}d\overline{d}),\pi ^{}(a_2^{})=\overline{u}d,`$ (9)
$`K^+(K_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`u\overline{s},K^0(K_2^0)=d\overline{s},\overline{K}^0(\overline{K}_2^0)=\overline{d}s,K^{}(K_2^{})=\overline{u}s,`$ (10)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}s\overline{s}),\eta ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}+2s\overline{s}),`$ (11)
$`f_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})\mathrm{cos}\varphi __T+(s\overline{s})\mathrm{sin}\varphi __T,f_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})\mathrm{sin}\varphi __T(s\overline{s})\mathrm{cos}\varphi __T,`$ (12)
where the mixing angle $`\varphi __T`$ is given by $`\varphi __T=\mathrm{arctan}(1/\sqrt{2})28^07^0`$ .

In the factorization scheme, we first consider the effective weak Hamiltonian. We then use the generalized factorization approximation to derive hadronic matrix elements by saturating the vacuum state in all possible ways. The method includes color octet non-factorizable contribution by treating $`\xi 1/N_c`$ ($`N_c`$ denotes the effective number of color) as an adjustable parameter. The generalized factorization approximation has been quite successfully used in two-body $`D`$ decays as well as $`BD`$ decays. The effective weak Hamiltonian for hadronic $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ decays can be written as

$`H_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}(c_1O_1^u+c_2O_2^u)+V_{cb}V_{cq}^{}(c_1O_1^c+c_2O_2^c)V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{12}{}}}c_iO_i\right]`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{C}.,`$ (14)
where $`O_i`$’s are defined as

$`O_1^f`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{q}\gamma _\mu Lf)(\overline{f}\gamma ^\mu Lb),O_2^f=(\overline{q}_\alpha \gamma _\mu Lf_\beta )(\overline{f}_\beta \gamma ^\mu Lb_\alpha ),`$ (15)
$`O_{3(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{q}\gamma _\mu Lb)(\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{q}^{}\gamma ^\mu L(R)q^{}),O_{4(6)}=(\overline{q}_\alpha \gamma _\mu Lb_\beta )(\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{q}_\beta ^{}\gamma ^\mu L(R)q_\alpha ^{}),`$ (16)
$`O_{7(9)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\overline{q}\gamma _\mu Lb)(\mathrm{\Sigma }e_q^{}\overline{q}^{}\gamma ^\mu R(L)q^{}),O_{8(10)}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\overline{q}_\alpha \gamma _\mu Lb_\beta )(\mathrm{\Sigma }e_q^{}\overline{q}_\beta ^{}\gamma ^\mu R(L)q_\alpha ^{}),`$ (17)
$`O_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{32\pi ^2}}m_b(\overline{q}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }RT^ab)G_{\mu \nu }^a,O_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{32\pi ^2}}m_b(\overline{q}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }Rb)F_{\mu \nu }.`$ (18)
Here $`c_i`$’s are the Wilson coefficients (WC’s) evaluated at the renormalization scale $`\mu `$. And $`L(R)=(1\gamma _5)/2`$, $`f`$ can be $`u`$ or $`c`$ quark, $`q`$ can be $`d`$ or $`s`$ quark, and $`q^{}`$ is summed over $`u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$, and $`c`$ quarks. $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the SU(3) color indices, and $`T^a`$ ($`a=1,\mathrm{},8`$) are the SU(3) generator with the normalization $`Tr(T^aT^b)=\delta ^{ab}/2`$. $`g_s`$ and $`e`$ are the strong and electric couplings, respectively. $`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ denote the gluonic and photonic field strength tensors, respectively. $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ are the tree-level and QCD-corrected operators. $`O_{36}`$ are the gluon-induced strong penguin operators. $`O_{710}`$ are the EW penguin operators due to $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchange, and box diagrams at loop level. We shall take into account the chromomagnetic operator $`O_{11}`$ but neglect the extremely small contribution from $`O_{12}`$. The dipole contribution is in general quite small, and is of the order of $`10\%`$ for penguin dominated modes. For all the other modes it can be neglected .

We use the ISGW quark model to analyze two-body charmless decay processes $`BPT`$ in the framework of generalized factorization. We describe the parameterizations of the hadronic matrix elements in $`BPT`$ decays:

$`0|A^\mu |P`$ $`=`$ $`if_Pp_P^\mu ,`$ (19)
$`T|j^\mu |B`$ $`=`$ $`ih(m_P^2)ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{\nu \alpha }^{}p_B^\alpha (p_B+p_T)_\rho (p_Bp_T)_\sigma +k(m_P^2)ϵ^{\mu \nu }(p_B)_\nu `$ (21)
$`+ϵ_{\alpha \beta }^{}p_B^\alpha p_B^\beta [b_+(m_P^2)(p_B+p_T)^\mu +b_{}(m_P^2)(p_Bp_T)^\mu ],`$
where $`j^\mu =V^\mu A^\mu `$. $`V^\mu `$ and $`A^\mu `$ denote a vector and an axial-vector current, respectively. $`f_P`$ denotes the decay constant of the relevant pseudoscalar meson. $`h(m_P^2)`$, $`k(m_P^2)`$, $`b_+(m_P^2)`$, and $`b_{}(m_P^2)`$ express the form factors for the $`BT`$ transition, $`F^{BT}(m_P^2)`$, which have been calculated at $`q^2=m_P^2`$ $`(q^\mu p_B^\mu p_T^\mu )`$ in the ISGW quark model . $`p_B`$ and $`p_T`$ denote the momentum of the $`B`$ meson and the tensor meson, respectively. We note that the matrix element

