format: text

text:
# Lepton polarization correlations in 𝐵→𝐾^∗𝜏⁻𝜏⁺

## I Introduction

Flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC) in weak decays provide a fertile ground for testing the structure of weak interactions. Since these decays are forbidden in the tree approximation, they go through higher order loop effects. Consequently they are sensitive to finer details of the basic interactions responsible for the process and as such provide a natural testing ground for any theories beyond the standard model as an example. In the context of B-decays, processes involving a dileptonic pair in the final state through the basic quark process $`bs\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$provides a wealth of possible experimental data, accessible in the near future, that can be confronted with theoretical predictions. Processes involving this basic quark transition fall into two broad categories, namely the inclusive ones and specific exclusive processes. In both these there have been theoretical investigations involving total cross-sections, differential cross sections and polarization studies. The last of these, namely polarization studies of the final state particles is a particularly useful parameter, since the most popular extension of the standard model (SM) predicts considerable modification of their values from SM results RaiChoudhury:1999qb ; Aliev:2000jx ; Aliev:2001pq ; Choudhury:2002fk ; RaiChoudhury:2002hf . Polarizations involving a single lepton have been studied extensively in $`BX_s\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$Kruger:1996cv ; RaiChoudhury:1999qb , $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$Geng:pu ; Chen:2002zk ; Aliev:2000jx , $`BK\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$ Aliev:2001pq , $`B(\pi ,\rho )\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$ Choudhury:2002fk , $`B_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\gamma `$ RaiChoudhury:2002hf  but recently Bensalam et al.Bensalem:2002ni  have pointed out that the study of simultaneous polarizations of the leptons in the final state provides another observable that can be experimentally measured and provides yet another parameter in testing models involving physics beyond the standard model. They have, in their, work carried out detailed analysis of the exclusive process $`BX_s\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$. On similar double polarization asymmetries of both the leptons this process ($`BX_s\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$) should also get major corrections if we consider extension of SM src:2003 .

In Ref. Bensalem:2002ni  they have confined themselves to the standard model. But as has been emphasized in many works Choudhury:1999ze ; Xiong:2001up ; Bobeth:2001sq  that the supersymmetric extension of the SM gives major corrections to the processes based on the quark level transitions $`bs\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$. Supersymmetry (SUSY) extends the SM list of terms in the effective Hamiltonian and associated Wilson coefficients; for the quark level process $`bs\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$it predicts the presence of two new quark bilinears in the effective Hamiltonian, namely a scalar and a pseudo-scalar one. These new Wilsons come because of the extra Neutral Higgs bosons (NHBs) spectrum of SUSY (and two Higgs doublet model) theories Skiba:1993mg ; Choudhury:1999ze ; Xiong:2001up . The effects of these new Wilsons on various kinematical variables like branching ratios, lepton pair forward backward asymmetries and lepton polarization asymmetries in various inclusive ($`BX_s\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$, $`BX_d\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$) Choudhury:1999ze ; RaiChoudhury:1999qb ; Baek:2002wm  and exclusive ($`BK\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$,$`BK^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$, $`B\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+\gamma `$, $`B\pi \mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$, $`B\rho \mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$etc.) Aliev:2002ux ; Aliev:2000jx ; Aliev:1999gp ; Bobeth:2001sq ; RaiChoudhury:1999qb ; Aliev:2001pq  semi-leptonic and pure leptonic ($`B\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$) Choudhury:1999ze  decays of $`B`$ mesons have been studied in great detail. The new Wilson coefficients ($`C_{Q_1}`$ and $`C_{Q_2}`$) are proportional to $`m_{\mathrm{}}m_btan^3\beta `$ and hence can be substantial when the lepton is $`\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is sufficiently high. We would like to include the effect of NHBs but at the same time focus on an exclusive process $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$. Experimentally exclusive processes are easier to study but theoretically involve more uncertainties. However for processes like $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$the theoretical uncertainties are somewhat in control since the unknown hadronic matrix element involved can be related to charged current decay mode of the $`B`$ meson. The analysis of these has been subject to a lot of theoretical attention and one can use the results there as input to theoretical estimates for the FCNC process. In this paper we take up the study of this exclusive process for determination of all the three polarization parameters, longitudinal, transverse and normal for both the leptons simultaneously. This exclusive process is amongst the more important contribution to the inclusive cross-section $`BX_s\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$and hopefully will be amongst the first of the processes for which data will become available. Analysis of this process in the SM and in the minimal extension of the standard model have been done by many authors. Lepton polarization asymmetry in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$was first discussed by Geng and Kao Geng:pu . In their later work they also studied SUSY effects in this particular decay mode Chen:2002zk , which as we have already mentioned is important because it is the highest SM branching ratio in all the semi-leptonic decay modes. In particular Aliev et al.Aliev:2000jx  have given the complete helicity structure of the amplitudes and have focused on asymmetries related to the polarization of the $`K^{}`$ meson. Our study is more in the context of the simultaneous lepton polarization asymmetries and their sensitivities to various input parameters of the MSSM (minimal supersymmetric standard model).

