text:
# B Physics and CP Violation

## 1 Introduction

The non-conservation of the CP symmetry, where C and P denote the charge-conjugation and parity transformation operators, respectively, is one of the most exciting phenomena in particle physics since its unexpected discovery through $`K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays in 1964 CP-discovery . At that time it was believed that – although weak interactions are neither invariant under P, nor invariant under C – the product CP was preserved. Consider, for instance, the process

$$\pi ^+e^+\nu _e\stackrel{C}{}\pi ^{}e^{}\nu _e^C\stackrel{P}{}\pi ^{}e^{}\overline{\nu }_e.$$
(1)
Here the left-handed $`\nu _e^C`$ state is not observed in nature; only after performing an additional P transformation do we obtain the right-handed electron antineutrino.

Before the start of the $`B`$ factories, CP-violating effects could only be studied in the kaon system, where we distinguish between “indirect” CP violation, which is due to the fact that the mass eigenstates $`K_\mathrm{S}`$ and $`K_\mathrm{L}`$ of the neutral kaon system are not eigenstates of the CP operator, and “direct” CP violation, arising directly at the decay amplitude level of the neutral kaon system. The former kind of CP violation was already discovered in 1964 and is described by a complex parameter $`\epsilon `$, whereas the latter one, described by the famous parameter $`\text{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )`$, could only be established in 1999 after tremendous efforts by the NA48 (CERN) NA48  and KTeV (Fermilab) KTEV  collaborations, reporting the following results in 2002:

$$\text{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )=\{\begin{array}{cc}(14.7\pm 2.2)\times 10^4\hfill & \text{(NA48 }\text{NA48-02}\text{)}\hfill \\ (20.7\pm 2.8)\times 10^4\hfill & \text{(KTeV }\text{KTEV-02}\text{).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Unfortunately, the theoretical interpretation of $`\text{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )`$ is still affected by large hadronic uncertainties and does not provide a stringent test of the Standard-Model description of CP violation, unless significant theoretical progress concerning the relevant hadronic matrix elements can be made bertolini ; buras-KAON ; CiMa .

In 2001, CP violation could also be established in $`B`$-meson decays by the BaBar (SLAC) BaBar-CP-obs  and Belle (KEK) Belle-CP-obs  collaborations, representing the start of a new era in the exploration of CP violation. As we will discuss in these lecture notes, decays of neutral and charged $`B`$-mesons provide valuable insights into this phenomenon, offering in particular powerful tests of the Kobayashi–Maskawa (KM) mechanism KM , which allows us to accommodate CP violation in the Standard Model of electroweak interactions. In Section 2, we shall have a closer look at the Standard-Model description of CP violation, and shall introduce the Wolfenstein parametrization and the unitarity triangles of the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix. Since non-leptonic decays of $`B`$ mesons play the key rôle in the exploration of CP violation, we have to discuss the tools to deal with these transitions and the corresponding theoretical problems in Section 3. The main strategies to study CP violation are then classified in Section 4, before we focus on benchmark modes for the $`B`$ factories in Section 5. The great physics potential of $`B_s`$-meson decays for experiments at hadron colliders is emphasized in Section 6, and will also be employed in Section 7, where we discuss interesting recent developments. Finally, we make a few comments on the “usual” rare $`B`$ decays in Section 8, before we summarize our conclusions and give a brief outlook in Section 9.

A considerably more detailed presentation of CP violation in the $`B`$ system can be found in RF-Phys-Rep , as well as in the textbooks listed in CP-Books . Another lecture on related topics was given by Neubert at this school neubert .

## 2 CP Violation in the Standard Model

### 2.1 Charged-Current Interactions of Quarks

The CP-violating effects discussed in these lectures originate from the charged-current interactions of the quarks, described by the Lagrangian

$$_{\text{int}}^{\text{CC}}=\frac{g_2}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{u}_\text{L},& \overline{c}_\text{L},& \overline{t}_\text{L}\end{array}\right)\gamma ^\mu \widehat{V}_{\text{CKM}}\left(\begin{array}{c}d_\text{L}\\ s_\text{L}\\ b_\text{L}\end{array}\right)W_\mu ^{}+\text{h.c.,}$$
(3)
where the gauge coupling $`g_2`$ is related to the gauge group $`SU(2)_\text{L}`$, the $`W_\mu ^{()}`$ field corresponds to the charged $`W`$ bosons, and $`\widehat{V}_{\text{CKM}}`$ denotes the CKM matrix, connecting the electroweak eigenstates of the down, strange and bottom quarks with their mass eigenstates through a unitary transformation.

Since the CKM matrix elements $`V_{UD}`$ and $`V_{UD}^{}`$ enter in $`DUW^{}`$ and the CP-conjugate process $`\overline{D}\overline{U}W^+`$, respectively, where $`D\{d,s,b\}`$ and $`U\{u,c,t\}`$, we observe that the phase structure of the CKM matrix is closely related to CP violation. It was pointed out by Kobayashi and Maskawa in 1973 that actually one complex phase is required – in addition to three generalized Euler angles – to parametrize the quark-mixing matrix in the case of three fermion generations, thereby allowing us to accommodate CP violation in the Standard Model KM .

More detailed investigations show that additional conditions have to be satisfied for CP violation. They can be summarized as follows:

$`(m_t^2m_c^2)(m_t^2m_u^2)(m_c^2m_u^2)`$ (5)
$`\times (m_b^2m_s^2)(m_b^2m_d^2)(m_s^2m_d^2)\times J_{\mathrm{CP}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$
where the Jarlskog parameter

$$J_{\mathrm{CP}}=\pm \text{Im}\left(V_{i\alpha }V_{j\beta }V_{i\beta }^{}V_{j\alpha }^{}\right)(ij,\alpha \beta )$$
(6)
represents a measure of the “strength” of CP violation within the Standard Model jarlskog . As data imply $`J_{\mathrm{CP}}=𝒪(10^5)`$, CP violation is a small effect in the Standard Model. In scenarios for physics beyond the Standard Model, typically also new sources of CP violation arise NP .

### 2.2 Wolfenstein Parametrization

The quark transitions caused by charged-current interactions exhibit an interesting hierarchy, which is made explicit in the Wolfenstein parametrization of the CKM matrix wolf :

$$\widehat{V}_{\text{CKM}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2& \lambda & A\lambda ^3(\rho i\eta )\\ \lambda & 1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2& A\lambda ^2\\ A\lambda ^3(1\rho i\eta )& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)+𝒪(\lambda ^4).$$
(7)
This parametrization corresponds to an expansion in powers of the small quantity $`\lambda =0.22`$, which can be fixed through semileptonic kaon decays. The other parameters are of order 1, where $`\eta `$ leads to an imaginary part of the CKM matrix. The Wolfenstein parametrization is very useful for phenomenological applications, as we will see below. A detailed discussion of the next-to-leading order terms in $`\lambda `$ can be found in blo .

### 2.3 Unitarity Triangles

The central targets for tests of the KM mechanism of CP violation are the unitarity triangles of the CKM matrix. As we have already noted, the CKM matrix is unitary. Consequently, it satisfies

$$\widehat{V}_{\text{CKM}}^{}\widehat{V}_{\text{CKM}}=\widehat{1}=\widehat{V}_{\text{CKM}}\widehat{V}_{\text{CKM}}^{},$$
(8)
implying a set of 12 equations, which consist of 6 normalization relations and 6 orthogonality relations. The latter can be represented as 6 triangles in the complex plane AKL , all having the same area, $`2A_\mathrm{\Delta }=|J_{\mathrm{CP}}|`$ UT-area . However, in only two of them, all three sides are of comparable magnitude $`𝒪(\lambda ^3)`$, while in the remaining ones, one side is suppressed with respect to the others by $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$ or $`𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$. The orthogonality relations describing the non-squashed triangles are given by

$`V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{[1st and 3rd column]}`$ (9)
$`V_{ub}^{}V_{tb}+V_{us}^{}V_{ts}+V_{ud}^{}V_{td}`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{[1st and 3rd row]}.`$ (10)
At leading order in $`\lambda `$, these relations agree with each other, and yield

$$(\rho +i\eta )A\lambda ^3+(A\lambda ^3)+(1\rho i\eta )A\lambda ^3=0.$$
(11)
Consequently, they describe the same triangle, which is usually referred to as the unitarity triangle of the CKM matrix UT-area ; CK . It is convenient to divide (11) by the overall normalization $`A\lambda ^3`$. Then we obtain a triangle in the complex plane with a basis normalized to 1, and an apex given by $`(\rho ,\eta )`$.

In the future, the experimental accuracy will reach such an impressive level that we will have to distinguish between the unitarity triangles described by (9) and (10), which differ through $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$ corrections. They are illustrated in Fig. 1, where $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ are related to $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ through blo

$$\overline{\rho }\left(1\lambda ^2/2\right)\rho ,\overline{\eta }\left(1\lambda ^2/2\right)\eta ,$$
(12)
and

$$\delta \gamma \gamma \gamma ^{}=\lambda ^2\eta .$$
(13)
The sides $`R_b`$ and $`R_t`$ of the unitarity triangle shown in Fig. 1 (a) are given by

$`R_b`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}}\right|=\sqrt{\overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.38}\pm 0.08`$ (14)
$`R_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}}{V_{cb}}}\right|=\sqrt{(1\overline{\rho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=𝒪(1),`$ (15)
and will show up at several places throughout these lectures. Whenever we refer to a unitarity triangle, we mean the one illustrated in Fig. 1 (a).

### 2.4 Standard Analysis of the Unitarity Triangle

There is a “standard analysis” to constrain the apex of the unitarity triangle in the $`\overline{\rho }`$$`\overline{\eta }`$ plane, employing the following ingredients:

* Using heavy-quark arguments, exclusive and inclusive $`bu,c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ decays provide $`|V_{ub}|`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$ ligeti , allowing us to fix the side $`R_b`$ of the unitarity triangle, i.e. a circle in the $`\overline{\rho }`$$`\overline{\eta }`$ plane around $`(0,0)`$ with radius $`R_b`$.
* Using the top-quark mass $`m_t`$ as an input, and taking into account certain QCD corrections and non-perturbative parameters, we may extract $`|V_{td}|`$ from $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing (see below). The combination of $`|V_{td}|`$ with $`|V_{cb}|`$ allows us then to fix the side $`R_t`$ of the unitarity triangle, i.e. a circle in the $`\overline{\rho }`$$`\overline{\eta }`$ plane around $`(1,0)`$ with radius $`R_t`$. Comparing $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ with $`B_s^0`$$`\overline{B_s^0}`$ mixing, an $`SU(3)`$-breaking parameter $`\xi `$ suffices to determine $`R_t`$.
* Using $`m_t`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$ as an input, and taking into account certain QCD corrections and non-perturbative parameters, the observable $`\epsilon `$ describing indirect CP violation in the kaon system allows us to fix a hyperbola in the $`\overline{\rho }`$$`\overline{\eta }`$ plane.