$$0|j^\mu |T=0,$$
(22)
because the trace of the polarization tensor $`ϵ^{\mu \nu }`$ of the tensor meson $`T`$ vanishes and the auxiliary condition holds, $`p_T^\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu }=0`$ . Thus, in the generalized factorization scheme, the decay amplitudes for $`BPT`$ can be considerably simplified, compared to those for other two-body charmless decays of $`B`$ mesons such as $`BPP`$, $`PV`$, and $`VV`$: Any decay amplitude for $`BPT`$ is simply proportional to the decay constant $`f_P`$ and a certain linear combination of the form factors $`F^{BT}`$, i.e., there is no such amplitude proportional to $`f_T\times F^{BP}`$.

## III Flavor SU(3) analysis of $`BPT`$ decays

We list the $`BPT`$ decay modes in terms of the SU(3) amplitudes. The coefficients of the SU(3) amplitudes in $`BPT`$ are listed in Tables I and II for strangeness-conserving ($`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$) and strangeness-changing ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$) processes, respectively. In the tables, the unprimed and the primed letters denote $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ processes, respectively. The subscript, $`P`$ in $`T_P,C_P,`$ … or $`T`$ in $`T_T,C_T,`$ …, on each SU(3) amplitude is used to describe such a case that the meson, which includes the spectator quark in the corresponding quark diagram, is the pseudoscalar $`P`$ or the tensor $`T`$. Note that the coefficients of the SU(3) amplitudes with the subscript $`P`$, which would be proportional to $`f_T\times F^{BP}`$, are expressed in square brackets. As explained in Sec. II, the contributions of the SU(3) amplitudes with the subscript $`P`$ vanish in the framework of factorization, because those contributions contain the matrix element $`T|J_\mu ^{\mathrm{weak}}|0`$ which is zero, see Eq. (22). Thus, it will be interesting to compare the results obtained in the SU(3) analysis with those obtained in the factorization scheme, as we shall see. We will present some ways to test validity of both schemes in future experiment.

Among the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ amplitudes, the tree diagram contribution is expected to be largest so that from Table I the decays $`B^+\pi ^+a_2^0`$, $`\pi ^+f_2`$, and $`B^0\pi ^+a_2^{}`$ are expected to have the largest rates. Here we have noticed that in $`B^+\pi ^+f_2^{()}`$ decays, $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi __T=0.99`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi __T=0.13`$, since the mixing angle $`\varphi __T7^0`$. The amplitudes for the processes $`BKK_2^{}`$ have only penguin diagram contributions, and so they are expected to be small. In principle, the penguin contribution (combined with the smaller color-suppressed EW penguin) $`p_TP_T^{}\frac{1}{3}P_{EW,T}`$ can be measured in $`B^{+(0)}\overline{K}^0K_2^{+(0)}`$. The tree contribution (combined with much smaller color-suppressed EW penguin) $`t_TT_T+P_{EW,T}^C`$ are measured by the combination $`A(B^{+(0)}\overline{K}^0K_2^{+(0)})A(B^0\pi ^+a_2^{})`$. The amplitudes for $`B^0\pi ^0f_2^{}`$, $`\eta f_2^{}`$, and $`\eta ^{}f_2^{}`$ have the color-suppressed tree contributions, $`C_T(C_P)`$, but are suppressed by $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ so that they are expected to be small. We shall see that these expectations based on the SU(3) approach are consistent with those calculated in the factorization approximation. However, there exist some cases in which the predictions based on both approaches are inconsistent. Note that in Table I the amplitudes for $`B^0\pi ^{}a_2^+`$ and $`B^{+(0)}K^{+(0)}\overline{K}_2^0`$ can be decomposed into linear combinations of the SU(3) amplitudes as follows:

$`A(B^0\pi ^{}a_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`T_PP_P(2/3)P_{EW,P}^C,`$ (23)
$`A(B^+K^+\overline{K}_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A(B^0K^0\overline{K}_2^0)=P_P(1/3)P_{EW,P}^C.`$ (24)
As previously explained, in factorization the rates for these processes vanish because all the SU(3) amplitudes are with the subscript $`P`$. Non-zero of decay rates for these processes would arise from non-factorizable effects or final state interactions. Thus, in principle one can test validity of the factorization ansatz by measuring the rates for these decays in future experiment. Therefore, the non-factorizable penguin contribution, if exists, (combined with the smaller color-suppressed EW penguin) $`p_PP_P\frac{1}{3}P_{EW,P}`$ can be measured in $`B^{+(0)}\overline{K}^{+(0)}\overline{K}_2^{+(0)}`$. Also, supposing that $`P_P`$ is very small compared to $`T_P`$ as usual, one can determine the magnitude of $`T_P`$ by measuring the rate for $`B^0\pi ^{}a_2^+`$.

