format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The exploration of CP violation through studies of $`B`$-meson decays is one of the most exciting topics of present particle physics phenomenology, the main goal being to perform stringent tests of the Kobayashi–Maskawa mechanism . Here the central target is the unitarity triangle of the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix, with its angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ (for a detailed review, see ). Thanks to the efforts of the BaBar (SLAC) and Belle (KEK) collaborations, CP violation could recently be established in the neutral $`B_d`$-meson system with the help of $`B_dJ/\psi K_\mathrm{S}`$ and similar decays . These modes allow us to determine $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _d`$, where the present world average is given by $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _d=0.734\pm 0.054`$ , implying the twofold solution $`\varphi _d=(47_4^{+5})^{}(133_5^{+4})^{}`$ for the $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing phase $`\varphi _d`$, which equals $`2\beta `$ in the Standard Model. Here the former solution would be in perfect agreement with the “indirect” range following from the Standard-Model “CKM fits”, $`40^{}\mathrm{}<\varphi _d\mathrm{}<60^{}`$ , whereas the latter would correspond to new physics . Measuring the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _d`$, the two solutions can be distinguished. Several strategies to accomplish this important task were proposed ; an analysis using the time-dependent angular distribution of the decay products of $`B_dJ/\psi [\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}]K^{}[\pi ^0K_\mathrm{S}]`$  is already in progress at the $`B`$ factories .

An important ingredient for the testing of the Kobayashi–Maskawa picture is provided by transitions of the kind $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{},D_s^\pm K^{},\mathrm{}`$  and $`B_dD^\pm \pi ^{},D^\pm \pi ^{},\mathrm{}`$ , allowing theoretically clean determinations of the weak phases $`\varphi _s+\gamma `$ and $`\varphi _d+\gamma `$, respectively, where $`\varphi _s`$ is the $`B_s`$-meson counterpart of $`\varphi _d`$, which is negligibly small in the Standard Model. It is convenient to write these decays generically as $`B_q^0D_q\overline{u}_q`$, so that we may easily distinguish between the following cases:

* $`q=s`$: $`D_s\{D_s^+,D_s^+,\mathrm{}\}`$, $`u_s\{K^+,K^+,\mathrm{}\}`$,
* $`q=d`$: $`D_d\{D^+,D^+,\mathrm{}\}`$, $`u_d\{\pi ^+,\rho ^+,\mathrm{}\}`$.

In the discussion given below, we shall only consider $`B_q^0D_q\overline{u}_q`$ decays, where at least one of the $`D_q`$, $`\overline{u}_q`$ states is a pseudoscalar meson. In the opposite case, for example the $`B_s^0D_s^+K^{}`$ decay, the extraction of weak phases would require a complicated angular analysis . If we look at Fig. 1, we observe that $`B_q^0D_q\overline{u}_q`$ originates from colour-allowed tree-diagram-like topologies, and that also a $`\overline{B_q^0}`$ meson may decay into the same final state $`D_q\overline{u}_q`$. The latter feature leads to interference effects between $`B_q^0`$$`\overline{B_q^0}`$ mixing and decay processes, allowing the extraction of $`\varphi _q+\gamma `$ with an eightfold discrete ambiguity. Since $`\varphi _q`$ can be straightforwardly fixed separately , we may determine the angle $`\gamma `$ of the unitarity triangle from this CP-violating weak phase.

In Section 2, we focus on the $`B_qD_q\overline{u}_q`$ decay amplitudes and rate asymmetries, and investigate the relevant hadronic parameters with the help of “factorization”. In this section, we shall also point out that a subtle factor $`(1)^L`$ arises in the expressions for the mixing-induced observables, where $`L`$ denotes the angular momentum of the $`D_q\overline{u}_q`$ system, and show explicitly the cancellation of phase-convention-dependent parameters within the factorization approach. After discussing the “conventional” extraction of $`\varphi _q+\gamma `$ and the associated multiple discrete ambiguities in Section 3, we emphasize the usefulness of “untagged” rate measurements for efficient determinations of weak phases from $`B_qD_q\overline{u}_q`$ decays in Section 4, and suggest several novel strategies. In Section 5, we then derive bounds on $`\varphi _q+\gamma `$, and illustrate their potential power with the help of a few numerical examples. In Section 6, we propose a combined analysis of $`B_sD_s\overline{u}_s`$ and $`B_dD_d\overline{u}_d`$ modes, which has important advantages with respect to the conventional separate determinations of $`\varphi _s+\gamma `$ and $`\varphi _d+\gamma `$, offering various attractive new avenues to extract $`\gamma `$ in an essentially unambiguous manner and to obtain valuable insights into hadron dynamics. Finally, we conclude in Section 7.

## 2 Amplitudes, Rate Asymmetries and Factorization

### 2.1 Amplitudes

The $`B_qD_q\overline{u}_q`$ decays are the colour-allowed counterparts of the $`B_sD\eta ^{(^{})},D\varphi ,\mathrm{}`$ and $`B_dD\pi ^0,D\rho ^0,\mathrm{}`$ channels, which were recently analysed in detail in . If we follow the same avenue, and take also the Feynman diagrams shown in Fig. 1 into account, we may write

$$A(\overline{B_q^0}D_q\overline{u}_q)=\overline{u}_qD_q|_{\mathrm{eff}}(\overline{B_q^0}D_q\overline{u}_q)|\overline{B_q^0}=\frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{v}_q\overline{M}_q,$$
(2.1)
where the hadronic matrix element

$$\overline{M}_q\overline{u}_qD_q|\overline{𝒪}_1^qC_1(\mu )+\overline{𝒪}_2^qC_2(\mu )|\overline{B_q^0}$$
(2.2)
involves the current–current operators

$$\overline{𝒪}_1^q(\overline{q}_\alpha u_\beta )_{\text{V–A}}\left(\overline{c}_\beta b_\alpha \right)_{\text{V–A}},\overline{𝒪}_2^q(\overline{q}_\alpha u_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}\left(\overline{c}_\beta b_\beta \right)_{\text{V–A}}.$$
(2.3)
The CKM factors $`\overline{v}_q`$ are given by

$$\overline{v}_sV_{us}^{}V_{cb}=A\lambda ^3,\overline{v}_dV_{ud}^{}V_{cb}=A\lambda ^2(1\lambda ^2/2),$$
(2.4)
with (for the numerical value, see )

$$A\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}|V_{cb}|=0.83\pm 0.02,$$
(2.5)
and $`\lambda |V_{us}|=0.22`$ is the usual Wolfenstein parameter .

On the other hand, the $`B_q^0D_q\overline{u}_q`$ decay amplitude takes the following form:

$`A(B_q^0D_q\overline{u}_q)=\overline{u}_qD_q|_{\mathrm{eff}}(B_q^0D_q\overline{u}_q)|B_q^0`$ (2.6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}}v_q^{}\overline{u}_qD_q|𝒪_1^qC_1(\mu )+𝒪_2^qC_2(\mu )|B_q^0,`$
where we have to deal with the current–current operators

$$𝒪_1^q(\overline{q}_\alpha c_\beta )_{\text{V–A}}\left(\overline{u}_\beta b_\alpha \right)_{\text{V–A}},𝒪_2^q(\overline{q}_\alpha c_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}\left(\overline{u}_\beta b_\beta \right)_{\text{V–A}},$$
(2.7)
and the CKM factors $`v_q`$ are given by

$$v_sV_{cs}^{}V_{ub}=A\lambda ^3R_be^{i\gamma },v_dV_{cd}^{}V_{ub}=\left(\frac{A\lambda ^4R_b}{1\lambda ^2/2}\right)e^{i\gamma },$$
(2.8)
with (for the numerical value, see )

$$R_b\left(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\right)\frac{1}{\lambda }\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|=\sqrt{\overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=0.39\pm 0.04.$$
(2.9)
If we introduce convention-dependent CP phases through