The paper is organized as follows. In the Sec. II we will present the effective Hamiltonian for the process we are considering, and we will write down the matrix element in terms of form factors of the $`BK^{}`$ transition and then will give results of the partial decay rate for $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$. In Sec. III we will give the analytical results of various polarization asymmetries. The last Sec. IV is devoted to the numerical analysis, discussion and conclusions.

## II  Effective Hamiltonian

The process in which we are interested ($`BK^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$) originates from the quark level transition $`bs\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$. By integrating out the heavy degrees of freedom from the theory (MSSM here), we get the effective Hamiltonian of the quark level transition $`bs\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$Aliev:2000jx ; Yan:2000dc ; Aliev:2001pq ; Skiba:1993mg ; Choudhury:1999ze ; Xiong:2001up :

$$_{eff}=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}C_i(\mu )O_i(\mu )+\underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}C_{Q_i}(\mu )Q_i(\mu )\right]$$
(1)
where $`O_i`$ are current-current ($`i=1,2`$), penguin ($`i=3,\mathrm{},6`$), magnetic penguin ($`i=7,8`$) and semi-leptonic ($`i=9,10`$) operators, and $`C_i(\mu )`$ are the corresponding Wilson coefficients renormalized at scale $`\mu `$. They have been given in Grinstein:1989me ; Cho:1996we . The additional operators $`Q_i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{}10)`$, and their Wilson coefficients are due to NHB exchange diagrams and are given in Choudhury:1999ze ; Xiong:2001up .

Neglecting the mass of the $`s`$-quark, the above effective Hamiltonian gives us the following matrix element:

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha G_F}{\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\{2C_7^{eff}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{q^2}}(\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu P_Rb)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{})+C_9^{eff}(\overline{s}\gamma _\mu P_Lb)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{})+C_{10}(\overline{s}\gamma _\mu P_Lb)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{})`$ (2)
$`+C_{Q_1}(\overline{s}P_Rb)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{})+C_{Q_2}(\overline{s}P_Rb)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _5\mathrm{})\}`$
where $`q`$ is the momentum transfer to the lepton pair and is given as $`q=p_{}+p_+`$, where $`p_{}`$ and $`p_+`$ are the momenta of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}^+`$ respectively. $`V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$ are the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) factors and $`P_{L,R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$. In our analysis we will assume that we can factorize $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$decay into pure leptonic and hadronic parts.111There have been attempts in the literature to go beyond a “naive” factorization Feldmann:2001a .

$`C_9^{eff}`$ has a perturbative part and a part which comes from the long-distance effects due to conversion of the real $`c\overline{c}`$ into the lepton pair $`\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$ Kruger:1996cv ; Long-Distance ; Yan:2000dc :

$$C_9^{eff}=C_9^{per}+C_9^{res}$$
(3)
where

$`C_9^{per}=`$ $`C_9+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6)+g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s})[3C_1+C_2+3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6]`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(1,\widehat{s})[4C_3+4C_4+3C_5+C_6]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(0,\widehat{s})[C_3+3C_4].`$
The functions $`g(\widehat{m}_i,\widehat{s})`$ arise from the one loop contributions of the four quark operators $`O_1,\mathrm{},O_6`$ and have the form