In the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ decays, the (strong) penguin contribution $`P^{}`$ is expected to dominate because of enhancement by the ratio of the CKM elements $`|V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}|/|V_{ub}^{}V_{us}|50`$. We note that the amplitudes for $`B^+K^0a_2^+`$ and $`B^+\pi ^+K_2^0`$ have only penguin contributions, respectively, as follows:

$`A(B^+K^0a_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`P_T^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}P_{EW,T}^C,`$ (25)
$`A(B^+\pi ^+K_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`P_P^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}P_{EW,P}^C.`$ (26)
Thus the penguin contribution (combined with the smaller color-suppressed EW penguin) $`p_T^{}P_T^{}\frac{1}{3}P_{EW,T}^C`$ is measured in $`B^+K^0a_2^+`$. Similarly, $`p_P^{}P_P^{}\frac{1}{3}P_{EW,P}^C`$ is determined in $`B^+\pi ^+K_2^0`$. (In fact, $`p_P^{}=0`$ in factorization.) By comparing the branching ratios for these two modes measured in experiment, one can determine which contribution (i.e., $`p_T^{}`$ or $`p_P^{}`$) is larger. The (additional penguin) SU(3) singlet amplitude $`S^{}`$ is expected to be very small because of the Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka (OZI) suppression, but the SU(3) singlet amplitude $`S^{}`$ for the decays involving the pseudoscalar mesons $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ is expected not to be very small, since the flavor-singlet couplings of the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ can be affected by the axial anomaly. Thus, from Table II, one can expect that the processes $`B^{+(0)}\eta ^{}K_2^{+(0)}`$ have large branching ratios compared to other $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ decays, since they have both of the penguin contributions $`P^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$ (and the smaller EW penguin contributions $`P_{EW}^{}`$ and $`P_{EW}^C`$) and these contributions interfere constructively such as $`2P_T^{}+P_P^{}+4S_T^{}`$. In contrast, the processes $`B^{+(0)}\eta K_2^{+(0)}`$ have both of the penguin contributions $`P^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$, but these interfere destructively such as $`P_T^{}+P_P^{}+S_T^{}`$. As in $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ decays, there are certain processes whose amplitudes can be expressed by the SU(3) amplitudes, but are expected to vanish in factorization: For instance, $`A(B^+\pi ^+K_2^0)`$ is given by Eq. (26) and $`A(B^0\pi ^{}K_2^+)=(T_P^{}+P_P^{}+\frac{2}{3}P_{EW,P}^C)`$. Thus, in principle measurement of the rates for these decays can be used to test the factorization ansatz. We also note that the decay amplitudes for modes $`B^+\pi ^0K_2^+`$ and $`B^0\pi ^0K_2^0`$ can be respectively written as

$`A(B^+\pi ^0K_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(T_P^{}+C_T^{}+P_P^{}+P_{EW,T}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}P_{EW,P}^C),`$ (27)
$`A(B^0\pi ^0K_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(C_T^{}P_P^{}+P_{EW,T}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}P_{EW,P}^C).`$ (28)
Since in factorization only the amplitudes having the subscript $`T`$ does not vanish, we shall see that $`(B^+\pi ^0K_2^+)=(B^0\pi ^0K_2^0)`$ in the factorization scheme, where $``$ denotes the branching ratio. Thus, if $`P_P^{}`$ or $`T_P^{}`$ is (not zero and) not very suppressed compared to $`C_T^{}`$, then there would be a sizable discrepancy in the relation $`(B^+\pi ^0K_2^+)=(B^0\pi ^0K_2^0)`$, and in principle it can be tested in experiment.

From Tables I and II, we find some useful relations among the decay amplitudes. The equivalence relations are

$`A(B^+K^+\overline{K}_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A(B^0K^0\overline{K}_2^0),`$ (29)
$`A(B^+\overline{K}^0K_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`A(B^0\overline{K}^0K_2^0).`$ (30)
The quadrangle relations are: for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ processes,

$`\sqrt{2}A(B^+\eta ^{}a_2^+)+A(B^+\eta a_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`2A(B^0\eta ^{}a_2^0)+\sqrt{2}A(B^0\eta a_2^0),`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}[A(B^+\pi ^+f_2)\sqrt{2}A(B^0\pi ^0f_2)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}[A(B^+\pi ^+f_2^{})\sqrt{2}A(B^0\pi ^0f_2^{})]`$ (32)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}[\sqrt{2}A(B^0\eta ^{}f_2)+A(B^0\eta f_2)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}[\sqrt{2}A(B^0\eta ^{}f_2^{})+A(B^0\eta f_2^{})],`$ (33)
and for the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ processes,