$$(𝒞𝒫)|F=e^{i\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(F)}|\overline{F},(𝒞𝒫)|\overline{F}=e^{i\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(F)}|F$$
(2.10)
for $`F\{B_q,D_q,u_q\}`$, we obtain

$$(𝒞𝒫)|D_q\overline{u}_q=(1)^Le^{i[\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(D_q)\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(u_q)]}|\overline{D}_qu_q,$$
(2.11)
where $`L`$ denotes the angular momentum of the $`D_q\overline{u}_q`$ state. As we shall see below, the subtle $`(1)^L`$ factor enters in mixing-induced observables, and plays an important rôle for the extraction of weak phases from these quantities in the presence of non-trivial angular momenta, for instance in the case of $`B_d^0D^+\pi ^{}`$. In the literature, this factor does not show up explicitly in the context of $`B_q^0D_q\overline{u}_q`$ modes, but it was recently pointed out in the analysis of their colour-suppressed counterparts in . If we now employ, as in these papers, the operator relations

$$(𝒞𝒫)^{}(𝒞𝒫)=\widehat{1},$$
(2.12)
$$(𝒞𝒫)𝒪_k^q(𝒞𝒫)^{}=𝒪_k^q,$$
(2.13)
we may rewrite (2.6) as

$$A(B_q^0D_q\overline{u}_q)=(1)^Le^{i[\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(B_q)\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(D_q)+\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(u_q)]}\frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}v_q^{}M_q,$$
(2.14)
where

$$M_qu_q\overline{D}_q|𝒪_1^qC_1(\mu )+𝒪_2^qC_2(\mu )|\overline{B_q^0}.$$
(2.15)
It should be noted that also certain exchange topologies contribute to $`B_q^0D_q\overline{u}_q`$, $`\overline{B_q^0}D_q\overline{u}_q`$ transitions, which were – for simplicity – not shown in Fig. 1. However, these additional diagrams do not affect the phase structure of the amplitudes in (2.1) and (2.14), and manifest themselves only through tiny contributions to the hadronic matrix elements $`\overline{M}_q`$ and $`M_q`$ given in (2.2) and (2.15), respectively. We shall come back to these topologies in Subsection 4.2, noting also how they may be probed experimentally.

An analogous calculation for the $`\overline{B_q^0}\overline{D}_qu_q`$ and $`B_q^0\overline{D}_qu_q`$ processes yields

$$A(\overline{B_q^0}\overline{D}_qu_q)=\frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}v_qM_q$$
(2.16)
$$A(B_q^0\overline{D}_qu_q)=(1)^Le^{i[\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(B_q)+\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(D_q)\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(u_q)]}\frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{v}_q^{}\overline{M}_q,$$
(2.17)
where the same hadronic matrix elements as in the $`B_q^0D_q\overline{u}_q`$, $`\overline{B_q^0}D_q\overline{u}_q`$ modes arise.

### 2.2 Rate Asymmetries

Let us first consider $`B_q`$ decays into $`D_q\overline{u}_q`$. Since both a $`B_q^0`$ and a $`\overline{B_q^0}`$ meson may decay into this state, we obtain a time-dependent rate asymmetry of the following form :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_q^0(t)D_q\overline{u}_q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B_q^0}(t)D_q\overline{u}_q)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_q^0(t)D_q\overline{u}_q)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B_q^0}(t)D_q\overline{u}_q)}}`$ (2.18)
$`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{C(B_qD_q\overline{u}_q)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_qt)+S(B_qD_q\overline{u}_q)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_qt)}{\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_qt/2)𝒜_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B_qD_q\overline{u}_q)\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_qt/2)}}\right],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_qM_\mathrm{H}^{(q)}M_\mathrm{L}^{(q)}>0`$ is the mass difference of the $`B_q`$ mass eigenstates $`B_q^\mathrm{H}`$ (“heavy”) and $`B_q^\mathrm{L}`$ (“light”), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{H}^{(q)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}^{(q)}`$ denotes their decay width difference, providing the observable $`𝒜_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}(B_qD_q\overline{u}_q)`$. Before we turn to this quantity in the context of the “untagged” rates discussed in Subsection 4.1, let us first focus on $`C(B_qD_q\overline{u}_q)`$ and $`S(B_qD_q\overline{u}_q)`$. These observables are given by

$$C(B_qD_q\overline{u}_q)C_q=\frac{1\left|\xi _q\right|^2}{1+\left|\xi _q\right|^2},S(B_qD_q\overline{u}_q)S_q=\frac{2\text{Im}\xi _q}{1+\left|\xi _q\right|^2},$$
(2.19)
where

$$\xi _qe^{i\varphi _q}\left[e^{i\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(B_q)}\frac{A(\overline{B_q^0}D_q\overline{u}_q)}{A(B_q^0D_q\overline{u}_q)}\right]$$
(2.20)
measures the strength of the interference effects between the $`B_q^0`$$`\overline{B_q^0}`$ mixing and decay processes, involving the CP-violating weak $`B_q^0`$$`\overline{B_q^0}`$ mixing phase

$$\varphi _q2\text{arg}(V_{tq}^{}V_{tb})\stackrel{\mathrm{SM}}{=}\{\begin{array}{cc}+2\beta =𝒪(50^{})& \text{(}q=d\text{)}\hfill \\ 2\lambda ^2\eta =𝒪(2^{})& \text{(}q=s\text{).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.21)
If we now insert (2.1) and (2.14) into (2.20), we observe that the convention-dependent phase $`\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(B_q)`$ is cancelled through the amplitude ratio, and arrive at

$$\xi _q=(1)^Le^{i(\varphi _q+\gamma )}\left[\frac{1}{x_qe^{i\delta _q}}\right],$$
(2.22)
where

$$x_sR_ba_s,x_d\left(\frac{\lambda ^2R_b}{1\lambda ^2}\right)a_d,$$
(2.23)
with

$$a_qe^{i\delta _q}e^{i[\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(D_q)\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(u_q)]}\frac{M_q}{\overline{M}_q}.$$
(2.24)
The convention-dependent phases $`\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(D_q)`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(u_q)`$ in (2.24) are cancelled through the ratio of hadronic matrix elements, so that $`a_qe^{i\delta _q}`$ is actually a physical observable. Employing the factorization approach to deal with the hadronic matrix elements, we shall demonstrate this explicitly in Subsection 2.3. We may now apply (2.19), yielding

$$C_q=\left[\frac{1x_q^2}{1+x_q^2}\right],S_q=(1)^L\left[\frac{2x_q\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _q+\gamma +\delta _q)}{1+x_q^2}\right].$$
(2.25)
If we perform an analogous calculation for the decays into the CP-conjugate final state $`\overline{D}_qu_q`$, we obtain

$$\overline{\xi }_q=e^{i\varphi _q}\left[e^{i\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(B_q)}\frac{A(\overline{B_q^0}\overline{D}_qu_q)}{A(B_q^0\overline{D}_qu_q)}\right]=(1)^Le^{i(\varphi _q+\gamma )}\left[x_qe^{i\delta _q}\right],$$
(2.26)
which implies

$$\overline{C}_q=+\left[\frac{1x_q^2}{1+x_q^2}\right],\overline{S}_q=(1)^L\left[\frac{2x_q\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _q+\gamma \delta _q)}{1+x_q^2}\right],$$
(2.27)
where $`\overline{C}_qC(B_q\overline{D}_qu_q)`$ and $`\overline{S}_qS(B_q\overline{D}_qu_q)`$.