$`g(\widehat{m}_i,\widehat{s})={\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{m}_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{27}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}y_i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(2+y_i)\sqrt{|1y_i|}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1y_i}}{1\sqrt{1y_i}}\right)i\pi ],4\widehat{m}_i^2<\widehat{s}\hfill & \\ 2\mathrm{arctan}\frac{1}{\sqrt{y_i1}},4\widehat{m}_i^2>\widehat{s}\hfill & \end{array}`$ (5)
where $`y_i=4\widehat{m}_i^2/\widehat{s}`$. The non-perturbative contribution to $`C_9^{eff}`$ is associated with the real $`\overline{c}c`$ resonances in the intermediate states and can be parameterized by using a Breit-Wigner shape, as given in Kruger:1996cv ; Yan:2000dc ; Long-Distance :

$$C_9^{res}=\frac{3\pi }{\alpha ^2}\kappa [3C_1+C_2+3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6]\underset{V=\psi }{}\frac{\widehat{m}_VBr(V\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{total}^V}{\widehat{s}\widehat{m}_V^2+i\widehat{m}_V\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{total}^V}$$
(6)
The phenomenological parameter $`\kappa `$ in the above will be taken to be 2.3 so as to reproduce the correct branching ratio of $`Br(BJ/\psi K^{}K^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{})=Br(BJ/\psi K^{})Br(J/\psi \mathrm{}\mathrm{})`$.

Using the definition of the form factors given in Eqs. (27),(28) and (30) we can get the amplitude governing the decay $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$as222In writing this we have used $`q_\mu (\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{})=0`$ and $`q_\mu (\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{})=2m_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _5\mathrm{})`$.

$`^{BK^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha G_F}{2\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}[`$ $`\{ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ^\nu q^\alpha p_K^\beta Aiϵ_\mu ^{}B+i(p_K)_\mu (ϵ^{}.q)C\}(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{})`$ (7)
$`\{ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ^\nu q^\alpha p_K^\beta Diϵ_\mu ^{}E+i(ϵ^{}.q)(p_K)_\mu F\}(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{})`$
$`iG(ϵ^{}.q)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{})iH(ϵ^{}.q)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _5\mathrm{})]`$
where the coefficients are

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{m}_b}{\widehat{s}}}C_7^{eff}T_1(\widehat{s})+{\displaystyle \frac{2A_2(s)}{1+\widehat{m}_K^{}}}C_9^{eff}`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_b}{\widehat{s}}}(1\widehat{m}_K^{})C_7^{eff}T_2(\widehat{s})+A_1(\widehat{s})(1+\widehat{m}_K^{})C_9^{eff}`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{m}_bC_7^{eff}}{\widehat{s}}}\left[T_2(\widehat{s})+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{1\widehat{m}_K^{}}}T_3(\widehat{s})\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{2A_2(\widehat{s})}{1+\widehat{m}_K^{}}}C_9^{eff}`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2V(\widehat{s})}{1+\widehat{m}_K^{}}}C_{10}`$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(\widehat{s})(1+\widehat{m}_K^{})C_{10}`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2A_2(\widehat{s})}{1+\widehat{m}_K^{}}}C_{10}`$
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_K^{}}{\widehat{m}_b}}A_0(\widehat{s})C_{Q_1}`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_K^{}}{\widehat{m}_b}}A_0(\widehat{s})C_{Q_2}2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}C_{10}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_2(\widehat{s})}{1+\widehat{m}_K^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_K^{}}{\widehat{s}}}(A_3(\widehat{s})A_0(\widehat{s}))\right)`$ (8)
where $`\widehat{s}=s/m_B^2`$, $`\widehat{m}_K^{}=m_K^{}/m_B`$ and $`\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}=m_{\mathrm{}}/m_B`$. From the above expression of the matrix element given in Eq. (7) we can get the expression of the dilepton invariant mass spectra as

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{ds}=\frac{G_F^2\alpha ^2m_B^3}{2^{10}\pi ^5}|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2\lambda ^{1/2}\sqrt{1\frac{4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2}{\widehat{s}}}$$
(9)
where