$`\sqrt{2}A(B^+K^+a_2^0)+A(B^+K^0a_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`A(B^0K^+a_2^{})+\sqrt{2}A(B^0K^0a_2^0),`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}[A(B^+K^+f_2)A(B^0K^0f_2)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}[A(B^+K^+f_2^{})A(B^0K^0f_2^{})],`$ (35)
$`A(B^+\pi ^+K_2^0)+\sqrt{2}A(B^+\pi ^0K_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`A(B^0\pi ^{}K_2^+)+\sqrt{2}A(B^0\pi ^0K_2^0),`$ (36)
$`A(B^+\eta K_2^+)+\sqrt{2}A(B^+\eta ^{}K_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`A(B^0\eta K_2^0)+\sqrt{2}A(B^0\eta ^{}K_2^0),`$ (37)
where $`c\mathrm{cos}\varphi __T`$ and $`s\mathrm{sin}\varphi __T`$. Note that the above relations are derived, purely based on flavor SU(3) symmetry. In the factorization scheme, (neglecting the SU(3) amplitudes with the subscript $`P`$) we would have in addition the approximate relations as follows.<sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§Considering SU(3) breaking effects, we use the symbol $``$ in the following relations instead of the equivalence symbol $`=`$. The following factorization relation would hold:

$`\sqrt{2}A(B^+\pi ^+a_2^0)`$ $``$ $`A(B^0\pi ^+a_2^{}).`$ (38)
The quadrangle relations given in Eqs. (33, 37) would be divided into the following factorization relations; for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ processes,

$`A(B^+\eta a_2^+)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{2}A(B^0\eta a_2^0)`$ (39)
$`\sqrt{2}A(B^+\eta ^{}a_2^+)`$ $``$ $`2A(B^0\eta ^{}a_2^0),`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}A(B^{+(0)}\pi ^{+(0)}f_2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}A(B^{+(0)}\pi ^{+(0)}f_2^{}),`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}A(B^0\eta f_2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}A(B^0\eta f_2^{})`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\sqrt{2}A(B^0\eta ^{}f_2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}\sqrt{2}A(B^0\eta ^{}f_2^{}),`$ (43)
and for the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ processes,

$`\sqrt{2}A(B^+K^+a_2^0)`$ $``$ $`A(B^0K^+a_2^{}),`$ (44)
$`A(B^+K^0a_2^+)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{2}A(B^0K^0a_2^0),`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}A(B^+K^+f_2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}A(B^+K^+f_2^{}),`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}A(B^0K^0f_2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}A(B^0K^0f_2^{}),`$ (47)
$`A(B^+\pi ^0K_2^+)`$ $``$ $`A(B^0\pi ^0K_2^0),`$ (48)
$`A(B^+\eta K_2^+)`$ $``$ $`A(B^0\eta K_2^0),`$ (49)
$`A(B^+\eta ^{}K_2^+)`$ $``$ $`A(B^0\eta ^{}K_2^0).`$ (50)
Therefore, in principle the above relations given in Eqs. (38, 43, 50) provide an interesting way to test the factorization scheme by measuring and comparing magnitudes of the decay amplitudes involved in the relations. In consideration of SU(3) breaking effects, the relation in Eq. (38) is best to use, because in fact the relation arises from isospin symmetry assuming $`C_P=P_P=P_{EW,P}=P_{EW,P}^C=0`$. (However, if $`C_P`$ is negligibly small (though not zero) compared to $`T_T`$, Eq. (38) will approximately hold.)

## IV Analysis of $`BPT`$ decays using the Isgur-Scora- Grinstein-Wise model

Now, we present expressions for SU(3) amplitudes involved in $`BPT`$ decays as calculated in the factorization scheme as follows . (Note that all the SU(3) amplitudes with the subscript $`P`$ vanish because those are proportional to the matrix element $`T|j^\mu |0`$.)

$`T_T^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}^{}V_{ud(s)}(f_Pϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BT}(m_P^2))a_1,`$ (51)
$`C_T^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}^{}V_{ud(s)}(f_Pϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BT}(m_P^2))a_2,`$ (52)
$`S_T^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}^{}V_{td(s)}(f_Pϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BT}(m_P^2))(a_3a_5),`$ (53)
$`P_T^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}^{}V_{td(s)}(f_Pϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BT}(m_P^2))(a_42a_6X_{qq^{}}),`$ (54)
$`P_{EW,T}^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}^{}V_{td(s)}(f_Pϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BT}(m_P^2)){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(a_7a_9),`$ (55)
$`P_{EW,T}^{C()}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}^{}V_{td(s)}(f_Pϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BT}(m_P^2)){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(a_{10}2a_8X_{qq^{}}),`$ (56)
where

$`F^{BT}(m_P^2)`$ $`=`$ $`k(m_P^2)+(m_B^2m_T^2)b_+(m_P^2)+m_P^2b_{}(m_P^2),`$ (57)
$`X_{qq^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_P^2}{(m_b+m_q^{})(m_q+m_q^{})}}.`$ (58)
Here the effective coefficients $`a_i`$ are defined as $`a_i=c_i^{eff}+\xi c_{i+1}^{eff}`$ ($`i=`$ odd) and $`a_i=c_i^{eff}+\xi c_{i1}^{eff}`$ ($`i=`$ even) with the effective WC’s $`c_i^{eff}`$ at the scale $`m_b`$ , and by treating $`\xi 1/N_c`$ ($`N_c`$ denotes the effective number of color) as an adjustable parameter. The last term with $`b_{}`$ in Eq. (57) gives a negligible contribution to the decay amplitude due to the small mass factor.