It should be noted that $`\overline{\xi }_q`$ and $`\xi _q`$ satisfy the relation

$$\overline{\xi }_q\times \xi _q=e^{i2(\varphi _q+\gamma )},$$
(2.28)
where the hadronic parameter $`x_qe^{i\delta _q}`$ cancels. Consequently, we may extract $`\varphi _q+\gamma `$ in a theoretically clean way from the corresponding observables. For our purposes, it will be convenient to introduce the following quantities:

$$C_q_+\frac{\overline{C}_q+C_q}{2}=0$$
(2.29)
$$C_q_{}\frac{\overline{C}_qC_q}{2}=\frac{1x_q^2}{1+x_q^2}$$
(2.30)
$$S_q_+\frac{\overline{S}_q+S_q}{2}=+(1)^L\left[\frac{2x_q\mathrm{cos}\delta _q}{1+x_q^2}\right]\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _q+\gamma )$$
(2.31)
$$S_q_{}\frac{\overline{S}_qS_q}{2}=(1)^L\left[\frac{2x_q\mathrm{sin}\delta _q}{1+x_q^2}\right]\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _q+\gamma ).$$
(2.32)
We observe that the factor $`(1)^L`$ is crucial for the correctness of the sign of the mixing-induced observable combinations $`S_q_+`$ and $`S_q_{}`$. In particular, if we fix the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}\delta _q`$ through factorization arguments, we may determine the sign of $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _q+\gamma )`$ from the measured sign of $`S_q_+`$, providing valuable information. If we consider, for example, $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$ or $`B_dD^\pm \pi ^{}`$ modes, we have $`L=1`$, and obtain a non-trivial factor of $`(1)^1=1`$. On the other hand, we have $`(1)^0=+1`$ in the case of $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$ or $`B_dD^\pm \pi ^{}`$ channels. Let us next analyse the hadronic parameter $`a_qe^{i\delta _q}`$ with the help of the factorization approach.

### 2.3 Factorization

Because of “colour-transparency” arguments , the factorization of the hadronic matrix elements of four-quark operators into the product of hadronic matrix elements of two quark currents can be nicely motivated for the decay $`\overline{B_q^0}D_q\overline{u}_q`$, involving the matrix element $`\overline{M}_q`$. Recently, this picture could be put on a much more solid theoretical basis . On the other hand, these arguments do not apply to the $`\overline{B_q^0}\overline{D}_qu_q`$ channel entering $`M_q`$, since there the spectator quark $`q`$ ends up in the $`u_q`$ meson, which is not “heavy” (see Fig. 1). In order to analyse the hadronic parameter $`a_qe^{i\delta _q}`$ introduced in (2.24), it is nevertheless instructive to apply “naïve” factorization not only to (2.2), but also to (2.15), yielding

$$\overline{M}_q|_{\mathrm{fact}}=a_1\overline{u}_q|(\overline{q}_\alpha u_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}|0D_q|(\overline{c}_\beta b_\beta )_{\text{V–A}}|\overline{B_q^0}$$
(2.33)
$$M_q|_{\mathrm{fact}}=a_1\overline{D}_q|(\overline{q}_\alpha c_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}|0u_q|(\overline{u}_\beta b_\beta )_{\text{V–A}}|\overline{B_q^0},$$
(2.34)
where

$$a_1=\frac{C_1(\mu _\mathrm{F})}{N_\mathrm{C}}+C_2(\mu _\mathrm{F})1$$
(2.35)
is the well-known phenomenological colour factor for colour-allowed decays , with a factorization scale $`\mu _\mathrm{F}`$ and a number $`N_\mathrm{C}`$ of quark colours.

To be specific, let us consider the decays $`\overline{B_s^0}D_s^{()+}K^{}`$ and $`\overline{B_d^0}D^{()+}\pi ^{}`$, i.e. $`u_s=K^+`$, $`u_d=\pi ^+`$ and $`D_s=D_s^{()+}`$, $`D_d=D^{()+}`$. Using (2.10) and (2.12), as well as

$$(𝒞𝒫)\left[\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)u\right](𝒞𝒫)^{}=\left[\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q\right],$$
(2.36)
we obtain

$`\overline{u}_q|(\overline{q}_\alpha u_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}|0`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(u_q)}u_q|(\overline{u}_\alpha q_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}|0`$ (2.37)
$`\overline{D}_q|(\overline{q}_\alpha c_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}|0`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(D_q)}D_q|(\overline{c}_\alpha q_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}|0`$ (2.38)
for the pseudoscalar mesons, and

$$\overline{D}_q|(\overline{q}_\alpha c_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}|0=+e^{i\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}(D_q)}D_q|(\overline{c}_\alpha q_\alpha )_{\text{V–A}}|0$$
(2.39)
for the vector mesons $`D_s=D_s^+`$ and $`D_d=D^+`$. If we now use these expressions in (2.33) and (2.34), we see explicitly that the phase-convention-dependent factor in (2.24) is cancelled through the ratio of hadronic matrix elements, thereby yielding a convention-independent result. In the case of the decays $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$ and $`B_dD^\pm \pi ^{}`$, we obtain

$$a_se^{i\delta _s}|_{\mathrm{fact}}=\frac{f_{D_s}F_{B_sK^\pm }^{(0)}(M_{D_s}^2)(M_{B_s}^2M_{K^\pm }^2)}{f_{K^\pm }F_{B_sD_s}^{(0)}(M_{K^\pm }^2)(M_{B_s}^2M_{D_s}^2)}$$
(2.40)
and

$$a_de^{i\delta _d}|_{\mathrm{fact}}=\frac{f_{D_d}F_{B_d\pi ^\pm }^{(0)}(M_{D_d}^2)(M_{B_d}^2M_{\pi ^\pm }^2)}{f_{\pi ^\pm }F_{B_dD_d}^{(0)}(M_{\pi ^\pm }^2)(M_{B_d}^2M_{D_d}^2)},$$
(2.41)
respectively. If we apply heavy-quark arguments to the $`\overline{B_s^0}D_s^+K^{}`$ and $`\overline{B_d^0}D^+\pi ^{}`$ modes , we arrive at

$$a_se^{i\delta _s}|_{\mathrm{fact}}=\frac{2f_{D_s}F_{B_sK^\pm }^{(0)}(M_{D_s}^2)(M_{B_s}^2M_{K^\pm }^2)\sqrt{M_{B_s}M_{D_s}}}{f_{K^\pm }\xi _s(w_s)(M_{B_s}M_{D_s})[(M_{B_s}+M_{D_s})^2M_{K^\pm }^2]}$$
(2.42)
$$a_de^{i\delta _d}|_{\mathrm{fact}}=\frac{2f_{D_d}F_{B_d\pi ^\pm }^{(0)}(M_{D_d}^2)(M_{B_d}^2M_{\pi ^\pm }^2)\sqrt{M_{B_d}M_{D_d}}}{f_{\pi ^\pm }\xi _d(w_d)(M_{B_d}M_{D_d})[(M_{B_d}+M_{D_d})^2M_{\pi ^\pm }^2]},$$
(2.43)
where the $`\xi _q(w_q)`$ are the Isgur–Wise functions describing $`\overline{B_q^0}D_q`$ transitions, and

$$w_s=\frac{M_{B_s}^2+M_{D_s}^2M_{K^\pm }^2}{2M_{B_s}M_{D_s}},w_d=\frac{M_{B_d}^2+M_{D_d}^2M_{\pi ^\pm }^2}{2M_{B_d}M_{D_d}}.$$
(2.44)
In the case of $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$ and $`B_dD^\pm \pi ^{}`$, we obtain accordingly

$$a_se^{i\delta _s}|_{\mathrm{fact}}=\frac{f_{D_s^{}}F_{B_sK^\pm }^{(1)}(M_{D_s^{}}^2)}{f_{K^\pm }A_{B_sD_s^{}}^{(0)}(M_{K^\pm }^2)}=\frac{2f_{D_s^{}}F_{B_sK^\pm }^{(1)}(M_{D_s^{}}^2)\sqrt{M_{B_s}M_{D_s^{}}}}{f_{K^\pm }\xi _s(w_s^{})(M_{B_s}+M_{D_s^{}})}$$
(2.45)
and