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\lambda (\widehat{s}+4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)|A|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{s}+2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}(\lambda +12\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})|B|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{s}+2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}\lambda ^2|C|^2`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}(\widehat{s}+2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)\mathrm{Re}(B^{}C)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)\lambda |D|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\lambda (\widehat{s}+2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)+12\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}(\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)]}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}|E|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}[\lambda (\widehat{s}+2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)+24\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s}]|F|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}(\widehat{s}+2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)\mathrm{Re}(E^{}F)+{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2}}\lambda |G|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2}}\widehat{s}|H|^2`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2}}\lambda [2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(E^{}H)(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})\mathrm{Re}(F^{}H)]`$
and where $`\lambda =\lambda (1,\widehat{s},\widehat{m}_K^{}^2)=1+\widehat{s}^2+\widehat{m}_K^{}^42\widehat{s}2\widehat{m}_K^{}^22\widehat{s}\widehat{m}_K^{}`$.

## III  Lepton polarization asymmetries

Now we compute the lepton polarization asymmetries of both the leptons defined in the effective four fermion interaction of Eq. (2). For this we define the orthogonal vectors $`S`$ in the rest frame of $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`W`$ in the rest frame of $`\mathrm{}^+`$, for the polarization of the leptons. $`L`$, $`N`$ and $`T`$ correspond to the lepton being polarized along the longitudinal, normal and transverse directions respectively Aliev:2000jx ; Aliev:2001pq ; Bensalem:2002ni ; RaiChoudhury:1999qb ; RaiChoudhury:2002hf .

$`S_L^\mu `$ $``$ $`(0,𝐞_L)=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_{}}{|𝐩_{}|}})`$
$`S_N^\mu `$ $``$ $`(0,𝐞_N)=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_𝐊^{}\times 𝐩_{}}{|𝐩_𝐊^{}\times 𝐩_{}|}})`$
$`S_T^\mu `$ $``$ $`(0,𝐞_T)=(0,𝐞_N\times 𝐞_L)`$ (11)
$`W_L^\mu `$ $``$ $`(0,𝐰_L)=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_+}{|𝐩_+|}})`$
$`W_N^\mu `$ $``$ $`(0,𝐰_N)=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_𝐊^{}\times 𝐩_+}{|𝐩_𝐊^{}\times 𝐩_+|}})`$
$`W_T^\mu `$ $``$ $`(0,𝐰_T)=(0,𝐰_N\times 𝐰_L)`$ (12)
where $`𝐩_+`$, $`𝐩_{}`$ and $`𝐩_𝐊^{}`$ are three momenta of $`\mathrm{}^+`$, $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ respectively in the c.m. frame of $`\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$ system. On boosting the above vectors defined by Eqs. (11), (12) to the c.m. frame of $`\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$ system, only the longitudinal vector will be boosted while the other two will remain unchanged. The longitudinal vectors after the boost will become

$`S_L^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩_{}|}{m_{\mathrm{}}}},{\displaystyle \frac{E_1𝐩_{}}{m_{\mathrm{}}|𝐩_{}|}})`$
$`W_L^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩_{}|}{m_{\mathrm{}}}},{\displaystyle \frac{E_1𝐩_{}}{m_{\mathrm{}}|𝐩_{}|}}).`$ (13)
The polarization asymmetries can now be calculated using the spin projector $`\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5\overline{)}S)`$ for $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ and the spin projector $`\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5\overline{)}W)`$ for $`\mathrm{}^+`$.

Equipped with the above we can now define various single lepton and double lepton polarization asymmetries. The single lepton polarization asymmetries are defined as Aliev:2000jx ; Aliev:2001pq ; RaiChoudhury:1999qb ; Bensalem:2002ni ; RaiChoudhury:2002hf

$`𝒫_x^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)}{\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)+\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)}},`$
$`𝒫_x^+`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)}{\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)+\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_x)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)}}`$ (14)
where the subindex $`x`$ is $`L,N`$ or $`T`$. $`P^\pm `$ denotes the polarization asymmetry of the charged lepton $`\mathrm{}^\pm `$. Along the same lines we can also define the double spin polarization asymmetries as Bensalem:2002ni

$$𝒫_{xy}\frac{\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_y)}{d\widehat{s}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_y)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_y)}{d\widehat{s}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_y)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)}{\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_y)}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_y)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)+\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_y)}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_x,W_y)}{d\widehat{s}}\right)}$$
(15)
where the subindex $`x,y`$ are $`L,N`$ or $`T`$.