These contours are sketched in Fig. 2; their intersection gives the apex of the unitarity triangle shown in Fig. 1 (a). Because of strong correlations between theoretical and experimental uncertainties, it is rather involved to convert the experimental information into an allowed range in the $`\overline{\rho }`$$`\overline{\eta }`$ plane, and various analyses can be found in the literature: a simple scanning approach buras-KAON , a Gaussian approach al , the “BaBar 95% scanning method” Babar-95-scan , a Bayesian approach bayes , and a non-Bayesian statistical approach hoeck . Other recent analyses can be found in AS-CKM ; Bu-CKM . A reasonable range for $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ that is consistent with these approaches is given by

$$70^{}<\alpha <130^{},20^{}<\beta <30^{},50^{}<\gamma <70^{}.$$
(16)
The question of how to combine the theoretical and experimental errors in an optimal way will certainly continue to be a hot topic in the future. This is also reflected by the Bayesian bayes  vs. non-Bayesian hoeck  debate going on at present.

### 2.5 Quantitative Studies of CP Violation

As we have seen above, the neutral kaon system provides two different CP-violating parameters, $`\epsilon `$ and $`\text{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )`$. The former is one of the ingredients of the “standard analysis” of the unitarity triangle, implying in particular $`\overline{\eta }>0`$ if very plausible assumptions about a certain non-perturbative “bag” parameter are made. On the other hand, $`\text{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )`$ does not (yet) provide further stringent constraints on the unitarity triangle because of large hadronic uncertainties, although the experimental values are of the same order of magnitude as the range of theoretical estimates bertolini ; buras-KAON .

Considerably more promising in view of testing the Standard-Model description of CP violation are the rare kaon decays $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$, which originate in the Standard Model from loop effects and are theoretically very clean since the relevant hadronic matrix elements can be fixed through semileptonic kaon decays buras-KAON ; isidori . In particular, they also allow an interesting determination of the unitarity triangle Kpinunu , and show interesting correlations with CP violation in the $`B`$ sector RF-Phys-Rep ; BF-Kpinunu . Unfortunately, the $`K\pi \nu \overline{\nu }`$ branching ratios are at the $`10^{11}`$ level in the Standard Model; two events of $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ have already been observed by the E787 Experiment at Brookhaven, yielding a branching ratio of $`(1.57_{0.82}^{+1.75})\times 10^{10}`$ E787 . It is very important to measure $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`K_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ with reasonable statistics, and there are efforts under way to accomplish this challenging goal Kpinunu-exp .

In the case of the $`B`$-meson system, consisting of charged mesons $`B_u^+u\overline{b}`$, $`B_c^+c\overline{b}`$, as well as neutral ones $`B_d^0d\overline{b}`$, $`B_s^0s\overline{b}`$, we have a “simplified” hadron dynamics, since the $`b`$ quark is “heavy” with respect to the QCD scale parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. Moreover, hadronic uncertainties can be eliminated or cancel in appropriate CP-violating observables, thereby providing various tests of the KM mechanism of CP violation and direct determinations of the angles of the unitarity triangle. As we will see below, the Standard Model predicts large CP-violating asymmetries in certain decays, and large effects were actually observed recently in $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ BaBar-CP-obs ; Belle-CP-obs . The goal is now to overconstrain the unitarity triangle as much as possible and to test several Standard-Model predictions, with the hope to encounter discrepancies that could shed light on the physics lying beyond the Standard Model. In this decade, the asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ $`B`$ factories operating at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance with their detectors BaBar and Belle provide access to several benchmark decay modes of $`B_u^\pm `$ and $`B_d^0`$ mesons BABAR-BOOK . Moreover, experiments at hadron colliders allow us to study, in addition, large data samples of decays of $`B_s`$ mesons, which are another very important element in the testing of the Standard-Model description of CP violation. Important first steps in this direction are already expected at run II of the Tevatron TEV-BOOK , whereas several strategies can only be fully exploited in the LHC era LHC-BOOK , in particular at LHCb (CERN) and BTeV (Fermilab).

In these lectures we shall focus on the $`B`$-meson system. For the exploration of CP violation, non-leptonic $`B`$ decays play the central rôle, as CP-violating effects are due to certain interference effects that may show up in this decay class. Before turning to these modes, let us note that there are also other promising systems to obtain insights into CP violation, for example $`D`$ mesons, where the Standard Model predicts very small CP violation, electric dipole moments or hyperon decays. These topics are, however, beyond the scope of this presentation.

## 3 Non-Leptonic $`B`$ Decays

### 3.1 Classification

Non-leptonic $`\overline{B}`$ decays are mediated by $`bq_1\overline{q_2}d(s)`$ quark-level transitions, with $`q_1,q_2\{u,d,c,s\}`$. There are two kinds of topologies contributing to non-leptonic $`B`$ decays: tree-diagram-like and “penguin” topologies. The latter consist of gluonic (QCD) and electroweak (EW) penguins. In Figs. 35, the corresponding leading-order Feynman diagrams are shown. Depending on the flavour content of their final states, we may classify $`bq_1\overline{q_2}d(s)`$ decays as follows:

* $`q_1q_2\{u,c\}`$: only tree diagrams contribute.
* $`q_1=q_2\{u,c\}`$: tree and penguin diagrams contribute.
* $`q_1=q_2\{d,s\}`$: only penguin diagrams contribute.

### 3.2 Low-Energy Effective Hamiltonians

In order to analyse non-leptonic $`B`$ decays theoretically, one uses low-energy effective Hamiltonians, which are calculated by making use of the operator product expansion, yielding transition matrix elements of the following structure:

$$f|_{\mathrm{eff}}|i=\frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _{\mathrm{CKM}}\underset{k}{}C_k(\mu )f|Q_k(\mu )|i.$$
(17)
The operator product expansion allows us to separate the short-distance contributions to this transition amplitude from the long-distance ones, which are described by perturbative Wilson coefficient functions $`C_k(\mu )`$ and non-perturbative hadronic matrix elements $`f|Q_k(\mu )|i`$, respectively. As usual, $`G_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi constant, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{CKM}}`$ is a CKM factor, and $`\mu `$ denotes an appropriate renormalization scale. The $`Q_k`$ are local operators, which are generated by electroweak interactions and QCD, and govern “effectively” the decay in question. The Wilson coefficients $`C_k(\mu )`$ can be considered as scale-dependent couplings related to the vertices described by the $`Q_k`$.

Let us consider $`\overline{B_d^0}D^+K^{}`$, which is a pure “tree” decay, to discuss the evaluation of the corresponding low-energy effective Hamiltonian in more detail. At leading order, this decay originates from a $`bc\overline{u}s`$ quark-level transition, where the $`bc`$ and $`\overline{u}s`$ quark currents are connected through the exchange of a $`W`$ boson. Evaluating the corresponding Feynman diagram yields

$$\frac{g_2^2}{8}V_{us}^{}V_{cb}\left[\overline{s}\gamma ^\nu (1\gamma _5)u\right]\left[\frac{g_{\nu \mu }}{k^2M_W^2}\right]\left[\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b\right].$$
(18)
Because of $`k^2m_b^2M_W^2`$, we have

$$\frac{g_{\nu \mu }}{k^2M_W^2}\frac{g_{\nu \mu }}{M_W^2}\left(\frac{8G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}g_2^2}\right)g_{\nu \mu },$$
(19)
i.e. we may “integrate out” the $`W`$ boson in (18), and arrive at

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{us}^{}V_{cb}\left[\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u_\alpha \right]\left[\overline{c}_\beta \gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b_\beta \right]`$ (21)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{us}^{}V_{cb}(\overline{s}_\alpha u_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}(\overline{c}_\beta b_\beta )_{\text{V–A}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{us}^{}V_{cb}O_2,`$
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ denote $`SU(3)_\mathrm{C}`$ colour indices. Effectively, our decay process $`bc\overline{u}s`$ is now described by the “current–current” operator $`O_2`$.

If we take into account QCD corrections, operator mixing leads to a second “current–current” operator, which is given by

$$O_1\left[\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u_\beta \right]\left[\overline{c}_\beta \gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b_\alpha \right].$$
(22)
Consequently, we obtain a low-energy effective Hamiltonian of the following structure:

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}^{}V_{cb}\left[C_1(\mu )O_1+C_2(\mu )O_2\right],$$
(23)
where $`C_1(\mu )0`$ and $`C_2(\mu )1`$ are due to QCD renormalization effects. In order to evaluate these coefficients, we have first to calculate QCD corrections to the decay processes both in the full theory, i.e. with $`W`$ exchange, and in the effective theory, and have then to express the QCD-corrected transition amplitude in terms of QCD-corrected matrix elements and Wilson coefficients as in (17). This procedure is called “matching”. The results for the $`C_k(\mu )`$ thus obtained contain terms of $`\text{log}(\mu /M_W)`$, which become large for $`\mu =𝒪(m_b)`$, the scale governing the hadronic matrix elements of the $`O_k`$. Making use of the renormalization group, which exploits the fact that the transition amplitude (17) cannot depend on the chosen renormalization scale $`\mu `$, we may sum up the following terms of the Wilson coefficients:

$$\alpha _s^n\left[\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu }{M_W}\right)\right]^n\text{(LO)},\alpha _s^n\left[\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu }{M_W}\right)\right]^{n1}\text{(NLO)},\mathrm{}$$
(24)
A very detailed discussion of these techniques can be found in BBL-rev .

In the case of decays receiving contributions both from tree and from penguin topologies, basically the only difference to (23) is that we encounter more operators:

$$_{\text{eff}}=\frac{G_\text{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\underset{j=u,c}{}V_{jr}^{}V_{jb}\left\{\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}C_k(\mu )Q_k^{jr}+\underset{k=3}{\overset{10}{}}C_k(\mu )Q_k^r\right\}\right].$$
(25)
Here the current–current operators $`Q_1^{jr}`$ and $`Q_2^{jr}`$, the QCD penguin operators $`Q_3^r`$$`Q_6^r`$, and the EW penguin operators $`Q_7^r`$$`Q_{10}^r`$ are related to the tree, QCD and EW penguin processes shown in Figs. 35 (explicit expressions for these operators can be found in RF-Phys-Rep ; BBL-rev ). At a renormalization scale $`\mu =𝒪(m_b)`$, the Wilson coefficients of the current–current operators satisfy $`C_1(\mu )=𝒪(10^1)`$ and $`C_2(\mu )=𝒪(1)`$, whereas those of the penguin operators are $`𝒪(10^2)`$. Note that penguin topologies with internal charm- and up-quark exchanges are described in this framework by penguin-like matrix elements of the corresponding current–current operators RF-DIPL , and may also have important phenomenological consequences BF-PEN ; CHARM-PEN .