$$a_de^{i\delta _d}|_{\mathrm{fact}}=\frac{f_{D_d^{}}F_{B_d\pi ^\pm }^{(1)}(M_{D_d^{}}^2)}{f_{\pi ^\pm }A_{B_dD_d^{}}^{(0)}(M_{\pi ^\pm }^2)}=\frac{2f_{D_d^{}}F_{B_d\pi ^\pm }^{(1)}(M_{D_d^{}}^2)\sqrt{M_{B_d}M_{D_d^{}}}}{f_{\pi ^\pm }\xi _d(w_d^{})(M_{B_d}+M_{D_d^{}})},$$
(2.46)
respectively, where we have taken the relative minus sign between (2.37) and (2.39) into account, and

$$w_s^{}=\frac{M_{B_s}^2+M_{D_s^{}}^2M_{K^\pm }^2}{2M_{B_s}M_{D_s^{}}},w_d^{}=\frac{M_{B_d}^2+M_{D_d^{}}^2M_{\pi ^\pm }^2}{2M_{B_d}M_{D_d^{}}}.$$
(2.47)
An important result of this exercise is

$$\delta _q|_{\mathrm{fact}}=0^{},\delta _q|_{\mathrm{fact}}=180^{}.$$
(2.48)
Since factorization is expected to work well for $`\overline{B_q^0}D_q\overline{u}_q`$, in contrast to $`\overline{B_q^0}\overline{D}_qu_q`$, (2.48) may in principle receive large corrections, yielding sizeable CP-conserving strong phases. However, we may argue that we still have

$$\mathrm{cos}\delta _q>0,\mathrm{cos}\delta _q<0,$$
(2.49)
in accordance with the factorization prediction. This valuable information allows us to fix the sign of $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _q+\gamma )`$ from (2.31), where the $`(1)^L`$ factor plays an important rôle, as we already noted: it is $`+1`$ and $`1`$ for $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$, $`B_dD^\pm \pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$, $`B_dD^\pm \pi ^{}`$, respectively. Moreover, it should not be forgotten in this context that $`x_s`$ is positive, whereas $`x_d`$ is negative because of a factor of $`1`$ originating from the ratio of CKM factors $`v_d/\overline{v}_d^{}`$ (see (2.23)).

Using, for instance, the Bauer–Stech–Wirbel form factors , we obtain $`a_d=0.8`$ and $`a_d=1.0`$; if we take also (2.9) and (2.23) into account, these values can be converted into $`x_{d()}=𝒪(0.02)`$, whereas $`x_{s()}=𝒪(0.4)`$. In Section 6, we shall have a closer look at the flavour-symmetry-breaking effects, which arise in the ratios $`a_s/a_d`$ and $`a_s/a_d`$.

It is useful to briefly compare these results with the situation of the colour-suppressed counterparts of the $`B_qD_q\overline{u}_q`$ decays, the $`B_sD\eta ^{(^{})},D\varphi ,\mathrm{}`$ and $`B_dD\pi ^0,D\rho ^0,\mathrm{}`$ modes discussed in . Here factorization may receive sizeable corrections for each of the $`B_q^0D^0f_q`$ and $`\overline{B_q^0}D^0f_q`$ amplitudes. However, the corresponding hadronic matrix elements are actually very similar to one another, so that the factorized matrix elements cancel in the counterpart of $`a_qe^{i\delta _q}`$. Consequently, the thus obtained information on the sign of the cosine of the corresponding strong phase difference $`\delta _{f_q}`$ appears to be a bit more robust than (2.49).

## 3 Conventional Extraction of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸`$

We are now well prepared to discuss the “conventional” extraction of the CP-violating phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ from $`𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒`$ decays . As we have already noted, because of (2.28), it is obvious that these modes and their CP conjugates provide a theoretically clean extraction of this phase. Using (2.30), we may – in principle – determine $`𝒙_𝒒`$ through

$$𝒙_𝒒\mathbf{=}𝜼_𝒒\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑪_𝒒\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑪_𝒒\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(3.1)
where

$$𝜼_𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & \text{(}𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔\text{)}\hfill \\ \mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & \text{(}𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅\text{)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.2)
takes into account the minus sign appearing in (2.23) for $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅`$. Using the knowledge of $`𝒙_𝒒`$, we may extract the following quantities from the combinations of the mixing-induced observables introduced in (2.31) and (2.32):

$$𝒔_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^𝑳\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒙_𝒒}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_𝒒\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}$$
(3.3)
$$𝒔_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^𝑳\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒙_𝒒}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_𝒒\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(3.4)
which allow us to determine $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ with the help of

$$\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒔_\mathbf{+}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒔_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒔_\mathbf{+}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒔_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}𝒔_\mathbf{+}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(3.5)
This relation implies a fourfold solution for $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$. Since each value of this quantity corresponds to a twofold solution for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸`$, the extraction of this phase suffers, in general, from an eightfold discrete ambiguity. If we employ (2.49) and (3.3), the measured sign of $`𝒔_\mathbf{+}`$ allows us to fix the sign of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, thereby reducing the discrete ambiguity for the value of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ to a fourfold one. Needless to note that these unpleasant ambiguities significantly reduce the power to search for possible signals of new physics.

Another disadvantage is that the determination of the hadronic parameter $`𝒙_𝒒`$ through (3.1) requires the experimental resolution of small $`𝒙_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ terms in (2.30). In the $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔`$ case, we naïvely expect $`𝒙_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.16}\mathbf{)}`$, so that this may actually be possible, though challenging.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Note that non-factorizable effects may well lead to a significant reduction or enhancement of $`x_s`$. On the other hand, it is practically impossible to resolve the $`𝒙_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.0004}\mathbf{)}`$ terms, i.e. (2.30) is not effective in the $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅`$ case. However, it may well be possible to measure the observable combinations $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}`$, since these quantities are proportional to $`𝒙_𝒅\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{)}`$. In this respect, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ channels are particularly promising, since they exhibit large branching ratios at the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ level and offer a good reconstruction of the $`𝑫^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ states with a high efficiency and modest backgrounds . In order to solve the problem of the extraction of $`𝒙_𝒅`$, which was also addressed in , we shall propose the use of “untagged” decay rates, where we do not distinguish between initially, i.e. at time $`𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, present $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ or $`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mesons. Also in the case of $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔`$, alternatives to (3.1) for an efficient determination of $`𝒙_𝒔`$ are obviously desirable.

## 4 Closer Look at “Untagged” Rates

### 4.1 New Strategy Employing $`𝚫𝚪_𝒒`$

As we have seen in (2.18), the width difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒒`$ of the $`𝑩_𝒒`$ mass eigenstates provides another observable, $`𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}`$, which is given by

$$𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\text{Re}𝝃_𝒒}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left|}𝝃_𝒒\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.1)
This quantity is, however, not independent from $`𝑪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑺\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}`$, satisfying the relation

$$\mathbf{\left[}𝑪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}𝑺\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.2)
Interestingly, $`𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}`$ could be determined from the “untagged” rate

$`\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}`$ (4.3)
$`\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left[}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}`$
$`\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐡}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪_𝒒𝒕\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐡}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪_𝒒𝒕\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚪_𝒒𝒕}\mathbf{,}`$
where the oscillatory $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒒𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒒𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ terms cancel, and $`𝚪_𝒒\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝚪_𝐇^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝚪_𝐋^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ denotes the average decay width . In the case of the $`𝑩_𝒅`$-meson system, the width difference is negligibly small, so that the time evolution of (4.3) is essentially given by the well-known exponential $`𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚪_𝒅𝒕}`$. On the other hand, the width difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$ of the $`𝑩_𝒔`$-meson system may be as large as $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{)}`$ (for a recent review, see ), and may hence allow us to extract $`𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔\overline{𝒖}_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$.