With Tables I, II and the above relations (56), one can easily write down in the factorization scheme the amplitude of any $`BPT`$ mode shown in the tables. For example, from Table I and the relations (56), the amplitude of the process $`B^+\pi ^+a_2^0`$ can be written asIn the factorization scheme, we use the usual phase convention for the pseudoscalar and the tensor mesons as follows: $`\pi ^0(a_2^0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u\overline{u}d\overline{d})`$, $`\pi ^{}(a_2^{})=\overline{u}d`$, $`K^{}(K_2^{})=\overline{u}s`$.

$`A(B^+\pi ^+a_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(T_T+C_P+P_TP_P+P_{EW,P}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}P_{EW,T}^C+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}P_{EW,P}^C\right)`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_\pi ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^0}(m_\pi ^2)\left\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_1V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_4+a_{10}2(a_6+a_8)X_{du}]\right\}.`$ (60)
Here we have used the fact that $`C_P`$, $`P_P`$, $`P_{EW,P}`$, and $`P_{EW,P}^C`$ with the subscript $`P`$ all vanish. In Appendix, expressions for all the amplitudes of $`BPT`$ decays are presented as calculated in the factorization scheme.

To calculate the unpolarized decay rates for $`BPT`$, we sum over polarizations of the tensor meson $`T`$ using the following formula :

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }(p__T,\lambda )ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}(p__T,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\theta _{\alpha \mu }\theta _{\beta \nu }+\theta _{\beta \mu }\theta _{\alpha \nu }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta _{\alpha \beta }\theta _{\mu \nu },`$ (61)
where $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }+(p__T)_\alpha (p__T)_\beta /m_T^2`$. Then, the decay rate for $`BPT`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BPT)={\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}__P|^5}{12\pi m_T^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_T}}\right)^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{A(BPT)}{ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu }}\right|^2,`$ (62)
where $`|\stackrel{}{p}__P|`$ is the magnitude of three-momentum of the final state particle $`P`$ or $`T`$ ($`|\stackrel{}{p}__P|=|\stackrel{}{p}__T|`$) in the rest frame of the $`B`$ meson. The CP asymmetry, $`𝒜_{CP}`$, is defined by

$`𝒜_{CP}={\displaystyle \frac{(bf)(\overline{b}\overline{f})}{(bf)+(\overline{b}\overline{f})}},`$ (63)
where $`b`$ and $`f`$ denote $`b`$ quark and a generic final state, respectively.

We calculate the branching ratios and CP asymmetries for $`BPT`$ decay modes for various input parameter values. The predictions are sensitive to several input parameters such as the form factors, the strange quark mass, the parameter $`\xi 1/N_c`$, the CKM matrix elements and in particular, the weak phase $`\gamma `$. In a recent work  on charmless $`B`$ decays to two light mesons such as $`PP`$ and $`VP`$, it has been shown that the favored values of the input parameters are

$$\xi 0.45,m_s(m_b)85\mathrm{MeV},\gamma 110^0,V_{cb}=0.040,\mathrm{and}|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.087$$

in order to get the best fit to the recent experimental data from the CLEO collaboration. For our numerical calculations, we use the following values of the decay constants (in MeV units) :

$$f_\pi =132,f_\eta =131,f_\eta ^{}=118,f_K=162.$$

We use the values of the form factors for the $`BT`$ transition calculated in the ISGW model . The strange quark mass $`m_s`$ is in considerable doubt: i.e., QCD sum rules give $`m_s(1\mathrm{GeV})=(175\pm 25)`$ MeV and lattice gauge theory gives $`m_s(2\mathrm{GeV})=(100\pm 20\pm 10)`$ MeV in the quenched lattice calculation . In this analysis we use two representative values of $`m_s=100`$ MeV and $`m_s=85`$ MeV at $`m_b`$ scale. Current best estimates for CKM matrix elements are $`V_{cb}=0.0381\pm 0.0021`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.085\pm 0.019`$ . We use $`V_{cb}=0.040`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.087`$. It has been known that there exists the discrepancy in values of $`\gamma `$ extracted from CKM-fitting at $`\rho \eta `$ plane  and from the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of non-leptonic decays of $`B`$ mesons . The value of $`\gamma `$ obtained from unitarity triangle fitting is in the range of $`60^080^0`$. But in analysis of non-leptonic $`B`$ decay, possibility of larger $`\gamma `$ has been discussed by Deshpande et al.  and He et al. . The obtained value of $`\gamma `$ is $`\gamma =90^0140^0`$. In our calculations we use two representative values of $`\gamma =110^0`$ and $`\gamma =65^0`$.