Since the ratio $`\alpha /\alpha _s=𝒪(10^2)`$ of the QED and QCD couplings is very small, we would expect naïvely that EW penguins should play a minor rôle in comparison with QCD penguins. This would actually be the case if the top quark was not “heavy”. However, since the Wilson coefficient $`C_9`$ increases strongly with $`m_t`$, we obtain interesting EW penguin effects in several $`B`$ decays: $`B^{}K^{}\varphi `$ is affected significantly by EW penguins, whereas $`B\pi \varphi `$ and $`B_s\pi ^0\varphi `$ are even dominated by such topologies RF-EWP ; RF-rev . EW penguins also have an important impact on $`B\pi K`$ modes EWP-BpiK , as we will see in Section 7.

The low-energy effective Hamiltonians discussed in this section apply to all $`B`$ decays that are caused by the same corresponding quark-level transition, i.e. they are “universal”. Within this formalism, differences between various exclusive modes are only due to the hadronic matrix elements of the relevant four-quark operators. Unfortunately, the evaluation of such matrix elements is associated with large uncertainties and is a very challenging task. In this context, “factorization” is a widely used concept, which is our next topic.

### 3.3 Factorization of Hadronic Matrix Elements

In order to discuss “factorization”, let us consider once more $`\overline{B_d^0}D^+K^{}`$. Evaluating the corresponding transition amplitude, we encounter the hadronic matrix elements of the $`O_{1,2}`$ operators between the $`K^{}D^+|`$ final and $`|\overline{B_d^0}`$ initial states. If we use the well-known $`SU(N_\mathrm{C})`$ colour-algebra relation

$$T_{\alpha \beta }^aT_{\gamma \delta }^a=\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }\frac{1}{N_\mathrm{C}}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\gamma \delta }\right)$$
(26)
to rewrite the operator $`O_1`$, we obtain

$$K^{}D^+|_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B_d^0}=\frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}^{}V_{cb}[a_1K^{}D^+|(\overline{s}_\alpha u_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}(\overline{c}_\beta b_\beta )_{\text{V–A}}|\overline{B_d^0}$$

$$+2C_1K^{}D^+|(\overline{s}_\alpha T_{\alpha \beta }^au_\beta )_{\text{V–A}}(\overline{c}_\gamma T_{\gamma \delta }^ab_\delta )_{\text{V–A}}|\overline{B_d^0}],$$
(27)
with

$$a_1=\frac{C_1}{N_\mathrm{C}}+C_2.$$
(28)
It is now straightforward to “factorize” the hadronic matrix elements:

$`K^{}D^+|(\overline{s}_\alpha u_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}(\overline{c}_\beta b_\beta )_{\text{V–A}}|\overline{B_d^0}|_{\mathrm{fact}}`$ (31)
$`=K^{}|\left[\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u_\alpha \right]|0D^+|\left[\overline{c}_\beta \gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b_\beta \right]|\overline{B_d^0}`$
$`f_K\text{(“decay constant”)}\times F_{BD}\text{(“form factor”)},`$
$$K^{}D^+|(\overline{s}_\alpha T_{\alpha \beta }^au_\beta )_{\text{V–A}}(\overline{c}_\gamma T_{\gamma \delta }^ab_\delta )_{\text{V–A}}|\overline{B_d^0}|_{\mathrm{fact}}=0.$$
(32)
The quantity introduced in (28) is a phenomenological “colour factor”, governing “colour-allowed” decays. In the case of “colour-suppressed” modes, for instance $`\overline{B_d^0}\pi ^0D^0`$, we have to deal with the combination

$$a_2=C_1+\frac{C_2}{N_\mathrm{C}}.$$
(33)
The concept of the factorization of hadronic matrix elements has a long history Neu-Ste , and can be justified, for example, in the large $`N_\mathrm{C}`$ limit largeN . Recently, the “QCD factorization” approach was developed BBNS1 ; BBNS2 ; BBNS3 , which may provide an important step towards a rigorous basis for factorization for a large class of non-leptonic two-body $`B`$-meson decays in the heavy-quark limit. The resulting formula for the transition amplitudes incorporates elements both of the naïve factorization approach sketched above and of the hard-scattering picture. Let us consider a decay $`\overline{B}M_1M_2`$, where $`M_1`$ picks up the spectator quark. If $`M_1`$ is either a heavy ($`D`$) or a light ($`\pi `$, $`K`$) meson, and $`M_2`$ a light ($`\pi `$, $`K`$) meson, QCD factorization gives a transition amplitude of the following structure:

$$A(\overline{B}M_1M_2)=\left[\text{“naïve factorization”}\right]\times \left[1+𝒪(\alpha _s)+𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)\right].$$
(34)
While the $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ terms, i.e. the radiative non-factorizable corrections to naïve factorization, can be calculated in a systematic way, the main limitation of the theoretical accuracy is due to the $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)`$ terms. These issues are discussed in detail in neubert . Further interesting recent papers are listed in fact-recent .

Another QCD approach to deal with non-leptonic $`B`$ decays into charmless final states – the perturbative hard-scattering (or “PQCD”) approach – was developed independently in PQCD , and differs from the QCD factorization formalism in some technical aspects. An interesting avenue to deal with non-leptonic $`B`$ decays is also provided by QCD light-cone sum-rule approaches sum-rules .

## 4 Towards Studies of CP Violation in the $`B`$ System

### 4.1 Amplitude Structure and Direct CP Violation

If we use the unitarity of the CKM matrix, it is an easy exercise to show that the amplitude for any given non-leptonic $`B`$ decay can always be written is such a way that at most two weak CKM amplitudes contribute:

$`A(\overline{B}\overline{f})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{+i\phi _1}|A_1|e^{i\delta _1}+e^{+i\phi _2}|A_2|e^{i\delta _2}`$ (35)
$`A(Bf)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi _1}|A_1|e^{i\delta _1}+e^{i\phi _2}|A_2|e^{i\delta _2}.`$ (36)
Here $`\phi _{1,2}`$ denote CP-violating weak phases, which are due to the CKM matrix, and the $`|A_{1,2}|e^{i\delta _{1,2}}`$ are CP-conserving “strong” amplitudes, containing the whole hadron dynamics of the decay at hand:

$$|A|e^{i\delta }\underset{k}{}\underset{\text{pert. QCD}}{\underset{}{C_k(\mu )}}\times \underset{\text{non-pert.}}{\underset{}{\overline{f}|Q_k(\mu )|\overline{B}}}.$$
(37)
Employing (35) and (36), we obtain the following CP-violating rate asymmetry:

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Bf)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\overline{f})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Bf)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\overline{f})}}={\displaystyle \frac{|A(Bf)|^2|A(\overline{B}\overline{f})|^2}{|A(Bf)|^2+|A(\overline{B}\overline{f})|^2}}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2|A_1||A_2|\mathrm{sin}(\delta _1\delta _2)\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1\phi _2)}{|A_1|^2+2|A_1||A_2|\mathrm{cos}(\delta _1\delta _2)\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1\phi _2)+|A_2|^2}}.`$ (39)
Consequently, a non-vanishing CP asymmetry $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ arises from interference effects between the two weak amplitudes, and requires both a non-trivial weak phase difference $`\phi _1\phi _2`$ and a non-trivial strong phase difference $`\delta _1\delta _2`$. This kind of CP violation is referred to as “direct” CP violation, as it originates directly at the amplitude level of the considered decay. It is the $`B`$-meson counterpart of the effects probed through $`\text{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )`$ in the neutral kaon system. Since $`\phi _1\phi _2`$ is in general given by one of the angles of the unitarity triangle – usually $`\gamma `$ – the goal is to determine this quantity from the measured value of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}`$. Unfortunately, the extraction of $`\phi _1\phi _2`$ from $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ is affected by hadronic uncertainties, which are due to the strong amplitudes $`|A_{1,2}|e^{i\delta _{1,2}}`$ (see (39)).

### 4.2 Classification of the Main Strategies

The most obvious – but also most challenging – strategy we may follow is to try to calculate the relevant hadronic matrix elements $`\overline{f}|Q_k(\mu )|\overline{B}`$. As we have noted above, interesting progress has recently been made in this direction through the development of the QCD factorization BBNS1 ; BBNS2 ; BBNS3 ; fact-recent , the PQCD PQCD , and the QCD light-cone sum-rule approaches sum-rules .

Another avenue we may follow is to search for fortunate cases, where relations between decay amplitudes allow us to eliminate the hadronic uncertainties. This approach was pioneered by Gronau and Wyler gw , who proposed the extraction of $`\gamma `$ from triangle relations between $`B_u^\pm K^\pm \{D^0,\overline{D^0},D_+^0\}`$ amplitudes, where $`D_+^0`$ is the CP-even eigenstate of the neutral $`D`$-meson system. These modes receive only contributions from tree-diagram-like topologies. Unfortunately, this strategy, which is theoretically clean, is very difficult from an experimental point of view, since the corresponding triangles are very squashed ones (for other experimental problems and strategies to solve them, see ADS ). As an alternative $`B_dK^0\{D^0,\overline{D^0},D_+^0\}`$ modes were proposed dun , where the triangles are more equilateral. Interestingly, from a theoretical point of view, the ideal realization of this “triangle” approach arises in the $`B_c`$-meson system. Here the $`B_c^\pm D_s^\pm \{D^0,\overline{D^0},D_+^0\}`$ decays allow us to construct the amplitude triangles sketched in Fig. 6, where all sides are expected to be of the same order of magnitude FW . The practical implementation of this strategy appears also to be challenging, but elaborate feasibility studies for experiments of the LHC era are strongly encouraged. Amplitude relations can also be derived with the help of the flavour symmetries of strong interactions, i.e. $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$. Here we have to deal with $`B_{(s)}\pi \pi ,\pi K,KK`$ decays, providing interesting determinations of weak phases and insights into hadronic physics. We shall have a closer look at these modes in Section 7.