Inserting (2.22) into (4.1), we obtain

$$𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔\overline{𝒖}_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^𝑳\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒙_𝒔\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{+}𝜹_𝒔\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.4)
and correspondingly

$$𝓐_{𝚫𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒔𝒖_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝓐}_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^𝑳\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒙_𝒔\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}𝜹_𝒔\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.5)
which yields

$$\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\frac{\overline{𝓐}_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{+}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^𝑳\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒙_𝒔\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}$$
(4.6)
$$\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\frac{\overline{𝓐}_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^𝑳\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒙_𝒔\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.7)
If we compare now (4.6) and (4.7) with (2.31) and (2.32), respectively, we observe that the same hadronic factors enter in these mixing-induced observables, and obtain

$$\frac{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}{\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}$$
(4.8)
$$\frac{\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.9)
implying the consistency relation

$$\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.10)
Should $`𝜹_𝒔`$ take values around $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, as in factorization (see (2.48)), we may extract $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ from (4.8), whereas we could use (4.9) in the opposite case of $`𝜹_𝒔`$ being close to $`\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ or $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. The strong phase itself can be determined from

$$\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜹_𝒔\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}{\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.11)
The values of $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜹_𝒔`$ thus extracted imply twofold solutions for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ and $`𝜹_𝒔`$, respectively, which should be compared with the eightfold solution for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ following from (3.5). Using (2.49), we may immediately fix $`𝜹_𝒔`$ unambiguously, and may determine the sign of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ with the help of the measured sign of $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}`$ from (2.31), thereby resolving the twofold ambiguity for the value of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$. On the other hand, the “conventional” approach discussed in Section 3 would still leave a fourfold ambiguity for this phase, as we shall illustrate in Section 5. Finally, we may of course also determine $`𝒙_𝒔`$ from one of the $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ or $`\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ observables.

We observe that the combination of the “tagged” mixing-induced observables $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ with their “untagged” counterparts $`\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ provides an elegant determination of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ in an essentially unambiguous manner. In , strategies to determine this phase from untagged $`𝑩_𝒔`$ data samples only were proposed, which employ angular distributions of decays of the kind $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }𝑲^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ and are hence considerably more involved. Another important advantage of our new strategy is that both $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ are proportional to $`𝒙_𝒔`$. Consequently, the extraction of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ does not require the resolution of $`𝒙_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ terms.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2A similar feature is also present in the “untagged” $`B_sD_s^\pm K^{}`$ strategy proposed in , and in the “tagged” analysis in , employing the angular distribution of the $`D_s^\pm `$, $`K^{}`$ decay products. On the other hand, we have to rely on a sizeable width difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$, which may be too small to make an extraction of $`\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ experimentally feasible. In the presence of CP-violating new-physics contributions to $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing, manifesting themselves through a sizeable value of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$, $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$ would be further reduced, as follows :

$$𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝚫𝚪_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{,}$$
(4.12)
where $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ is negative . As is well known, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$ can be determined through $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$, which is very accessible at hadronic $`𝑩`$-decay experiments . Strategies to determine $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$ unambiguously were proposed in .

In the case of the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫𝜼^{\mathbf{(}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝑫\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$ modes – the colour-suppressed counterparts of the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔\overline{𝒖}_𝒔`$ channels, untagged rates for processes where the neutral $`𝑫`$ mesons are observed through their decays into CP eigenstates $`𝒇_\mathbf{\pm }`$ provide a very useful “untagged” rate asymmetry $`𝚪_\mathbf{\pm }`$, allowing efficient and essentially unambiguous determinations of $`𝜸`$ from mixing-induced observables . These strategies, which can also be implemented for $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫𝑲_{𝐒\mathbf{(}𝐋\mathbf{)}}`$ modes, have certain similarities with those provided by (4.8) and (4.9). However, they do not rely on a sizeable value of $`𝚫𝚪_𝒒`$, as $`𝚪_\mathbf{\pm }`$ is extracted from “unevolved” untagged rates, which are also very useful for the analysis of $`𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒`$ modes, as we shall see below. Since these decays involve charged $`𝑫_𝒒`$ mesons, the $`𝚪_\mathbf{\pm }`$ observable has unfortunately no counterpart for the colour-allowed transitions.

### 4.2 Employing Untagged Rates in the Case of Negligible $`𝚫𝚪_𝒒`$

Even for a vanishingly small width difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒒`$, the untagged rate (4.3) provides valuable information, as it still allows us to determine the “unevolved”, untagged rate

$$\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.13)
Using (2.1) and (2.14), as well as (2.16) and (2.17), we obtain

$$\frac{\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒙_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.14)
If we now employ

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.15)
which follows from (2.14) and (2.16), we may write

$$𝒙_𝒒\mathbf{=}𝜼_𝒒\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.16)
offering a very attractive “untagged” alternative to (3.1), provided we fix the sum of the $`𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒`$ rate and its CP conjugate in an efficient manner. To this end, we may replace the spectator quark $`𝒒`$ by an up quark, which will allow us to determine this quantity from the CP-averaged rate of a charged $`𝑩`$-meson decay as follows:<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3For simplicity, we neglect tiny phase-space effects, which can be straightforwardly included.

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝓒_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.17)
where $`𝒖_𝒖\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\}}`$ depends on the choice of $`𝒖_𝒒`$. For example, we have $`𝒖_𝒖\mathbf{=}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for $`𝒖_𝒅\mathbf{=}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$ or $`𝒖_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝑲^\mathbf{+}`$, whereas $`𝒖_𝒖\mathbf{=}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for $`𝒖_𝒅\mathbf{=}𝝆^\mathbf{+}`$ or $`𝒖_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝑲^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}`$. The factor of 2 takes into account the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ factor of the $`𝒖_𝒖`$ wave function, and the deviation of $`𝓒_𝒒`$ from 1 is governed by flavour-symmetry-breaking effects, which originate from the replacement of the spectator quark $`𝒒`$ through an up quark.

Since $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒅\overline{𝒖}_𝒖`$ is related to $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒅\overline{𝒖}_𝒅`$ through $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ isospin arguments, we obtain to a good approximation

$$𝓒_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.18)
In addition to the “conventional” isospin-breaking effects, exchange topologies, which contribute to $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒅\overline{𝒖}_𝒅`$ but have no counterpart in $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒅\overline{𝒖}_𝒖`$, and annihilation topologies, which arise only in $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒅\overline{𝒖}_𝒖`$ but not in $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒅\overline{𝒖}_𝒅`$, are another limiting factor of the theoretical accuracy of (4.18). Although these contributions are naïvely expected to be very small, they may – in principle – be enhanced through rescattering processes. Fortunately, we may probe their importance experimentally. In the case of $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ this can be done with the help of $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ processes, respectively.

Applying (4.17) to the $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔`$ case, we have to employ the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ flavour symmetry. If we neglect non-factorizable $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking effects, the $`𝓒_𝒔`$ are simply given by appropriate form-factor ratios; important examples are the following ones:

$$𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^\mathbf{\pm }𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{:}\frac{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{𝑫_𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_{𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}{𝑭_{𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{𝑫_𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{𝑩_𝒖}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_{𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{:}\frac{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}{𝑭_{𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.19)
Also here, we have to deal with exchange topologies, which contribute to $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ but have no counterpart in $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Experimental probes for these topologies are provided by $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ processes.

As an alternative to (4.17), we may use

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝜻\mathbf{\left[}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(4.20)
and

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝜻}\mathbf{\left[}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.21)
where

$$𝜻\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝒇_{𝑫_𝒅^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}}}{𝒇_{𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}}}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}$$
(4.22)
takes into account factorizable $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking corrections through the ratio of the $`𝑫_𝒅^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ decay constants. The decays on the right-hand sides of (4.20) and (4.21) have the advantage of involving “flavour-specific” final states $`𝒇`$, satisfying $`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑨\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. In this important special case, the time-dependent untagged rates take the following simple forms:

$$\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐡}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪_𝒒𝒕\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚪_𝒒𝒕}$$
(4.23)
$$\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒇}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒇}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒇}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒇}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐡}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪_𝒒𝒕\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚪_𝒒𝒕}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.24)
and allow an efficient extraction of the CP-averaged rate $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒇}\mathbf{)}`$ with the help of

$$\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒇}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left[}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒇}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐡}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪_𝒒𝒕\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚪_𝒒𝒕}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.25)
Obviously, in the case of $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅`$, (4.17) is theoretically cleaner than (4.20), providing – in combination with (4.16) – a very interesting avenue to determine $`𝒙_𝒅`$. On the other hand, the modes on the right-hand side of (4.20) are more accessible from an experimental point of view, and were already observed at the $`𝑩`$ factories .