The expressions of the double polarization asymmetries are

$`𝒫_{LL}=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\lambda (2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s})|A|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s})(\lambda +12\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})|B|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s})}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}|C|^2`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})\mathrm{Re}(B^{}C)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\lambda (4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s})|D|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\lambda (10\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s})+12\widehat{s}\widehat{m}_K^{}^2(4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s})]}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}|E|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}[\lambda (10\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s})+24\widehat{s}\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2]|F|^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})(10\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s})\mathrm{Re}(E^{}F)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2}}(\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)|G|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2}}\widehat{s}|H|^2+4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2}}[2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(E^{}H)(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})\mathrm{Re}(F^{}H)]]/`$
$`𝒫_{LN}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\widehat{s}}}}[\lambda \{\mathrm{Im}(C^{}E){\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)}{2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{Im}(F^{}G)+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{Im}(C^{}H)\}(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})\{\mathrm{Im}(B^{}E)`$ (17)
$`+(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})\mathrm{Im}(B^{}F)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\mathrm{Im}(C^{}F)+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{Im}(B^{}H){\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)}{\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{Im}(E^{}G)\}]/`$
$`𝒫_{LT}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}\pi \sqrt{\lambda (\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)}}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}[(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})\{|E|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}|F|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}}}(\mathrm{Re}(E^{}H)\mathrm{Re}(B^{}G))\}`$ (18)
$`(\lambda +2\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})\mathrm{Re}(E^{}F)2\widehat{s}\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\{\mathrm{Re}(B^{}D)+\mathrm{Re}(A^{}E)\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}}}\lambda \{\mathrm{Re}(C^{}G)\mathrm{Re}(F^{}H)\}]/`$
$`𝒫_{NL}=`$ $`𝒫_{LN}`$ (19)
$`𝒫_{NN}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2}}[\widehat{m}_K^{}^2(\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)(|A|^2|D|^2)\{(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2}{\widehat{s}}})+24{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2}{\lambda }}\}(|B|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}|F|^2)`$ (20)
$`+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2}{\widehat{s}}}\right)\left\{|E|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}|C|^2\right\}+(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2sh)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2}{\widehat{s}}}\right)\left\{\mathrm{Re}(B^{}C)\mathrm{Re}(E^{}F)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)|G|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\widehat{s}|H|^2+6\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}\{2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(E^{}H)(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})\mathrm{Re}(F^{}H)\}]/`$
$`𝒫_{NT}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2}}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2}{\widehat{s}}}}[2\widehat{s}\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\mathrm{Im}(A^{}D)(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})\{\mathrm{Im}(F^{}B)+\mathrm{Im}(E^{}C)+3\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Im}(G^{}F)\}`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\mathrm{Im}(F^{}C)+2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}(E^{}B)+6\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Im}(G^{}E)3\widehat{s}\mathrm{Im}(G^{}H)]/`$
$`𝒫_{TL}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}}{\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}}}\sqrt{\lambda (\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)}[(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})\{|E|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}|F|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}}}(\mathrm{Re}(B^{}G)+\mathrm{Re}(E^{}H))\}\lambda \mathrm{Re}(E^{}F)`$ (22)
$`+2\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}\{\mathrm{Re}(B^{}D)+\mathrm{Re}(A^{}E)\}\widehat{s}\lambda \{\mathrm{Re}(G^{}C){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Re}(H^{}F)\}]/`$
$`𝒫_{TN}=`$ $`𝒫_{NT}`$ (23)
$`𝒫_{TT}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\widehat{s}\widehat{m}_K^{}^2}}[\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s}\{(\widehat{s}+4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)|A|^2(\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)|D|^2\}\{\lambda (\widehat{s}2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)24\widehat{s}\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\}|B|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda (\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)|C|^2`$ (24)
$`+(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})(\widehat{s}2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)\mathrm{Re}(C^{}B)(10\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s})|E|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{(10\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s})\lambda 24\widehat{s}\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\right\}|F|^2`$
$`+(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2\widehat{s})(10\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2\widehat{s})\mathrm{Re}(E^{}F)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\widehat{s}(\widehat{s}4\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2)|G|^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}|H|^2`$
$`+3\widehat{m}_{\mathrm{}}\widehat{s}\{2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(E^{}H)(1\widehat{m}_K^{}^2sh)\mathrm{Re}(H^{}F)\}]/`$
where $``$ is given in Eq. (10).