The third avenue we may follow to deal with the problems arising from hadronic matrix elements is to employ decays of neutral $`B_d`$ or $`B_s`$ mesons. Here we encounter a new kind of CP violation, which is due to interference effects between $`B_q^0`$$`\overline{B_q^0}`$ mixing and decay processes, and is referred to as “mixing-induced” CP violation. Within the Standard Model, $`B_q^0`$$`\overline{B_q^0}`$ mixing arises from the box diagrams shown in Fig. 7. Because of this phenomenon, an initially, i.e. at time $`t=0`$, present $`B_q^0`$-meson state evolves into a time-dependent linear combination of $`B_q^0`$ and $`\overline{B_q^0}`$ states:

$$|B_q(t)=a(t)|B_q^0+b(t)|\overline{B_q^0},$$
(40)
where $`a(t)`$ and $`b(t)`$ are governed by an appropriate Schrödinger equation. In order to solve it, mass eigenstates with mass and width differences

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_qM_\mathrm{H}^{(q)}M_\mathrm{L}^{(q)}>0\text{and}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{H}^{(q)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}^{(q)},$$
(41)
respectively, are introduced. The decay rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{\text{(—)}}{B_q^0}(t)\stackrel{\text{(—)}}{f})`$ then contain terms proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_qt)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_qt)`$, describing the $`B_q^0`$$`\overline{B_q^0}`$ oscillations. To be specific, let us consider the very important special case where the $`B_q^0`$ meson decays into a final CP eigenstate $`f`$, satisfying

$$(CP)|f=\pm |f.$$
(42)
The corresponding time-dependent CP asymmetry then takes the following form:

$`a_{\mathrm{CP}}(t){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_q^0(t)f)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B_q^0}(t)f)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_q^0(t)f)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B_q^0}(t)f)}}`$ (44)
$`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_qf)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_qt)+𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_qf)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_qt)}{\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_qt/2)𝒜_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B_qf)\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_qt/2)}}\right].`$
In order to calculate the CP-violating observables, it is convenient to introduce

$$\xi _f^{(q)}=\pm e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{M}^{(q)}}\frac{A(\overline{B_q^0}\overline{f})}{A(B_q^0f)},$$
(45)
where $`\pm `$ refers to the CP eigenvalue of the final state $`f`$ specified in (42), and

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{M}^{(q)}\pi =2\text{arg}(V_{tq}^{}V_{tb})\varphi _q=\{\begin{array}{cc}+2\beta =𝒪(50^{})& \text{for }q=d\text{,}\hfill \\ 2\delta \gamma =𝒪(2^{})& \text{for }q=s\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
is the CP-violating weak $`B_q^0`$$`\overline{B_q^0}`$ mixing phase. It should be noted that $`\xi _f^{(q)}`$ does not depend on the chosen CP or CKM phase conventions and is actually a physical observable (for a detailed discussion, see RF-Phys-Rep ). We then obtain

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_qf)=\frac{1\left|\xi _f^{(q)}\right|^2}{1+\left|\xi _f^{(q)}\right|^2}=\frac{|A(Bf)|^2|A(\overline{B}\overline{f})|^2}{|A(Bf)|^2+|A(\overline{B}\overline{f})|^2},$$
(47)
and conclude that this observable measures direct CP violation, which we have already encountered in (39). The interesting new aspect is “mixing-induced” CP violation, which is described by

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_qf)=\frac{2\text{Im}\xi _f^{(q)}}{1+\left|\xi _f^{(q)}\right|^2},$$
(48)
and arises from interference effects between $`B_q^0`$$`\overline{B_q^0}`$ mixing and decay processes. The width difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$, which may be sizeable in the $`B_s`$ system, as we will see in Subsection 6.1, provides another observable,

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B_qf)\frac{2\text{Re}\xi _f^{(q)}}{1+\left|\xi _f^{(q)}\right|^2},$$
(49)
which is, however, not independent from $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_qf)`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_qf)`$:

$$\left[𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_qf)\right]^2+\left[𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_qf)\right]^2+\left[𝒜_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B_qf)\right]^2=1.$$
(50)
Let us now have a closer look at $`\xi _f^{(q)}`$. Using (35) and (36), we obtain

$$\xi _f^{(q)}=e^{i\varphi _q}\left[\frac{e^{+i\phi _1}|A_1|e^{i\delta _1}+e^{+i\phi _2}|A_2|e^{i\delta _2}}{e^{i\phi _1}|A_1|e^{i\delta _1}+e^{i\phi _2}|A_2|e^{i\delta _2}}\right],$$
(51)
and observe that the calculation of $`\xi _f^{(q)}`$ is in general affected by hadronic uncertainties. However, if one CKM amplitude plays the dominant rôle, the corresponding hadronic matrix element cancels:

$$\xi _f^{(q)}=e^{i\varphi _q}\left[\frac{e^{+i\varphi _f/2}|M_f|e^{i\delta _f}}{e^{i\varphi _f/2}|M_f|e^{i\delta _f}}\right]=e^{i(\varphi _q\varphi _f)}.$$
(52)
In this special case, direct CP violation vanishes, i.e. $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_qf)=0`$. However, we still have mixing-induced CP violation, measuring the CP-violating weak phase difference $`\varphi \varphi _q\varphi _f`$ without hadronic uncertainties:

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_qf)=\pm \mathrm{sin}\varphi .$$
(53)
The corresponding time-dependent CP asymmetry now takes the following simple form:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_q^0(t)f)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B_q^0}(t)\overline{f})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_q^0(t)f)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B_q^0}(t)\overline{f})}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_q=0}=\pm \mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_qt),$$
(54)
and allows an elegant determination of $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$. Let us apply this formalism, in the next section, to important benchmark modes for the $`B`$ factories.

## 5 Benchmark Modes for the $`B`$ Factories

### 5.1 The “Gold-Plated” Mode $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$

The decay $`B_d^0J/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ is a transition into a CP eigenstate with eigenvalue $`1`$, and originates from $`\overline{b}\overline{c}c\overline{s}`$ quark-level decays. As can be seen in Fig. 8, we have to deal both with tree-diagram-like and with penguin topologies. The corresponding amplitude can be written as RF-BdsPsiK

$$A(B_d^0J/\psi K_\mathrm{S})=\lambda _c^{(s)}\left(A_{\mathrm{CC}}^c^{}+A_{\mathrm{pen}}^c^{}\right)+\lambda _u^{(s)}A_{\mathrm{pen}}^u^{}+\lambda _t^{(s)}A_{\mathrm{pen}}^t^{},$$
(55)
where $`A_{\mathrm{CC}}^c^{}`$ denotes the current–current contributions, i.e. the “tree” processes in Fig. 8, and the strong amplitudes $`A_{\mathrm{pen}}^q^{}`$ describe the contributions from penguin topologies with internal $`q`$ quarks ($`q\{u,c,t\})`$. These penguin amplitudes take into account both QCD and EW penguin contributions. The primes in (55) remind us that we are dealing with a $`\overline{b}\overline{s}`$ transition, and the

$$\lambda _q^{(s)}V_{qs}V_{qb}^{}$$
(56)
are CKM factors. If we employ the unitarity of the CKM matrix to eliminate $`\lambda _t^{(s)}`$ through $`\lambda _t^{(s)}=\lambda _u^{(s)}\lambda _c^{(s)}`$, and the Wolfenstein parametrization, we may write

$$A(B_d^0J/\psi K_\mathrm{S})\left[1+\lambda ^2ae^{i\theta }e^{i\gamma }\right],$$
(57)
where the hadronic parameter $`ae^{i\theta }`$ measures, sloppily speaking, the ratio of penguin- to tree-diagram-like contributions to $`B_d^0J/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$. Since this parameter enters in a doubly Cabibbo-suppressed way, the formalism discussed in Section 4.2 gives, to a very good approximation bisa :

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S})=0,𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S})=\mathrm{sin}\varphi _d.$$
(58)
After important first steps by the OPAL, CDF and ALEPH collaborations, the $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ mode (and similar decays) led eventually, in 2001, to the observation of CP violation in the $`B`$ system BaBar-CP-obs ; Belle-CP-obs . The present status of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is given as follows:

$$\mathrm{sin}2\beta =\{\begin{array}{cc}0.741\pm 0.067\pm 0.033\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{Babar-s2b-02}\text{)}\hfill \\ 0.719\pm 0.074\pm 0.035\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{Belle-s2b-02}\text{),}\hfill \end{array}$$
(59)
yielding the world average nir

$$\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.734\pm 0.054,$$
(60)
which agrees well with the results of the “standard analysis” of the unitarity triangle (16), implying $`0.6<\mathrm{sin}2\beta <0.9`$.

In the LHC era, the experimental accuracy of the measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ may be increased by one order of magnitude LHC-BOOK . In view of such a tremendous accuracy, it will then be important to obtain deeper insights into the theoretical uncertainties affecting (58), which are due to penguin contributions. A possibility to control them is provided by the $`B_sJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ channel RF-BdsPsiK . Moreover, also direct CP violation in $`BJ/\psi K`$ modes allows us to probe such penguin effects RF-rev ; FM-BpsiK . So far, there are no experimental indications for non-vanishing CP asymmetries of this kind.

Although the agreement between (60) and the results of the CKM fits is striking, it should not be forgotten that new physics may nevertheless hide in $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S})`$. The point is that the key quantity is actually $`\varphi _d`$, which is fixed through $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _d=0.734\pm 0.054`$ up to a twofold ambiguity,

$$\varphi _d=\left(47_4^{+5}\right)^{}\left(133_5^{+4}\right)^{}.$$
(61)
Here the former solution would be in perfect agreement with the range implied by the CKM fits, $`40^{}<\varphi _d<60^{}`$, whereas the latter would correspond to new physics. The two solutions can be distinguished through a measurement of the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _d`$: in the case of $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _d=+0.7>0`$, we would conclude $`\varphi _d=47^{}`$, whereas $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _d=0.7<0`$ would point towards $`\varphi _d=133^{}`$, i.e. new physics. There are several strategies on the market to resolve the twofold ambiguity in the extraction of $`\varphi _d`$ ambig . Unfortunately, they are rather challenging from a practical point of view. In the $`BJ/\psi K`$ system, $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _d`$ can be extracted from the time-dependent angular distribution of the decay products of $`B_dJ/\psi [\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}]K^{}[\pi ^0K_\mathrm{S}]`$, if the sign of a hadronic parameter $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ involving a strong phase $`\delta `$ is fixed through factorization DDF2 ; DFN . Let us note that analyses of this kind are already in progress at the $`B`$ factories itoh .

The preferred mechanism for new physics to manifest itself in CP-violating effects in $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ is through $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing, which arises in the Standard Model from the box diagrams shown in Fig. 7. However, new physics may also enter at the $`BJ/\psi K`$ amplitude level. Employing estimates borrowed from effective field theory suggests that the effects are at most $`𝒪(10\%)`$ for a generic new-physics scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ in the TeV regime. In order to obtain the whole picture, a set of appropriate observables can be introduced, using $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ and its charged counterpart $`B^\pm J/\psi K^\pm `$ FM-BpsiK . So far, these observables do not yet indicate any deviation from the Standard Model.

In the context of new-physics effects in the $`BJ/\psi K`$ system, it is interesting to note that an upper bound on $`\varphi _d`$ is implied by an upper bound on $`R_b|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, as can be seen in Fig. 2. To be specific, we have

$$\mathrm{sin}\beta _{\mathrm{max}}=R_b^{\mathrm{max}},$$
(62)
yielding $`\left(\varphi _d\right)_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{SM}}55^{}`$ for $`R_b^{\mathrm{max}}0.46`$. As the determination of $`R_b`$ from semi-leptonic tree-level decays is very robust concerning the impact of new physics, $`\varphi _d133^{}`$ would require new-physics contributions to $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing. As we will see in Subsection 7.2, an interesting connection between the two solutions for $`\varphi _d`$ and constraints on $`\gamma `$ is provided by CP violation in $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ FlMa2 .