Since simple colour-transparency arguments do not apply to $`𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒`$, $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒖`$ modes, as we noted in Subsection 2.3, expressions (4.19), (4.20) and (4.21) may receive sizeable non-factorizable $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking corrections. However, there is yet another possibility to exploit (4.13). To this end, we factor out the $`𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒒`$ rate, where factorization is expected to work well , yielding

$$\frac{\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.26)
which implies

$$𝒙_𝒒\mathbf{=}𝜼_𝒒\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑫}_𝒒𝒖_𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.27)
In the $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅`$ case, it will – in analogy to (2.30) – be impossible to resolve the vanishingly small $`𝒙_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ term in (4.26). On the other hand, this may well be possible in the $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔`$ case. If we use

$`𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ (4.28)
$`\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒇_𝑲}{𝒇_𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}`$
expression (4.27) offers a very attractive possibility to determine the values of $`𝒙_{𝒔\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$, where $`\mathbf{(}𝒇_𝑲\mathbf{/}𝒇_𝝅\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ describes factorizable $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking effects. Additional corrections are due to exchange topologies, which arise in $`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, but are not present in $`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$. However, as we already noted, their contributions are expected to be very small, and can be probed experimentally through $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ processes. Since the $`\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$ rates involve flavour-specific final states, we may efficiently determine their sum from untagged $`𝑩_𝒔`$ data samples, with the help of (4.25). In this context, it should also be noted that these rates are enhanced by a factor of $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ with respect to the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ rates. Moreover, non-factorizable effects are expected to play a minor rôle in (4.28) because of colour-transparency arguments, in contrast to (4.19) and (4.21). Further calculations along  should provide an even more accurate treatment of the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking corrections. In comparison with (3.1), the advantage of the strategy offered by (4.27) and (4.28) is the use of untagged rates, which are particularly promising in terms of efficiency, acceptance and purity, and do not require the measurement of the time-dependent $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ terms in (2.18). Interestingly, the quantity $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, which can nicely be determined through the combination of (4.27) and (4.28), will play an important rôle in Section 6.

As we have seen above, the untagged rates introduced in (4.3) provide various strategies to determine the hadronic parameters $`𝒙_𝒒`$, some of which are particularly favourable. In order to implement these approaches, we must not rely on a sizeable width difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒒`$. It will be interesting to see whether they will eventually yield a consistent picture of the $`𝒙_𝒒`$. Following these lines, we may also obtain valuable insights into hadron dynamics.

## 5 Bounds on $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸`$

If we keep $`𝒙_𝒒`$ and $`𝜹_𝒒`$ as “unknown”, i.e. free parameters in (2.31) and (2.32), we may derive the following bounds:

$$\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}$$
(5.1)
$$\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{.}$$
(5.2)
On the other hand, if we assume that $`𝒙_𝒒`$ has been determined with the help of the “untagged” strategies proposed in Subsection 4.2, we may fix the quantities $`𝒔_\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝒔_{\mathbf{}}`$ introduced in (3.3) and (3.4), respectively, providing more stringent constraints:

$$\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝒔_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}$$
(5.3)
$$\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝒔_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{.}$$
(5.4)
Interestingly, (5.1) and (5.3) allow us to exclude a certain range of values of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ around $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, whereas (5.2) and (5.4) provide complementary information, excluding a certain range around $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. The constraints in (5.1) and (5.2) have the advantage of not requiring knowledge of $`𝒙_𝒒`$. On the other hand, because of the small value of $`𝒙_𝒅`$, we may only expect useful information from them in the case of $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔`$. Once $`𝒔_\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝒔_{\mathbf{}}`$ have been extracted, it is of course also possible to determine $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ through the complicated expression in (3.5), as discussed in Section 3. However, since the resulting values for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ suffer from multiple discrete ambiguities, the information they are expected to provide about this phase is – in general – not significantly better than the constraints following from the very simple relations in (5.3) and (5.4).

It is instructive to illustrate this feature with the help of a few numerical examples. To this end, we assume $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, which would be in perfect agreement with the Standard Model, as well as $`𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.4}`$ and $`𝒂_𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Let us consider the decays $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^\mathbf{\pm }𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, which have $`𝑳\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. As far as $`𝜹_𝒒`$ is concerned, we may then distinguish between a “factorization” scenario with $`𝜹_𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ (see (2.48)), and a “non-factorization” scenario, corresponding to $`𝜹_𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. For simplicity, we shall use the same hadronic parameters $`𝒂_𝒒𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_𝒒}`$ for the $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅`$ and $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔`$ cases. The corresponding mixing-induced observables are listed in Table 1. Let us also assume that $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔`$ will be unambiguously known by the time these observables can be measured. As we have already noted, because of the small value of $`𝒙_𝒅`$, (5.1) and (5.2) do not provide non-trivial constraints on $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸`$, in contrast to their application to the $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔`$ case.

Let us first focus on the factorization scenario, corresponding to the upper half of Table 1. Since $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝒔_{\mathbf{}}`$ vanish in this case, as these observable combinations are proportional to $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_𝒒`$, (5.2) and (5.4) imply only trivial constraints on $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸`$. However, we may nevertheless obtain interesting bounds in this case. For the $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅`$ example, the situation is as follows: if we employ (2.49) and take into account that $`𝒙_𝒅`$ is negative, the negative sign of $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}`$ implies a positive value of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Applying now (5.3), we obtain $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}`$ from $`𝒔_\mathbf{+}`$, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, providing valuable information about $`𝜸`$. On the other hand, if we use again that $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ is positive, the complicated expression (3.5) implies the threefold solution $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, which covers essentially the whole range following from the simple relation in (5.3). It is very interesting to complement the information on $`𝜸`$ thus obtained from $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ with the one provided by its $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^\mathbf{\pm }𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ counterpart. Using again (2.49), the positive sign of $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}`$ implies that $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ is positive, i.e. $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. We may now apply (5.1) to obtain the bound $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$ from $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}`$; a narrower range follows from $`𝒔_\mathbf{+}`$ through (5.3), and is given by $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Since $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, we may identify these ranges directly with bounds on $`𝜸`$. On the other hand, the complicated expression (3.5) implies the threefold solution $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, which falls perfectly into the range provided by $`𝒔_\mathbf{+}`$, which can be obtained in a much simpler manner. We now make the very interesting observation that the $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔`$ range of $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ is highly complementary to its $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅`$ counterpart of $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, leaving $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ as the only overlap. Consequently, in this example, the combination of our simple bounds on $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ yields the single solution of $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, which corresponds to our input value, thereby nicely demonstrating the potential power of these constraints.

Let us now perform the same exercise for the non-factorization scenario, represented by the lower half of Table 1. In the case of $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅`$, $`𝒔_\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝒔_{\mathbf{}}`$ imply $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, respectively, which can be combined with each other, taking also $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}`$ into account, to obtain $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓𝟒}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. On the other hand, if we apply (3.5) and use that $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ is positive, we obtain the fourfold solution $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Let us now consider the $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔`$ case. Here $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}`$ imply $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, respectively, yielding the combined range $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. Using $`𝒔_\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝒔_{\mathbf{}}`$, and taking into account that $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, we obtain the more stringent constraint $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒𝟐}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟖}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, whereas (3.5) would imply the fourfold solution $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, providing essentially the same information. We observe again that the bounds on $`𝜸`$ arising in the $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅`$ and $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔`$ cases are highly complementary to each other, having a small overlap of $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟒}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Although the constraint on $`𝜸`$ following from the bounds on $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ would now not be as sharp as in the factorization scenario discussed above, this approach would still provide very non-trivial information about this particularly important angle of the unitarity triangle.