In Tables III $``$ VI, we show the branching ratios and the CP asymmetries for $`BPT`$ decays with either $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$. In the tables the second and the third columns correspond to the sets of the input parameters,

$$\{\xi =0.1,m_s=85\mathrm{MeV},\gamma =110^0\}\mathrm{and}\{\xi =0.1,m_s=100\mathrm{MeV},\gamma =65^0\},$$

respectively. Similarly, the fourth and the fifth columns correspond to the cases,

$$\{\xi =0.3,m_s=85\mathrm{MeV},\gamma =110^0\}\mathrm{and}\{\xi =0.3,m_s=100\mathrm{MeV},\gamma =65^0\},$$

respectively. The sixth and the seventh columns correspond to the cases,

$$\{\xi =0.5,m_s=85\mathrm{MeV},\gamma =110^0\}\mathrm{and}\{\xi =0.5,m_s=100\mathrm{MeV},\gamma =65^0\},$$

respectively. Here $`\xi 1/N_c=0.3`$ corresponds to the case of naive factorization ($`N_c=3`$). It has been known that in $`BD`$ decays the generalized factorization has been successfully used with the favored value of $`\xi 0.5`$ . Also, as mentioned above, a recent analysis of charmless $`B`$ decays to two light mesons such as $`PP`$ and $`VP`$  shows that $`\xi 0.45`$ is favored with certain values of other parameters for the best fit to the recent CLEO data.

The branching ratios and the CP asymmetries for $`BPT`$ decay modes with $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ are shown in Table III and IV. Among $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ modes, the decay modes $`B^+\pi ^+a_2^0`$, $`B^+\pi ^+f_2`$, and $`B^0\pi ^+a_2^{}`$ have relatively large branching ratios of a few times $`10^7`$. This prediction is consistent with that based on flavor SU(3) symmetry. We see that in the factorization scheme the following equality between the branching ratios holds for any set of the parameters given above: $`2(B^+\pi ^+a_2^0)(B^0\pi ^+a_2^{})`$, as discussed in Eq. (38). (Little deviation from the exact equality arises from breaking of isospin symmetry.) We also see from Table III that $`(B^+\pi ^0a_2^+)`$ is much smaller than $`(B^+\pi ^+a_2^0)`$ by an order of magnitude or even three orders of magnitude depending on values of the input parameters, because in factorization the dominant contribution to the former mode arises from the color-suppressed tree diagram ($`C_T`$), while the dominant one to the latter mode arises from the color-favored tree diagram ($`T_T`$). Note that in flavor SU(3) symmetry the amplitude for $`B^+\pi ^+a_2^0`$ has the color-favored tree contribution $`T_P`$ constructive to the color-suppressed tree contribution $`C_T`$ (in addition to small contributions from the penguin diagrams). (Also recall that the magnitude of $`T_P`$ can be possibly measured by Eq. (23)). In case that $`T_P`$ is not small compared to $`T_T`$, $`(B^+\pi ^0a_2^+)`$ can be comparable to $`(B^+\pi ^+a_2^0)`$. Therefore, measurement of the modes $`B\pi a_2`$ in future experiment will provide important information on the above discussion. Some $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ processes such as $`B^+\eta ^{}a_2^+`$, $`B^0\eta ^{}a_2^0`$, and $`B^0\eta ^{}f_2`$ have the branching ratios of order of $`10^7`$. The branching ratios of the other processes are order of $`10^8`$ or less. The CP asymmetry for $`B^+\eta ^{}a_2^+`$ is relatively large (about $`20\%`$ or larger) with the branching ratio of order of $`10^7`$ for $`\xi =0.5`$ and $`0.1`$. The CP asymmetry for $`B^+\eta a_2^+`$, $`B^0\eta a_2^0`$, $`\eta f_2`$ can be as large as $`71\%`$ for $`\xi =0.5`$, with the branching ratios of $`O(10^8)`$.

Tables V shows the branching ratios for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ decay processes. In $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ decays, the relevant penguin diagrams give dominant contribution to the decay rates. We see that the branching ratios for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ decays are in range between $`O(10^7)`$ and $`O(10^{10})`$, similar to those for $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ decays. The modes $`B^{+(0)}\eta ^{}K_2^{+(0)}`$ have relatively larger branching ratios of $`O(10^7)`$. In contrast, the modes $`B^{+(0)}\eta K_2^{+(0)}`$ have very small branching ratios of $`O(10^9)`$ to $`O(10^{10})`$. Based on flavor SU(3) symmetry, this fact has been expected by observation that the penguin contributions $`P^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$ interfere constructively for $`B^{+(0)}\eta ^{}K_2^{+(0)}`$, but destructively for $`B^{+(0)}\eta K_2^{+(0)}`$. From Eq. (56), we see that $`P_T^{}`$ and $`S_T^{}`$ are proportional to $`(a_42a_6X_{ss})`$ and $`(a_3a_5)`$, respectively, in addition to other common factors. Indeed, in the factorization scheme, since $`(a_42a_6X_{ss})`$ and $`(a_3a_5)`$ have the same sign (all positive), the combination $`(2P_T^{}+4S_T^{})`$ appearing in $`B^{+(0)}\eta ^{}K_2^{+(0)}`$ causes constructive interference, while the combination $`(P_T^{}+S_T^{})`$ appearing in $`B^{+(0)}\eta K_2^{+(0)}`$ causes destructive interference (see Appendix). Thus the prediction for these decay modes are consistent in both approaches. The modes $`B^+\pi ^0K_2^+`$ and $`B^0\pi ^0K_2^0`$ have almost the same branching ratios of $`O(10^8)`$ in the factorization scheme (also see Appendix). In flavor SU(3) symmetry, as shown in Table II, the decay amplitudes for these modes have the contributions from $`P_P^{}`$ or $`T_P^{}`$. Thus, as discussed in the previous section, if $`P_P^{}`$ or $`T_P^{}`$ is not very suppressed compared to $`C_T^{}`$, then there would be a sizable discrepancy in $`(B^+\pi ^0K_2^+)(B^0\pi ^0K_2^0)`$, and in principle it can be tested in experiment. The terms $`(T_P^{}+P_P^{}+\frac{2}{3}P_{EW,P}^C)`$ and $`P_P^{}\frac{1}{3}P_{EW,P}^C`$ can be determined by measuring the branching ratios for $`B^0\pi ^{}K_2^+`$ and $`B^+\pi ^+K_2^0`$, respectively. The CP asymmetries $`𝒜_{𝒞𝒫}`$ in $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ decays are shown in Table VI. $`𝒜_{𝒞𝒫}`$’s in most modes are expected to be quite small. In $`B^+(0)\eta K_2^{+(0)}`$, $`𝒜_{𝒞𝒫}`$ can be as large as $`92\%`$, but the corresponding branching ratio is as small as about $`O(10^9)`$.