### 5.2 The $`B\varphi K`$ System

An important testing ground for the Standard-Model description of CP violation is also provided by $`B\varphi K`$ decays. As can be seen in Fig. 9, these modes are governed by QCD penguin processes BphiK-old , but also EW penguins are sizeable RF-EWP ; DH-PhiK . Consequently, $`B\varphi K`$ modes represent a sensitive probe for new physics. In the Standard Model, we have the following relations RF-rev ; growo ; loso ; FM-BphiK :

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\varphi K_\mathrm{S})`$ $`=`$ $`0+𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$ (63)
$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\varphi K_\mathrm{S})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S})+𝒪(\lambda ^2).`$ (64)
As in the case of the $`BJ/\psi K`$ system, a combined analysis of $`B_d\varphi K_\mathrm{S}`$, $`B^\pm \varphi K^\pm `$ modes should be performed in order to obtain the whole picture FM-BphiK . There is also the possibility of an unfortunate case, where new physics cannot be distinguished from the Standard Model, as discussed in detail in RF-Phys-Rep ; FM-BphiK .

In the summer of 2002, the experimental status can be summarized as follows:

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\varphi K_\mathrm{S})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{n.a.}\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{BphiK-BaBar}\text{)}\hfill \\ 0.56\pm 0.41\pm 0.12\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{BphiK-Belle}\text{)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\varphi K_\mathrm{S})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.19_{0.52}^{+0.50}\pm 0.09\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{BphiK-BaBar}\text{)}\hfill \\ 0.73\pm 0.64\pm 0.18\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{BphiK-Belle}\text{).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(66)
Unfortunately, the experimental uncertainties are still very large. Because of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S})=0.734\pm 0.054`$ (see (58) and (60)), there were already speculations about new-physics effects in $`B_d\varphi K_\mathrm{S}`$ BPhiK-NP . In this context, it is interesting to note that there are more data available from Belle:

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\eta ^{}K_\mathrm{S})`$ $`=`$ $`0.26\pm 0.22\pm 0.03`$ (67)
$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\eta ^{}K_\mathrm{S})`$ $`=`$ $`0.76\pm 0.36_{0.05}^{+0.06}`$ (68)
$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_dK^+K^{}K_\mathrm{S})`$ $`=`$ $`0.42\pm 0.36\pm 0.09_{0.03}^{+0.22}`$ (69)
$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_dK^+K^{}K_\mathrm{S})`$ $`=`$ $`0.52\pm 0.46\pm 0.11_{0.27}^{+0.03}.`$ (70)
The corresponding modes are governed by the same quark-level transitions as $`B_d\varphi K_\mathrm{S}`$. Consequently, it is probably too early to be excited too much by the possibility of signals of new physics in $`B_d\varphi K_\mathrm{S}`$ nir . However, the experimental situation should improve significantly in the future.

### 5.3 The Decay $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$

Another benchmark mode for the $`B`$ factories is $`B_d^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, which is a decay into a CP eigenstate with eigenvalue $`+1`$, and originates from $`\overline{b}\overline{u}u\overline{d}`$ quark-level transitions, as can be seen in Fig. 10. In analogy to (55), the corresponding decay amplitude can be written in the following form RF-BsKK :

$$A(B_d^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=\lambda _u^{(d)}\left(A_{\mathrm{CC}}^u+A_{\mathrm{pen}}^u\right)+\lambda _c^{(d)}A_{\mathrm{pen}}^c+\lambda _t^{(d)}A_{\mathrm{pen}}^t.$$
(71)
If we use again the unitarity of the CKM matrix, yielding $`\lambda _t^{(d)}=\lambda _u^{(d)}\lambda _c^{(d)}`$, as well as the Wolfenstein parametrization, we obtain

$$A(B_d^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})\left[e^{i\gamma }de^{i\theta }\right],$$
(72)
where

$$de^{i\theta }\frac{1}{R_b}\left(\frac{A_{\mathrm{pen}}^cA_{\mathrm{pen}}^t}{A_{\mathrm{CC}}^u+A_{\mathrm{pen}}^uA_{\mathrm{pen}}^t}\right)$$
(73)
measures, sloppily speaking, the ratio of penguin to tree contributions in $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. In contrast to the $`B_d^0J/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ amplitude (57), this parameter does not enter in (72) in a doubly Cabibbo-suppressed way, thereby leading to the well-known “penguin problem” in $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. If we had negligible penguin contributions, i.e. $`d=0`$, the corresponding CP-violating observables were given as follows:

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=0,𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=\mathrm{sin}(2\beta +2\gamma )=\mathrm{sin}2\alpha ,$$
(74)
where we have also used the unitarity relation $`2\beta +2\gamma =2\pi 2\alpha `$. We observe that actually the phases $`2\beta =\varphi _d`$ and $`\gamma `$ enter directly in the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ observables, and not $`\alpha `$. Consequently, since $`\varphi _d`$ can be fixed straightforwardly through $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$, we may use $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ to probe $`\gamma `$. This is advantageous to deal with penguins and possible new-physics effects, as we will see in Subsection 7.2.

Measurements of the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ CP asymmetries are already available:

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.30\pm 0.25\pm 0.04\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{BaBar-Bpipi}\text{)}\hfill \\ 0.94_{0.25}^{+0.31}\pm 0.09\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{Belle-Bpipi}\text{)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(75)
$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.02\pm 0.34\pm 0.05\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{BaBar-Bpipi}\text{)}\hfill \\ 1.21_{0.380.16}^{+0.27+0.13}\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{Belle-Bpipi}\text{).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(76)
Unfortunately, the BaBar and Belle results are not fully consistent with each other; the experimental picture will hopefully be clarified soon. Forming never-theless the weighted averages of (75) and (76), using the rules of the Particle Data Group (PDG), yields

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0.57\pm 0.19(0.32)`$ (77)
$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0.57\pm 0.25(0.61),`$ (78)
where the errors in brackets are the ones increased by the PDG scaling-factor procedure PDG . Direct CP violation at this level would require large penguin contributions with large CP-conserving strong phases. A significant impact of penguins on $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is also indicated by data on $`B\pi K,\pi \pi `$ decays, as well as by theoretical considerations CHARM-PEN ; BBNS3 ; SU ; keum  (see Subsection 7.2). Consequently, it is already evident that the penguin contributions to $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ cannot be neglected.

Many approaches to deal with the penguin problem in the extraction of weak phases from the CP-violating $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ observables were developed; the best known is an isospin analysis of the $`B\pi \pi `$ system GL , yielding $`\alpha `$. Unfortunately, this approach is very difficult in practice, as it requires a measurement of the $`B_d^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`\overline{B_d^0}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ branching ratios. However, useful bounds may already be obtained from experimental constraints on the CP-averaged $`B_d\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ branching ratio alpha-bounds ; charles . Alternatively, we may employ the CKM unitarity to express $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ in terms of $`\alpha `$ and hadronic parameters. Using $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$, a strong phase can be eliminated, allowing us to determine $`\alpha `$ as a function of a hadronic parameter $`|p/t|`$, which is, however, problematic to be determined reliably CHARM-PEN ; BBNS1 ; BBNS3 ; charles ; FM1 ; LSS ; LX . A different parametrization of the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ observables, involving a hadronic parameter $`P/T`$ and $`\varphi _d=2\beta `$, is employed in GR-Bpipi1 , where, moreover, $`\alpha +\beta +\gamma =180^{}`$ is used to eliminate $`\gamma `$, and $`\beta `$ is fixed through the Standard-Model solution $`26^{}`$ implied by $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S})`$. Provided $`|P/T|`$ is known, $`\alpha `$ can be extracted. To this end, $`SU(3)`$ flavour-symmetry arguments and plausible dynamical assumptions are used to fix $`|P|`$ through the CP-averaged $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm K`$ branching ratio. On the other hand, $`|T|`$ is estimated with the help of factorization and data on $`B\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$. Refinements of this approach were presented in GR-Bpipi2 . Another strategy to deal with penguins in $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is offered by $`B_sK^+K^{}`$. Using the $`U`$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions, $`\varphi _d`$ and $`\gamma `$ can be extracted from the corresponding CP-violating observables RF-BsKK . Before coming back to this approach in more detail in Subsection 7.2, let us first have a closer look at the $`B_s`$-meson system.

## 6 The $`B_s`$-Meson System

### 6.1 General Features

At the $`e^+e^{}`$ $`B`$ factories operating at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, no $`B_s`$ mesons are accessible, since $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ states decay only to $`B_{u,d}`$-mesons, but not to $`B_s`$. On the other hand, the physics potential of the $`B_s`$ system is very promising for hadron machines, where plenty of $`B_s`$ mesons are produced. Consequently, $`B_s`$ physics is in some sense the “El Dorado” for $`B`$ experiments at hadron colliders. There are important differences between the $`B_d`$ and $`B_s`$ systems:

* Within the Standard Model, the $`B_s^0`$$`\overline{B_s^0}`$ mixing phase probes the tiny angle $`\delta \gamma `$ in the unitarity triangle shown in Fig. 1 (b), and is hence negligibly small:

$$\varphi _s=2\delta \gamma =2\lambda ^2\eta =𝒪(2^{}),$$
(79)
whereas $`\varphi _d=2\beta =𝒪(50^{})`$.
* A large $`x_s\mathrm{\Delta }M_s/\mathrm{\Gamma }_s=𝒪(20)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{H}^{(q)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}^{(q)})/2`$, is expected in the Standard Model, whereas $`x_d=0.775\pm 0.012`$. The present lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ is given as follows LEPBOSC :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_s>14.4\text{ps}^1(95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.).$$
(80)
* There may be a sizeable width difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s/\mathrm{\Gamma }_s=𝒪(10\%)`$ between the mass eigenstates of the $`B_s`$ system that is due to CKM-favoured $`bc\overline{c}s`$ quark-level transitions into final states common to $`\overline{B_s^0}`$ and $`B_s^0`$, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ is negligibly small BeLe . The present CDF and LEP results imply LEPBOSC

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s|/\mathrm{\Gamma }_s<0.31(95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.).$$
(81)
Interesting applications of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ are extractions of weak phases from “untagged” $`B_s`$ data samples, where we do not distinguish between initially present $`B_s^0`$ or $`\overline{B_s^0}`$ mesons, as discussed in Bs-untagged .