In Table 1, we have considered a Standard-Model-like scenario for the weak phases. However, as argued in , the present data are also perfectly consistent with the picture of $`\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, corresponding to new-physics contributions to $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing. Since we have $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$, $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸`$, the sign of the $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^𝑳\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}`$ observable combination allows us to distinguish between the $`\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ scenarios, corresponding to $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.956}`$ and $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.956}`$, respectively. Practically, this can be done with the help of $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ modes. If we take into account that the $`𝒙_{𝒅\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ are negative, include properly the $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^𝑳`$ factors and fix the signs of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_{𝒅\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ through (2.49), we find that a positive value of the $`\mathbf{}𝑺_{𝒅\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}`$ observables would be in favour of the “unconventional” $`\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ scenario, whereas a negative value would point towards the Standard-Model picture of $`\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. A first preliminary analysis of $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ by the BaBar collaboration  gives

$$\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.063}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.024}\mathbf{(}\text{stat.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.017}\mathbf{(}\text{syst.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(5.5)
thereby favouring the latter case.

## 6 Combined Analysis of $`𝑩_{𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒅}\mathbf{}𝑫_{𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒅}\overline{𝒖}_{𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒅}`$ Modes

As we have seen in the previous section, it is very useful to make a simultaneous analysis of $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔\overline{𝒖}_𝒔`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒅\overline{𝒖}_𝒅`$ decays. Let us now further explore this observation. Using (2.31) and (2.32), we may write

$$\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝒂_𝒔\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_𝒔}{𝒂_𝒅\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_𝒅}\mathbf{\right]}𝑹\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^{𝑳_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑳_𝒅}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(6.1)
and

$$\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝒂_𝒔\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_𝒔}{𝒂_𝒅\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_𝒅}\mathbf{\right]}𝑹\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^{𝑳_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑳_𝒅}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(6.2)
respectively, where

$$𝑹\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(6.3)
Using the results derived in Subsection 4.2, we may easily determine the parameter $`𝑹`$, where the $`𝒙_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ term is negligibly small, and $`𝒙_𝒔`$ enters only through $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, i.e. a moderate correction. To be specific, let us consider the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ channels. If we insert (4.28) into (4.27), we arrive at

$$𝑹_{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒇_𝑲}{𝒇_𝝅}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(6.4)
where the decay rates can be straightforwardly extracted from untagged $`𝑩_𝒔`$ data samples with the help of (4.3) and (4.25). As we have emphasized in Subsection 4.2, non-factorizable $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking corrections to this relation are expected to be very small.

If we look at Fig. 1, we see that each $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔\overline{𝒖}_𝒔`$ mode has a counterpart $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒅\overline{𝒖}_𝒅`$, which can be obtained from the $`𝑩_𝒔`$ transition by simply replacing all strange quarks through down quarks; an important example is the $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ system. For such decay pairs, we have $`𝑳_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝑳_𝒅`$, and the $`𝑼`$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions, which relates strange and down quarks in the same manner as ordinary isospin relates up and down quarks, implies the following relations for the corresponding hadronic parameters:<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4Note that these relations do not rely on the neglect of (tiny) exchange topologies.

$$𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝒂_𝒅\mathbf{,}𝜹_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝜹_𝒅\mathbf{,}$$
(6.5)
which we may apply in a variety of ways.

Let us first consider a factorization-like scenario, where $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_𝒅`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}`$ (see Table 1). In this case, (6.2) would not be applicable. However, we may use (6.1) to determine $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜸`$ through

$$\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑺\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑺\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔}\mathbf{\right]}\stackrel{\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}}{\mathbf{=}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅}{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑺}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(6.6)
where

$$𝑺\mathbf{|}_{𝑼\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝑹\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(6.7)
If we follow these lines, we obtain a twofold solution $`𝜸\mathbf{=}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, where we may choose $`𝜸_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{]}`$ and $`𝜸_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$; the theoretical uncertainty would mainly be limited by $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking corrections to $`𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝒂_𝒅`$, apart from tiny corrections to $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_𝒅`$. If we assume – as is usually done – that $`𝜸`$ lies between $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, as is implied by the Standard-Model interpretation of $`𝜺_𝑲`$, which measures the “indirect” CP violation in the neutral kaon system, we may immediately exclude the $`𝜸_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ solution. However, since $`𝜺_𝑲`$ may well be affected by new physics, it is desirable to check whether $`𝜸`$ actually falls in the interval $`\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{]}`$. To this end, we may use (2.49) and the signs of the $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}`$ observables, as we have seen in the examples discussed in Section 5.

Let us now consider a non-factorization-like scenario with sizeable CP-conserving strong phases, so that we may also employ (6.2), as the $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}`$ observables would no longer vanish. If we assume that $`𝜹_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝜹_𝒅`$, we may calculate $`\mathbf{(}𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒂_𝒅\mathbf{)}𝑹`$ both with the help of the $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}`$ observables through (6.1) and with the help of the $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}`$ observables through (6.2). The intersection of the corresponding curves then fixes $`𝜸`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒂_𝒅\mathbf{)}𝑹`$. Comparing the value of $`\mathbf{(}𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒂_𝒅\mathbf{)}𝑹`$ thus extracted with (6.4), we could determine $`𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒂_𝒅`$. If we use the observables given in the lower half of Table 1, which were calculated for $`𝜹_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝜹_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝒂_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, we obtain the contours shown in Fig. 2, where we have also taken the bounds implied by (5.1) and (5.2) into account, and have represented the curves originating from (6.1) and (6.2) through the dashed and dotted lines, respectively. We observe that the intersection of these contours gives actually our input value of $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, without any discrete ambiguity. These observations can easily be put on a more formal level, since (6.1) and (6.2) imply the following exact relation:

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜹_𝒅}{\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜹_𝒔}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right]}\stackrel{𝑼\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐧}}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(6.8)
Consequently, the theoretical uncertainty of the resulting value of $`𝜸`$ would only be limited by $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking corrections to $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜹_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜹_𝒅`$; in Fig. 2, they would enter through a systematic relative shift of the dashed and dotted contours.

Finally, we may also extract $`𝜸`$ without assuming that $`𝜹_𝒔`$ is equal to $`𝜹_𝒅`$. To this end, we use the exact relation

$$\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒂_𝒔}{𝒂_𝒅}\mathbf{\right)}𝑹\mathbf{=}𝝈\mathbf{\left|}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right|}\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(6.9)
where we have

$$𝝈\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐠𝐧}\mathbf{\left\{}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right\}}$$
(6.10)
if we assume that $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_𝒔`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹_𝒅`$ have the same sign, and

$$𝝈\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐠𝐧}\mathbf{\left\{}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right\}}$$
(6.11)
if we assume that $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_𝒔`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹_𝒅`$ have the same sign. Using (6.9), we may calculate $`\mathbf{(}𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒂_𝒅\mathbf{)}𝑹`$ in an exact manner as a function of $`𝜸`$ from the measured values of the mixing-induced observables $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$. On the other hand, we have $`𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{}𝒂_𝒅`$ because of the $`𝑼`$-spin flavour symmetry, and may efficiently fix $`𝑹`$ from untagged $`𝑩_𝒔`$ data samples through (6.4), allowing us to determine $`𝜸`$. Let us illustrate how this strategy works in practice by considering again an example, corresponding to $`𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝒂_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝜹_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝜹_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Moreover, as in Table 1, we choose $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.4}`$, implying $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{2.50}\mathbf{\%}`$, $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.91}\mathbf{\%}`$, $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{51.7}\mathbf{\%}`$, $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{17.2}\mathbf{\%}`$. If we apply (5.1) and (5.2) to the $`𝑩_𝒔`$ observables, we obtain $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Constraining $`𝜸`$ to this range, the right-hand side of (6.9) yields the solid lines shown in Fig. 3, where we have represented the “measured” value of $`𝑹`$ through the horizontal dot-dashed line; the three lines emerge if we fix $`𝝈`$ through (6.10), yielding the threefold solution $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟒}^{\mathbf{}}`$. However, (6.11) leaves only the thicker solid line in the middle, thereby implying the single solution $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. In this particular example, the extracted value for $`𝜸`$ would be quite stable with respect to variations of $`\mathbf{(}𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒂_𝒅\mathbf{)}𝑹`$, i.e. would not be very sensitive to $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking corrections to $`𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝒂_𝒅`$. We have also included the contours corresponding to (6.1) and (6.2) through the dashed and dotted curves, as in Fig. 2; their intersection would now give $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟖}^{\mathbf{}}`$, deviating by only $`\mathrm{𝟖}^{\mathbf{}}`$ from the “correct” value. It should be noted that we may also determine the strong phases $`𝜹_𝒔`$ and $`𝜹_𝒅`$ with the help of

$$\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜹_𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}}{\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(6.12)
providing valuable insights into non-factorizable $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking effects.