## V conclusion

We have analyzed exclusive charmless decays $`BPT`$ in the schemes of both flavor SU(3) symmetry and generalized factorization. Using the flavor SU(3) symmetry, we have decomposed all the amplitudes for decays $`BPT`$ into linear combinations of the relevant SU(3) amplitudes. Based on the decomposition, we have shown that certain decay modes, such as $`B^+\pi ^+a_2^0`$, $`\pi ^+f_2`$ and $`B^0\pi ^+a_2^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ decays, and $`B^{+(0)}\eta ^{}K_2^{+(0)}`$ in $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ decays, are expected to have the largest decay rates and so these modes can be preferable to find in future experiment. Certain ways to test validity of the factorization scheme have been presented by emphasizing interplay between both approaches and carefully combining the predictions from both approaches. In order to bridge the flavor SU(3) approach and the factorization approach, we have explicitly presented a set of relations between a flavor SU(3) amplitude and a corresponding amplitude in factorization in $`BPT`$ decays.

To calculate the branching ratios for $`BPT`$ decays, we have used the *full* effective Hamiltonian including all the penguin operators which are essential to analyze the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ processes and to calculate CP asymmetries. We have also used the non-relativistic quark model proposed by Isgur, Scora, Grinstein, and Wise to obtain the form factors describing $`BT`$ transitions. As shown in Tables III and V, the branching ratios vary from $`O(10^7)`$ to $`O(10^{10})`$. Consistent with the prediction from the flavor SU(3) analysis, the decay modes such as $`B^+\pi ^+a_2^0`$, $`\pi ^+f_2`$, $`B^0\pi ^+a_2^{}`$ and $`B^{+(0)}\eta ^{}K_2^{+(0)}`$ as well as $`B^+\eta ^{}a_2^+`$ have the branching ratios of order of $`10^7`$. In particular, the branching ratio for the mode $`B^0\pi ^+a_2^{}`$ can be as large as almost $`O(10^6)`$. We have identified the decay modes where the CP asymmetries are expected to be large, such as $`B\eta ^{}a_2^+`$, $`\eta a_2^+`$, $`\eta a_2^0`$, $`\eta f_2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ decays, and $`B^+(0)\eta K_2^{+(0)}`$ in $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ decays. Due to possible uncertainties in the hadronic form factors of $`BPT`$ and non-factorizaton effects, the predicted branching ratios could be increased by even two orders of magnitude for some decay modes . Although experimentally challenging, the exclusive charmless decays, $`BPT`$, can probably be carried out in details at hadronic $`B`$ experiments such as BTeV and LHC-B, where more than $`10^{10}`$ $`B`$-mesons will be produced per year, as well as at present asymmetric $`B`$ factories of Belle and Babar.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work of C.S.K. was supported in part by Grant No. 2000-1-11100-003-1 and SRC Program of the KOSEF, and in part by the KRF Grants, Project No. 2000-015-DP0077. The work of B.H.L and S.O. were supported by the KRF Grants, Project No. 2000-015-DP0077 and by the BK21 Program.

APPENDIX

In this Appendix, we present expressions for all the decay amplitudes of $`BPT`$ modes shown in Tables I and II as calculated in the factorization scheme. Below we use $`F^{BT}`$ and $`X_{qq^{}}`$ defined in Eqs. (57) and (58).
(1) $`BPT`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$) decays.