Let us now discuss the rôle of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ for the determination of the unitarity triangle in more detail. As we have already noted in Subsection 2.4, the comparison of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ allows an interesting determination of the side $`R_t`$ of the unitarity triangle. To this end, only a single $`SU(3)`$-breaking parameter

$$\xi \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_s}f_{B_s}}}{\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_d}}f_{B_d}}=1.15\pm 0.06$$
(82)
is required, which measures $`SU(3)`$-breaking effects in non-perturbative mixing and decay parameters. It can be determined through lattice or QCD sum-rule calculations. The mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ has not yet been measured. However, lower bounds on $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ can be converted into upper bounds on $`R_t`$ through Buras-ICHEP96

$$\left(R_t\right)_{\mathrm{max}}=0.83\times \xi \times \sqrt{\frac{15.0\mathrm{ps}^1}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }M_s\right)_{\mathrm{min}}}},$$
(83)
excluding already a large part in the $`\overline{\rho }`$$`\overline{\eta }`$ plane, as can be seen in Fig. 11. In particular, $`\gamma <90^{}`$ is implied. In a recent paper KroRy , it is argued that $`\xi `$ may actually be significantly larger than the conventional range given in (82), $`\xi =1.32\pm 0.10`$ (see also AS-CKM ). In this case, the excluded range in the $`\overline{\rho }`$$`\overline{\eta }`$ plane would be reduced, shifting the upper limit for $`\gamma `$ closer to $`90^{}`$. Hopefully, the status of $`\xi `$ will be clarified soon. In the near future, run II of the Tevatron should provide a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$, thereby constraining the unitarity triangle and $`\gamma `$ in a much more stringent way.

### 6.2 Benchmark $`B_s`$ Decays

An interesting class of $`B_s`$ decays is due to $`b(\overline{b})c\overline{u}s(\overline{s})`$ quark-level transitions. Here we have to deal with pure “tree” decays, where both $`B_s^0`$ and $`\overline{B_s^0}`$ mesons may decay into the same final state $`f`$. The resulting interference effects between decay and mixing processes allow a theoretically clean extraction of $`\varphi _s+\gamma `$ from

$$\xi _f^{(s)}\times \xi _{\overline{f}}^{(s)}=e^{2i(\varphi _s+\gamma )}.$$
(84)
There are several well-known strategies on the market employing these features: we may consider the colour-allowed decays $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$ ADK , or the colour-suppressed modes $`B_sD^0\varphi `$ GL0 . In the case of $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$ or $`B_sD^0\varphi `$, the observables of the corresponding angular distributions provide sufficient information to extract $`\varphi _s+\gamma `$ from “untagged” analyses FD2 , requiring a sizeable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$. A “tagged” strategy involving $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$ modes was proposed in LSS-00 . Recently, strategies making use of “CP-tagged” $`B_s`$ decays were proposed FP , which require a symmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collider operated at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(5S)`$ resonance. In this approach, initially present CP eigenstates $`B_s^{\mathrm{CP}}`$ are employed, which can be tagged through the fact that the $`B_s^0/\overline{B_s^0}`$ mixtures have anticorrelated CP eigenvalues at $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(5S)`$. Here $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{},D_s^\pm K^{},D_s^\pm K^{}`$ modes may be used. Let us note that there is also an interesting counterpart of (84) in the $`B_d`$ system BdDpi , which employs $`B_dD^{()\pm }\pi ^{}`$ decays, and allows a determination of $`\varphi _d+\gamma `$.

The extraction of $`\gamma `$ from the phase $`\varphi _s+\gamma `$ provided by the $`B_s`$ approaches sketched in the previous paragraph requires $`\varphi _s`$ as an additional input, which is negligibly small in the Standard Model. Whereas it appears to be quite unlikely that the pure tree decays listed above are affected significantly by new physics, as they involve no flavour-changing neutral-current processes, this is not the case for the $`B_s^0`$$`\overline{B_s^0}`$ mixing phase $`\varphi _s`$. In order to probe this quantity, $`B_sJ/\psi \varphi `$ offers interesting strategies DFN ; DDF1 . Since this decay is the $`B_s`$ counterpart of $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$, the corresponding Feynman diagrams are analogous to those shown in Fig. 8. However, in contrast to $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$, the final state of $`B_sJ/\psi \varphi `$ is an admixture of different CP eigenstates. In order to disentangle them, we have to use the angular distribution of the $`J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`\varphi K^+K^{}`$ decay products DDLR . The corresponding observables are governed by LHC-BOOK

$$\xi _{\psi \varphi }^{(s)}e^{i\varphi _s}\left[12i\mathrm{sin}\gamma \times 𝒪(10^3)\right].$$
(85)
Since we have $`\varphi _s=𝒪(2^{})`$ in the Standard Model, the extraction of $`\varphi _s`$ from the $`B_sJ/\psi [\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}]\varphi [K^+K^{}]`$ angular distribution may well be affected by hadronic uncertainties at the $`10\%`$ level. These hadronic uncertainties, which may become an important issue in the LHC era LHC-BOOK , can be controlled through $`B_dJ/\psi \rho ^0`$, exhibiting some other interesting features RF-ang . Since $`B_sJ/\psi \varphi `$ shows small CP-violating effects in the Standard Model because of (85), this mode represents a sensitive probe to search for new-physics contributions to $`B_s^0`$$`\overline{B_s^0}`$ mixing NiSi . Note that new-physics effects entering at the $`B_sJ/\psi \varphi `$ amplitude level are expected to play a minor rôle and can already be probed in the $`BJ/\psi K`$ system FM-BpsiK . For a detailed discussion of “smoking-gun” signals of a sizeable value of $`\varphi _s`$, see DFN . There, also methods to determine this phase unambiguously are proposed.

## 7 Recent Developments

### 7.1 Status of $`B\pi K`$ Decays

If we employ flavour-symmetry arguments and make plausible dynamical assumptions, $`B\pi K`$ decays allow determinations of $`\gamma `$ and hadronic parameters with a “minimal” theoretical input GRL GR-BpiK-recent . Alternative strategies, relying on a more extensive use of theory, are provided by the QCD factorization BBNS1 ; BBNS2 ; BBNS3  and PQCD PQCD ; SU  approaches, which furthermore allow a reduction of the theoretical uncertainties of the flavour-symmetry strategies. These topics are discussed in detail in neubert . Let us here focus on the former kind of strategies.

To get more familiar with $`B\pi K`$ modes, let us consider $`B_d^0\pi ^{}K^+`$. As can be seen in Fig. 12, this channel receives contributions from penguin and colour-allowed tree-diagram-like topologies, where the latter bring $`\gamma `$ into the game. Because of the small ratio $`|V_{us}V_{ub}^{}/(V_{ts}V_{tb}^{})|0.02`$, the QCD penguin topologies dominate this decay, despite their loop suppression. This interesting feature applies to all $`B\pi K`$ modes. Because of the large top-quark mass, we also have to care about EW penguins. However, in the case of $`B_d^0\pi ^{}K^+`$ and $`B^+\pi ^+K^0`$, these topologies contribute only in colour-suppressed form and are hence expected to play a minor rôle. On the other hand, EW penguins contribute also in colour-allowed form to $`B^+\pi ^0K^+`$ and $`B_d^0\pi ^0K^0`$, and may here even compete with tree-diagram-like topologies. Because of the dominance of penguin topologies, $`B\pi K`$ modes are sensitive probes for new-physics effects BPIK-NP .

Relations between the $`B\pi K`$ amplitudes that are implied by the $`SU(2)`$ isospin flavour symmetry of strong interactions suggest the following combinations to probe $`\gamma `$: the “mixed” $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm K`$, $`B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm `$ system PAPIII defan , the “charged” $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm K`$, $`B^\pm \pi ^0K^\pm `$ system NR BF-neutral1 , and the “neutral” $`B_d\pi ^0K`$, $`B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm `$ system BF-neutral1 ; BF-neutral2 . Correspondingly, we may introduce the following sets of observables BF-neutral1 :

$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}R\\ A_0\end{array}\right\}\left[\frac{\text{BR}(B_d^0\pi ^{}K^+)\pm \text{BR}(\overline{B_d^0}\pi ^+K^{})}{\text{BR}(B^+\pi ^+K^0)+\text{BR}(B^{}\pi ^{}\overline{K^0})}\right]\frac{\tau _{B^+}}{\tau _{B_d^0}}$$
(86)
$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}R_\mathrm{c}\\ A_0^\mathrm{c}\end{array}\right\}2\left[\frac{\text{BR}(B^+\pi ^0K^+)\pm \text{BR}(B^{}\pi ^0K^{})}{\text{BR}(B^+\pi ^+K^0)+\text{BR}(B^{}\pi ^{}\overline{K^0})}\right]$$
(87)
$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}R_\mathrm{n}\\ A_0^\mathrm{n}\end{array}\right\}\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\text{BR}(B_d^0\pi ^{}K^+)\pm \text{BR}(\overline{B_d^0}\pi ^+K^{})}{\text{BR}(B_d^0\pi ^0K^0)+\text{BR}(\overline{B_d^0}\pi ^0\overline{K^0})}\right].$$
(88)
The experimental status of these observables is summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Moreover, there are stringent constraints on CP violation in $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm K`$:

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \pi ^\pm K)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.17\pm 0.10\pm 0.02\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{BaBar-BpiK}\text{)}\hfill \\ 0.46\pm 0.15\pm 0.02\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{Belle-BpiK}\text{).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(89)
Let us note that a very recent preliminary study of Belle indicates that the large asymmetry in (89) is due to a $`3\sigma `$ fluctuation suzuki . Within the Standard Model, a sizeable value of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}(B^\pm \pi ^\pm K)`$ could be induced by large rescattering effects. Other important indicators for such processes are branching ratios for $`BKK`$ decays, which are already strongly constrained by the $`B`$ factories, and would allow us to take into account rescattering effects in the extraction of $`\gamma `$ from $`B\pi K`$ modes defan ; neubert-BpiK ; BF-neutral1 ; FSI-incl . Let us note that also the QCD factorization approach neubert ; BBNS1 ; BBNS2 ; BBNS3  is not in favour of large rescattering processes. For simplicity, we shall neglect such effects in the discussion given below. Interestingly, already CP-averaged $`B\pi K`$ branching ratios may lead to non-trivial constraints on $`\gamma `$ FM ; NR ; BF-neutral1 , provided the corresponding $`R_{(\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n})}`$ observables are found to be sufficiently different from 1. The final goal is, however, to determine $`\gamma `$.

Let us first turn to the charged and neutral $`B\pi K`$ systems in more detail. The starting point of our considerations are relations between the charged and neutral $`B\pi K`$ amplitudes that follow from the $`SU(2)`$ isospin symmetry of strong interactions. Assuming moreover that the rescattering effects discussed above are small, we arrive at a parametrization of the following structure BF-neutral1  (for an alternative one, see neubert-BpiK ):

$`R_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`12r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}\left(\mathrm{cos}\gamma q\right)\mathrm{cos}\delta _{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}+\left(12q\mathrm{cos}\gamma +q^2\right)r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}^2`$ (90)
$`A_0^{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`2r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}\mathrm{sin}\delta _{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}\mathrm{sin}\gamma .`$ (91)
Here $`r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ measures – simply speaking – the ratio of tree to penguin topologies. Using $`SU(3)`$ flavour-symmetry arguments and data on the CP-averaged $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ branching ratio GRL , we obtain $`r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}0.2`$. The parameter $`q`$ describes the ratio of EW penguin to tree contributions, and can be fixed through $`SU(3)`$ flavour-symmetry arguments, yielding $`q0.7`$ NR . In order to simplify (90) and (91), we have assumed that $`q`$ is a real parameter, as is the case in the strict $`SU(3)`$ limit; for generalizations, see BF-neutral1 . Finally, $`\delta _{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ is the CP-conserving strong phase between trees and penguins. Consequently, the observables $`R_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ and $`A_0^{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ depend on the two “unknowns” $`\delta _{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ and $`\gamma `$. If we vary them within their allowed ranges, i.e. $`180^{}\delta _{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}+180^{}`$ and $`0^{}\gamma 180^{}`$, we obtain an allowed region in the $`R_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$$`A_0^{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ plane FlMa2 ; FlMa1 . Should the measured values of $`R_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ and $`A_0^{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ lie outside this region, we would have an immediate signal for new physics. On the other hand, should the measurements fall into the allowed range, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ could be extracted. In this case, $`\gamma `$ could be compared with the results of alternative strategies and with the values implied by the “standard analysis” of the unitarity triangle discussed in Subsection 2.4, whereas $`\delta _{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ provides valuable insights into hadron dynamics, thereby allowing tests of theoretical predictions.