In comparison with the conventional $`𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒`$ approaches – apart from issues related to multiple discrete ambiguities – the most important advantage of the strategies proposed above is that they do not require the resolution of $`𝒙_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ terms, since the mixing-induced observables $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒅\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ are proportional to $`𝒙_𝒅`$ and $`𝒙_𝒔`$, respectively. In particular, $`𝒙_𝒅`$ has not to be fixed, and $`𝒙_𝒔`$ may only enter through $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, i.e. a moderate correction, which can straightforwardly be included through untagged $`𝑩_𝒔`$ rate analyses. Interestingly, the motivation to measure $`𝒙_𝒔`$ and $`𝒙_𝒅`$ accurately is here related only to the feature that these parameters would allow us to take into account possible $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking corrections to (6.9) through

$$\frac{𝒂_𝒔}{𝒂_𝒅}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝒙_𝒔}{𝒙_𝒅}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{.}$$
(6.13)
After all these steps of progressive refinement, we would eventually obtain a theoretically clean value of $`𝜸`$.

For a theoretical discussion of the $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking effects affecting the ratio $`𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒂_𝒅`$, we may distinguish – apart from mass factors – between two pieces,

$$\frac{𝒂_𝒔}{𝒂_𝒅}\mathbf{}𝜻_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\times }𝜻_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}$$
(6.14)
which can be written for the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ system – if we apply the factorization approximation – with the help of (2.42), (2.43) and (2.45), (2.46) as follows:

$$𝜻_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒇_{𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }}𝝃_𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒘_𝒅^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}}{𝒇_{𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }}𝝃_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒘_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}}$$
(6.15)
$$𝜻_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒇_{𝑫_𝒔}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{𝑫_𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}{𝒇_{𝑫_𝒅}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{𝑫_𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝜻_\mathrm{𝟐}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒇_{𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}{𝒇_{𝑫_𝒅^{\mathbf{}}}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{𝑫_𝒅^{\mathbf{}}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(6.16)
Because of the arguments given in Subsection 2.3, the factorized expression (6.15) for $`𝜻_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ is expected to work well. Studies of the light-quark dependence of the Isgur–Wise function were performed in  within heavy-meson chiral perturbation theory, indicating an enhancement of $`𝝃_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝝃_𝒅`$ at the level of $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$. The application of the same formalism to $`𝒇_{𝑫_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝒇_{𝑫_𝒅}`$ yields values at the 1.2 level , which is of the same order of magnitude as recent lattice calculations (see, for example, ). In the case of $`𝜻_\mathrm{𝟐}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$, (6.16) may receive sizeable non-factorizable corrections, since simple colour-transparency arguments are not on solid ground, and the new theoretical developments related to factorization that were presented in  are not applicable. Moreover, we are not aware of quantitative studies of the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking effects arising from the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }`$ form factors in (6.16), which could be done, for instance, with the help of lattice or sum-rule techniques. Following the latter approach, sizeable $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking corrections were found for the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }`$ form factors in . Hopefully, a better theoretical treatment of the $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking corrections to $`𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒂_𝒅`$ will be available by the time the $`𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒`$ measurements can be performed in practice.

The new strategies proposed above complement other $`𝑼`$-spin approaches to extract $`𝜸`$ , where the $`𝑼`$-spin-related $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ system is particularly promising . Since penguin topologies play here a crucial rôle, whereas these topologies do not contribute to the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ system, it will be very interesting to see whether inconsistencies for $`𝜸`$ will emerge from the data.

## 7 Conclusions

Let us now summarize the main points of our analysis:

* We have shown that $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^\mathbf{\pm }𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝑫_𝒔^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝑫^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$ decays can be described through the same set of formulae by just making straightforward replacements of variables. We have also pointed out that a factor of $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^𝑳`$ arises in the expressions for the mixing-induced observables. In the presence of a non-vanishing angular momentum $`𝑳`$ of the $`𝑩_𝒒`$ decay products, this factor has properly to be taken into account in the determination of the sign of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ from $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_\mathbf{+}`$.
* Should the width difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$ be sizeable, the combination of the “tagged” mixing-induced observables $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒔\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ with their “untagged” counterparts $`\mathbf{}𝓐_{𝚫𝚪_𝒔}\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ offers an elegant determination of $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ in an essentially unambiguous manner, which does not require knowledge of $`𝒙_𝒔`$. Another important aspect of untagged rate measurements is the efficient determination of the hadronic parameters $`𝒙_𝒒`$. To accomplish this task, we may apply various untagged strategies, which do not rely on a sizeable value of $`𝚫𝚪_𝒒`$.
* We have derived bounds on $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸`$, which can straightforwardly be obtained from the mixing-induced $`𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒`$ observables, and provide essentially the same information as the “conventional” determination of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜸`$, which suffers from multiple discrete ambiguities. Giving a few examples, we have illustrated the potential power of these constraints, and have seen that stringent bounds on $`𝜸`$ may be obtained through a combined study of $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔\overline{𝒖}_𝒔`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒅\overline{𝒖}_𝒅`$ modes.
* If we perform a simultaneous analysis of $`𝑼`$-spin-related decays, for example of the $`𝑩_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ system, we may follow various attractive avenues to determine $`𝜸`$ from the corresponding mixing-induced observables $`\mathbf{}𝑺_𝒒\mathbf{}_\mathbf{\pm }`$. The differences between these methods are due to different implementations of the $`𝑼`$-spin relations for the hadronic parameters $`𝒂_𝒒`$ and $`𝜹_𝒒`$. For example, we may extract $`𝜸`$ by assuming $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜹_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜹_𝒅`$ or $`𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝒂_𝒅`$. In comparison with the conventional $`𝑩_𝒒\mathbf{}𝑫_𝒒\overline{𝒖}_𝒒`$ approaches, the most important advantage of these strategies – apart from features related to discrete ambiguities – is that $`𝒙_𝒅`$ does not have to be fixed, and that $`𝒙_𝒔`$ may only enter through $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, i.e. a moderate correction, which can straightforwardly be included through untagged $`𝑩_𝒔`$ rate measurements; an accurate determination of $`𝒙_𝒅`$ and $`𝒙_𝒔`$ would only be interesting for the inclusion of $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking corrections to $`𝒂_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒂_𝒅`$. After various steps of refinement, we would eventually arrive at an unambiguous, theoretically clean value of $`𝜸`$, and could also obtain – as a by-product – valuable insights into $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking effects.

Since $`𝑩_{𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒅}\mathbf{}𝑫_{𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒅}\overline{𝒖}_{𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒅}`$ modes will be accessible in the era of the LHC, in particular at LHCb, we strongly encourage a simultaneous analysis of $`𝑩_𝒔`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅`$ modes – especially of $`𝑼`$-spin-related decay pairs – to fully exploit their very interesting physics potential.