$`A(B^+\pi ^+a_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_\pi ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^0}(m_\pi ^2)\left\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_1V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_4+a_{10}2(a_6+a_8)X_{du}]\right\},`$ (64)
$`A(B^+\pi ^+f_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi __Tf_\pi ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2}(m_\pi ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_1`$ (66)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_4+a_{10}2(a_6+a_8)X_{du}]\}`$
$`A(B^+\pi ^+f_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi __Tf_\pi ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2}(m_\pi ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_1`$ (68)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_4+a_{10}2(a_6+a_8)X_{du}]\}`$
$`A(B^+\pi ^0a_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_\pi ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^+}(m_\pi ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_2`$ (70)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_4+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_7{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_9+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}+2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^+\eta a_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}f_\eta ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^+}(m_\eta ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_2`$ (72)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_3+a_4a_5+a_7a_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^+\eta ^{}a_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}f_\eta ^{}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^+}(m_\eta ^{}^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_2`$ (74)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[4a_3+a_44a_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_7+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^+\overline{K}^0K_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_Kϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BK_2^+}(m_K^2)V_{tb}^{}V_{td}\left[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2\left(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8\right)X_{ds}\right]`$ (75)
$`A(B^0\pi ^+a_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_\pi ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^{}}(m_\pi ^2)\left\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_1V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_4+a_{10}2(a_6+a_8)X_{du}]\right\}`$ (76)
$`A(B^0\pi ^0a_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2\sqrt{2}}}f_\pi ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^0}(m_\pi ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}(a_2)`$ (78)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_7+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^0\pi ^0f_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi __Tf_\pi ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2}(m_\pi ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}(a_2)`$ (80)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_7+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^0\pi ^0f_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi __Tf_\pi ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2^{}}(m_\pi ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}(a_2)`$ (82)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_7+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^0\eta a_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}f_\eta ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^0}(m_\eta ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_2`$ (84)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_3+a_4a_5+a_7a_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^0\eta f_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi __Tf_\eta ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2}(m_\eta ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_2`$ (86)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_3+a_4a_5+a_7a_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^0\eta f_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi __Tf_\eta ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2^{}}(m_\eta ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_2`$ (88)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[a_3+a_4a_5+a_7a_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^0\eta ^{}a_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}f_\eta ^{}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^0}(m_\eta ^{}^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_2`$ (90)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[4a_3+a_44a_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_7+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^0\eta ^{}f_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi __Tf_\eta ^{}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2}(m_\eta ^{}^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_2`$ (92)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[4a_3+a_44a_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_7+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^0\eta ^{}f_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi __Tf_\eta ^{}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2}(m_\eta ^{}^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}a_2`$ (94)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{td}[4a_3+a_44a_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_7+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{dd}]\}`$
$`A(B^0\overline{K}^0K_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_Kϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BK_2^0}(m_K^2)V_{tb}^{}V_{td}\left[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2\left(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8\right)X_{ds}\right]`$ (95)
(2) $`BPT`$ ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$) decays.

$`A(B^+K^+a_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_Kϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^0}(m_K^2)\left\{V_{ub}^{}V_{us}a_1V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}[a_4+a_{10}2(a_6+a_8)X_{su}]\right\}`$ (96)
$`A(B^+K^+f_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi __Tf_Kϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2}(m_K^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{us}a_1`$ (98)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}[a_4+a_{10}2(a_6+a_8)X_{su}]\}`$
$`A(B^+K^+f_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi __Tf_Kϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2^{}}(m_K^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{us}a_1`$ (100)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}[a_4+a_{10}2(a_6+a_8)X_{su}]\}`$
$`A(B^+\overline{K}^0a_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_Kϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^+}(m_K^2)V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}\left[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2\left(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8\right)X_{sd}\right]`$ (101)
$`A(B^+\pi ^0K_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_\pi ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BK_2^+}(m_\pi ^2)\left[V_{ub}^{}V_{us}a_2V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_7{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_9\right)\right]`$ (102)
$`A(B^+\eta K_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}f_\eta ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BK_2^+}(m_\eta ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{us}a_2`$ (104)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}[a_3a_4a_5+a_7a_9+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}+2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{ss}]\}`$
$`A(B^+\eta ^{}K_2^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}f_\eta ^{}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BK_2^+}(m_\eta ^{}^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{us}a_2`$ (106)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}[4a_3+2a_44a_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_7+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_9a_{10}4(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{ss}]\}`$
$`A(B^0K^+a_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_Kϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^{}}(m_K^2)\left\{V_{ub}^{}V_{us}a_1V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}[a_4+a_{10}2(a_6+a_8)X_{su}]\right\}`$ (107)
$`A(B^0K^0a_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_Kϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Ba_2^0}(m_K^2)V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}\left[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2\left(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8\right)X_{sd}\right]`$ (108)
$`A(B^0K^0f_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi __Tf_Kϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2}(m_K^2)V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}\left[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2\left(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8\right)X_{sd}\right]`$ (109)
$`A(B^0K^0f_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi __Tf_Kϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{Bf_2^{}}(m_K^2)V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}\left[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}2\left(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8\right)X_{sd}\right]`$ (110)
$`A(B^0\pi ^0K_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_\pi ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BK_2^0}(m_\pi ^2)\left[V_{ub}^{}V_{us}a_2V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_7{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_9\right)\right]`$ (111)
$`A(B^0\eta K_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}f_\eta ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BK_2^0}(m_\eta ^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{us}a_2`$ (113)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}[a_3a_4a_5+a_7a_9+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}+2(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{ss}]\}`$
$`A(B^0\eta ^{}K_2^0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}f_\eta ^{}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{}p_B^\mu p_B^\nu F^{BK_2^0}(m_\eta ^{}^2)\{V_{ub}^{}V_{us}a_2`$ (115)
$`V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}[4a_3+2a_44a_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_7+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_9a_{10}4(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8)X_{ss}]\}`$