In Fig. 13, we show the allowed regions in the $`R_\mathrm{c}`$$`A_0^\mathrm{c}`$ plane for various parameter sets FlMa2 . The crosses represent the averages of the experimental results given in Tables 1 and 2. If $`\gamma `$ is constrained to the range implied by the “standard analysis” of the unitarity triangle,

$$50^{}<\gamma <70^{},$$
(92)
a much more restricted region arises in the $`R_\mathrm{c}`$$`A_0^\mathrm{c}`$ plane. The contours in Figs. 13 (c) and (d) allow us to read off easily the preferred values for $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$, respectively, from the measured observables FlMa2 . Interestingly, the present data seem to favour $`\gamma >90^{}`$, which would be in conflict with (92). Moreover, they point towards $`|\delta _\mathrm{c}|<90^{}`$; factorization predicts $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ to be close to $`0^{}`$ BBNS3 . The situation for the neutral $`B\pi K`$ system is illustrated in Fig. 14. Interestingly, here the data point to $`\gamma >90^{}`$ as well, but favour also $`|\delta _\mathrm{n}|>90^{}`$ because of the average of $`R_\mathrm{n}`$ being smaller than 1 FlMa2 ; BF-neutral2 . However, as can be seen in Table 1, the present data are unfortunately rather unsatisfactory in this respect.

If future, more accurate data really yield a value for $`\gamma `$ in the second quadrant, the discrepancy with (92) may be due to new-physics contributions to $`B_q^0`$$`\overline{B_q^0}`$ mixing ($`q\{d,s\}`$), or to the $`B\pi K`$ decay amplitudes. In the former case, the constraints implied by (83), which rely on the Standard-Model interpretation of $`B_q^0`$$`\overline{B_q^0}`$ mixing, would no longer hold, so that $`\gamma `$ may actually be larger than $`90^{}`$. In the latter case, the Standard-Model expressions (90) and (91) would receive corrections due to the presence of new physics, so that also the extracted value for $`\gamma `$ would not correspond to the Standard-Model result. In such a scenario – an example would be given by new-physics contributions to the EW penguin sector – also the extracted values for $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\delta _\mathrm{n}`$ may actually no longer satisfy $`\delta _\mathrm{c}\delta _\mathrm{n}`$ BF-neutral2 .

An analysis similar to the one discussed above can also be performed for the mixed $`B\pi K`$ system, consisting of $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm K`$, $`B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm `$ modes. To this end, only straightforward replacements of variables have to be made. The present data fall well into the Standard-Model region in observable space, but do not yet allow us to draw further definite conclusions FlMa2 . At present, the situation in the charged and neutral $`B\pi K`$ systems appears to be more exciting.

There are also many other recent analyses of $`B\pi K`$ modes. For example, a study complementary to the one in $`B\pi K`$ observable space was performed in ital-corr , where the allowed regions in the $`\gamma `$$`\delta _{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{n}}`$ planes implied by $`B\pi K`$ data were explored. Another recent $`B\pi K`$ analysis can be found in GR-BpiK-recent , where the $`R_{(\mathrm{c})}`$ were calculated for given values of $`A_0^{(\mathrm{c})}`$ as functions of $`\gamma `$, and were compared with the $`B`$-factory data. Making more extensive use of theory than in the flavour-symmetry strategies discussed above, several different avenues to extract $`\gamma `$ from $`B\pi K`$ modes are provided by the QCD factorization approach neubert ; BBNS3 , which allows also a reduction of the theoretical uncertainties of the flavour-symmetry approaches discussed above, in particular a better control of $`SU(3)`$-breaking effects. In order to analyse $`B\pi K`$ data, also sum rules relating CP-averaged branching ratios and CP asymmetries of $`B\pi K`$ modes may be useful matias .

### 7.2 The $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ System

As can be seen from Fig. 10, $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is related to $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ through an interchange of all down and strange quarks. The corresponding decay amplitudes can be expressed as follows RF-BsKK :

$$A(B_d^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=𝒞\left[e^{i\gamma }de^{i\theta }\right]$$
(93)
$$A(B_s^0K^+K^{})=\left(\frac{\lambda }{1\lambda ^2/2}\right)𝒞^{}\left[e^{i\gamma }+\left(\frac{1\lambda ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)d^{}e^{i\theta ^{}}\right],$$
(94)
where $`de^{i\theta }`$ was already introduced in (73), $`d^{}e^{i\theta ^{}}`$ is its $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ counterpart, and $`𝒞`$, $`𝒞^{}`$ are CP-conserving strong amplitudes. Using these general parametrizations, we obtain

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=\text{fct}(d,\theta ,\gamma ),𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})=\text{fct}(d,\theta ,\gamma ,\varphi _d)$$
(95)
$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_sK^+K^{})=\text{fct}(d^{},\theta ^{},\gamma ),𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_sK^+K^{})=\text{fct}(d^{},\theta ^{},\gamma ,\varphi _s),$$
(96)
where $`\varphi _s`$ is negligibly small in the Standard Model, or can be fixed through $`B_sJ/\psi \varphi `$. We have hence four observables at our disposal, depending on six “unknowns”. However, since $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ are related to each other by interchanging all down and strange quarks, the $`U`$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions implies

$$d^{}e^{i\theta ^{}}=de^{i\theta }.$$
(97)
Using this relation, the four observables in (95) and (96) depend on the four quantities $`d`$, $`\theta `$, $`\varphi _d`$ and $`\gamma `$, which can hence be determined RF-BsKK . The theoretical accuracy is only limited by the $`U`$-spin symmetry, as no dynamical assumptions about rescattering processes have to be made. Theoretical considerations give us confidence in (97), since this relation does not receive $`U`$-spin-breaking corrections within the factorization approach RF-BsKK . Moreover, we may also obtain experimental insights into $`U`$-spin breaking RF-BsKK ; gronau-U-spin . The $`U`$-spin arguments can be minimized, if the $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing phase $`\varphi _d`$, which can be fixed through $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$, is used as an input. We may then determine $`\gamma `$, as well as the hadronic quantities $`d`$, $`\theta `$, $`\theta ^{}`$, by using only the $`U`$-spin relation $`d^{}=d`$; for a detailed illustration, see RF-BsKK . This approach is very promising for run II of the Tevatron and the experiments of the LHC era, where experimental accuracies for $`\gamma `$ of $`𝒪(10^{})`$ TEV-BOOK  and $`𝒪(1^{})`$ LHC-BOOK  may be achieved, respectively. For other recently developed $`U`$-spin strategies, the reader is referred to RF-BdsPsiK ; RF-ang ; GR-Uspin ; skands .

Since $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ is not accessible at the $`e^+e^{}`$ $`B`$ factories operating at $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, data are not yet available. However, as can be seen by looking at the corresponding Feynman diagrams, $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ is related to $`B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm `$ through an interchange of spectator quarks. Consequently, we have

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_sK^+K^{})𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm )$$
(98)
$$\text{BR}(B_sK^+K^{})\text{BR}(B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm )\frac{\tau _{B_s}}{\tau _{B_d}}.$$
(99)
For the following considerations, the quantity

$$H\frac{1}{ϵ}\left|\frac{𝒞^{}}{𝒞}\right|^2\left[\frac{\text{BR}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\text{BR}(B_sK^+K^{})}\right]$$
(100)
is particularly useful U-variant , where $`ϵ\lambda ^2/(1\lambda ^2)`$. Using (99), as well as factorization to estimate $`U`$-spin-breaking corrections to $`|𝒞^{}|=|𝒞|`$, $`H`$ can be determined from the $`B`$-factory data as follows:

$$H\frac{1}{ϵ}\left(\frac{f_K}{f_\pi }\right)^2\left[\frac{\text{BR}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\text{BR}(B_d\pi ^{}K^\pm )}\right]=\{\begin{array}{cc}7.3\pm 2.9\hfill & \text{(CLEO }\text{CLEO-BpiK}\text{)}\hfill \\ 7.6\pm 1.2\hfill & \text{(BaBar }\text{BaBar-BpiK}\text{)}\hfill \\ 7.1\pm 1.9\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{Belle-BpiK}\text{).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(101)
If we employ the $`U`$-spin relation (97) and the amplitude parametrizations in (93) and (94), we obtain

$$H=\frac{12d\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\gamma +d^2}{ϵ^2+2ϵd\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\gamma +d^2}.$$
(102)
Consequently, $`H`$ allows us to determine $`C\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ as a function of $`d`$, as shown in Fig. 15. We observe that the data imply the rather restricted range $`0.2<d<1`$, thereby indicating that penguins cannot be neglected in $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ analyses. Moreover, the experimental curves are not in favour of a Standard-Model interpretation of the theoretical predictions for $`de^{i\theta }`$ obtained within the QCD factorization BBNS3  and PQCD SU  approaches. Interestingly, agreement could easily be achieved for $`\gamma >90^{}`$, as the circle and square in Fig. 15, calculated for $`\gamma =60^{}`$, would then move to positive values of $`C`$ FlMa2 ; U-variant .

Let us now come back to the decay $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and its CP-violating observables, as parametrized in (95). As we have already noted, $`\varphi _d`$ entering $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ can be fixed through $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S})`$, yielding the twofold solution in (61). In order to deal with the penguins, we may employ $`H`$ as an additional observable. Applying (97), we obtain $`H=\text{fct}(d,\theta ,\gamma )`$ (see (102)). We may then eliminate $`d`$ in (95) through $`H`$. If we vary the remaining parameters $`\theta `$ and $`\gamma `$ within their physical ranges, i.e. $`180^{}\theta +180^{}`$ and $`0^{}\gamma 180^{}`$, we obtain an allowed region in the $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ plane.

In Fig. 16, we show the corresponding results for the two solutions of $`\varphi _d`$ and for various values of $`H`$, as well as the contours arising for fixed values of $`\gamma `$ FlMa2 . We observe that the experimental averages, represented by the crosses, overlap nicely with the SM region for $`\varphi _d=47^{}`$, and point towards $`\gamma 55^{}`$. In this case, not only $`\gamma `$ would be in accordance with the results of the CKM fits described in Section 1, but also the $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing phase $`\varphi _d`$. On the other hand, for $`\varphi _d=133^{}`$, the experimental values favour $`\gamma 125^{}`$, and have essentially no overlap with the SM region. Since a value of $`\varphi _d=133^{}`$ would require CP-violating new-physics contributions to $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing, also the $`\gamma `$ range in (92) may no longer hold in this case, as it relies on a Standard-Model interpretation of the experimental information on $`B_{d,s}^0`$$`\overline{B_{d,s}^0}`$ mixing. In particular, also values for $`\gamma `$ larger than $`90^{}`$ could then in principle be accommodated. In order to put these observations on a more quantitative basis, we show in Fig. 17 the dependence of $`|𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})|`$ on $`\gamma `$ for given values of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ FlMa2 . If we vary $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ within its whole positive range $`[0,+1]`$, the shaded “hills” in Figs. 17 (a) and (b) arise. In the case of $`\varphi _d=47^{}`$, which is in agreement with the CKM fits, we may conveniently accommodate the Standard-Model range (92). On the other hand, we obtain a gap around $`\gamma 60^{}`$ for $`\varphi _d=133^{}`$. Taking into account the experimental averages given in (77) and (78), we obtain

$$34^{}<\gamma <75^{}(\varphi _d=47^{}),105^{}<\gamma <146^{}(\varphi _d=133^{}).$$
(103)
If we vary $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ within its whole negative range, both solutions for $`\varphi _d`$ could accommodate (92), as can be seen in Figs. 17 (c) and (d), so that the situation would not be as exciting as for a positive value of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$. In the future, the experimental uncertainties will be reduced considerably, i.e. the experimental bands in Fig. 17 will become much more narrow, thereby providing significantly more stringent results for $`\gamma `$, as well as the hadronic parameters. For a detailed discussion of the corresponding theoretical uncertainties, as well as simplifications that could be made through factorization, see FlMa2 .

In analogy to the analysis of the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode discussed above, we may also use $`H`$ to eliminate $`d^{}`$ in $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_sK^+K^{})`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_sK^+K^{})`$. If we then vary $`\theta ^{}`$ and $`\gamma `$ within their physical ranges, i.e. $`180^{}\theta ^{}+180^{}`$ and $`0^{}\gamma 180^{}`$, we obtain an allowed region in the $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(B_sK^+K^{})`$$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}(B_sK^+K^{})`$ plane FlMa2 , as shown in Fig. 18. There, also the impact of a non-vanishing value of $`\varphi _s`$, which may be due to new-physics contributions to $`B_s^0`$$`\overline{B_s^0}`$ mixing, is illustrated. If we constrain $`\gamma `$ to (92), even more restricted regions arise. The allowed regions are remarkably stable with respect to variations of parameters characterizing $`U`$-spin-breaking effects FlMa2 , and represent a narrow target range for run II of the Tevatron and the experiments of the LHC era, in particular LHCb and BTeV. These experiments will allow us to exploit the whole physics potential of the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ system RF-BsKK .

## 8 Remarks on the “Usual” Rare $`B`$ Decays

Let us finally comment briefly on other “rare” $`B`$ decays, which occur only at the one-loop level in the Standard Model, and involve $`\overline{b}\overline{s}`$ or $`\overline{b}\overline{d}`$ flavour-changing neutral-current transitions. Prominent examples are the following decay modes: $`BK^{}\gamma `$, $`B\rho \gamma `$, $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. The corresponding inclusive decays, for example $`BX_s\gamma `$, are also of particular interest, suffering from smaller theoretical uncertainties. Within the Standard Model, these transitions exhibit small branching ratios at the $`10^4`$$`10^{10}`$ level, do not – apart from $`B\rho \gamma `$ – show sizeable CP-violating effects, and depend on $`|V_{ts}|`$ or $`|V_{td}|`$. A measurement of these CKM factors through such decays would be complementary to the one from $`B_{s,d}^0`$$`\overline{B_{s,d}^0}`$ mixing. Since rare $`B`$ decays are absent at the tree level in the Standard Model, they represent interesting probes to search for new physics. For detailed discussions of the many interesting aspects of rare $`B`$ decays, the reader is referred to the lecture given by Mannel at this school mannel , and to the overview articles listed in isidori ; rare .

## 9 Conclusions and Outlook

The phenomenology of the $`B`$ system is very rich and represents an exciting field of research. Thanks to the efforts of the BaBar and Belle collaborations, CP violation could recently be established in the $`B`$ system with the help of the “gold-plated” mode $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$, thereby opening a new era in the exploration of CP-violating phenomena. The world average $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.734\pm 0.054`$ agrees now well with the Standard Model, but leaves a twofold solution for $`\varphi _d`$, given by $`\varphi _d=\left(47_4^{+5}\right)^{}\left(133_5^{+4}\right)^{}`$. The former solution is in accordance with the picture of the Standard Model, whereas the latter would point towards CP-violating new-physics contributions to $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing. As we have seen, it is an important issue to resolve this ambiguity directly.

The physics potential of the $`B`$ factories goes far beyond the famous $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ decay, allowing us now to confront many more strategies to explore CP violation with data. Here the main goal is to overconstrain the unitarity triangle as much as possible, thereby performing a stringent test of the KM mechanism of CP violation. In this respect, important benchmark modes are given by $`B\pi \pi `$, $`B\varphi K`$ and $`B\pi K`$ decays. First exciting data on these channels are already available from the $`B`$ factories, but do not yet allow us to draw definite conclusions. In the future, the picture should, however, improve significantly.

Another important element in the testing of the Standard-Model description of CP violation is the $`B_s`$-meson system, which is not accessible at the $`e^+e^{}`$ $`B`$ factories operating at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, BaBar and Belle, but can be studied nicely at hadron collider experiments. Already, run II of the Tevatron is expected to provide interesting results on $`B_s`$ physics, and should discover $`B_s^0`$$`\overline{B_s^0}`$ mixing soon, which is an important ingredient for the “standard” analysis of the unitarity triangle. Important $`B_s`$ decays are $`B_sJ/\psi \varphi `$, $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ and $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$. Although the Tevatron will provide first insights into these modes, they can only be fully exploited at the experiments of the LHC era, in particular LHCb and BTeV.

Apart from issues related to CP violation, several $`B`$-decay strategies allow also the determination of hadronic parameters, which can then be compared with theoretical predictions and may help us to control the corresponding hadronic uncertainties in a better way. Moreover, there are many other exciting aspects of $`B`$ physics, for instance studies of certain rare $`B`$ decays, which represent also sensitive probes for new physics. Hopefully, the future will bring many surprising results!


format: text

text:
# X-RAY EMISSION FROM THE MOST LUMINOUS 𝐙>𝟒 PALOMAR DIGITAL SKY SURVEY QUASARS: THE CHANDRA VIEW

## 1 Introduction. Observational and scientific strategy

Our understanding of quasar X-ray properties at $`z>4`$ has advanced rapidly over the past few years, mostly thanks to the capabilities of Chandra and XMM-Newton. Prior to 2000 there were only six X-ray detected quasars at $`z>4`$. The first systematic X-ray study of $`z>4`$ quasars, carried out using archival ROSAT data $`^\mathrm{?}`$, doubled the number of X-ray detected quasars at $`z>4`$. Recent ground-based optical surveys have discovered a large number of AGNs at $`z>4`$. In particular, the Palomar Digital Sky Survey $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (PSS), the Automatic Plate Measuring facility survey $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (BRI), and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (SDSS) have discovered more than 300 $`z>4`$ quasarsaaaSee http://www.astro.caltech.edu/$``$george/z4.qsos for a listing of high-redshift quasars. up to $`z=6.28`$. To define the basic X-ray properties of $`z>4`$ quasars in two different regions of the luminosity-redshift parameter space, we started a program to observe with Chandra and XMM-Newton both the optically brightest $`z`$ 4–4.6 PSS/BRI quasars and the higher-redshift, optically fainter SDSS quasars (Fig. 1, left panel). Since the pioneering work with ROSAT$`^\mathrm{?}`$, the number of AGNs with X-ray detections has increased significantly to $``$ 50 (see Fig. 1, right panel)bbbSee http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/niel/papers/highz-xray-detected.dat for a regularly updated compilation of X-ray detections at $`z>4`$. in the redshift range $`z`$ 4–6.3. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$

Here we report the results obtained from Chandra observations of nine PSS quasars selected from among the optically brightest $`z>4`$ quasars known. An extensive analysis is presented in V02. These quasars are likely to comprise a significant fraction of the most luminous optically selected $`z>4`$ quasars over the forthcoming years. They also represent ideal targets for X-ray spectroscopy with XMM-Newton and the next-generation of X-ray telescopes.

## 2 Results

Chandra and other exploratory X-ray observations have defined the typical fluxes and luminosities of $`z>4`$ quasars. As shown in Fig. 2, quasars at $`z>4`$ are generally faint X-ray sources, with 0.5–2 keV fluxes $`<4\times 10^{14}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. The PSS quasars presented here (filled triangles in Fig. 2) are among the X-ray brightest $`z>4`$ quasars; they have $``$ 10–70 counts in the observed 0.5–8 keV band in a typical $``$ 5 ks Chandra observation. The correlation between soft X-ray flux and $`AB_{1450(1+z)}`$ magnitude, evident in Fig. 2, is significant at 99.99% confidence when the PSS/BRI/SDSS $`z>4`$ quasars observed by Chandra are taken into account (excluding the broad absorption-line quasars, which are known to suffer from intrinsic absorption $`^\mathrm{?}`$).

The average $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ for the nine optically luminous PSS quasars is $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$=$``$1.81$`\pm 0.03`$, considerably steeper than that obtained for samples of local quasars \[e.g., the Bright Quasar Survey $`^\mathrm{?}`$ radio-quiet quasars (RQQs) at $`z<0.5`$ have $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$=$``$1.56$`\pm 0.02`$$`^\mathrm{?}`$\]. A likely explanation for the range of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ values found among the RQQ population is that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ depends upon 2500 Å rest-frame luminosity. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The possibility that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ steepens at high redshifts because of the presence of X-ray absorption is ruled out by our spectral analysis of the nine PSS quasars. Their joint X-ray spectrum is well fitted by a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.98\pm 0.16`$ power-law model (similarly to the majority of lower-redshift quasars $`^\mathrm{?}`$) without any evidence for intrinsic absorption ($`N_\mathrm{H}\stackrel{<}{}8.8\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 at 90% confidence; see Fig. 3).

## Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support of NASA grants NAS 8-01128 (GPG) and LTSA NAG5-8107 (CV, WNB), Chandra X-ray Center grant DD1-2012X (CV, WNB, DPS), and NSF grant AST99-00703 (DPS). CV also acknowledges partial support from the Italian Space Agency and MURST.

## References