From their definitions, Eqs. (3.1)-(3.5), polarization asymmetries relating the longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) spin orientations are parity odd wheras the normal one (N) is parity even. Consequently of the various double polarization asymmetries, Eqs. (16)-(24), only $`𝒫_{LN}`$ and $`𝒫_{TN}`$ are parity odd. However, the basic weak interaction Hamiltonian is not invariant under parity transformation so that from parity symmetry considerations alone, no conclusion can be drawn about the vanishing or otherwise of these asymmetries.

Since we are dealing with local Lorentz invariant theories, time reversal invariance is synonymous with CP invariance. In the decay process $`B^0K^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, neither the initial nor the final state is an eigenstate of CP so that CP invariance or otherwise of the theory relate amplitudes of this process with its conjugate process $`\overline{B}\overline{K^{}}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. It should be noted that there are terms in our matrix element which involve a triple product and thus naively have the appearance of a T-odd interaction. This is not correct since we are dealing with an effective Hamiltonian which includes the effect of strong phases which gives fake CP-violation signals even when the basic Hamiltonians are all CP-conserving.

For the charge conjugate process the corresponding amplitudes will have their CKM factor conjugated. For $`bs`$ type of transition like the one considered here, the CKM phase becomes an overall phase factor since we can neglect the very small $`bu`$ couplings. Possible CP violating phases in the CKM factor thus will not show up in any decay rate. Other possible sources of CP violation, for example, can come from the supersymmetry breaking parameter $`\mu `$ becoming complex. The present calculation however takes all supersymmetric breaking soft terms in the Lagrangian to be real so that we have effective CP-invariance of our results. The implications of these for possible measurements of double polarization asymmetries are remarked upon at the end of Sec. IV.

## IV  Numerical analysis, Results and Discussion

We have performed the numerical analysis of all the kinematical variables which we have presented in Sec. III. The parameters which we have used in our numerical analysis are listed in Appendix B. We have quoted our averaged Standard Model values of all these variables in Table 1.

We have also analyzed the effects of supersymmetry on the observables. For the numerical analysis we have considered MSSM, this is the simplest of the SUSY models with the least number of parameters. One of the major parameters of MSSM is $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ which is the ratio of the vev (vacuum expectation value) of the two Higgs doublets of MSSM. We will focus on the MSSM parameter space at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The reason for this being that in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region of MSSM parameter space the contributions of NHB exchange becomes very important for quark level semi-leptonic transitions $`bs\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$especially when final state lepton is either a muon $`\mu `$ or tau $`\tau `$. This point has been noted in many FCNC semi-leptonic Xiong:2001up ; Bobeth:2001sq  and pure dileptonic transitions Skiba:1993mg ; Choudhury:1999ze . Actually if we consider MSSM then we have to extend the set of SM Wilson coefficients, for semi-leptonic transitions we have to introduce two new Wilsons, namely, $`C_{Q_1}`$ and $`C_{Q_2}`$. These coefficients come from the exchange of NHBs and are proportional to $`m_bm_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{tan}^3\beta /m_h`$, where $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`m_b`$ and $`m_h`$ are lepton, b-quark and Higgs boson mass respectively. So as we can see that if lepton is either $`\mu `$ or $`\tau `$ and the Higgs mass is suitable then the new Wilsons ($`C_{Q_1}`$ and $`C_{Q_2}`$) can have fairly large values. The values of $`C_{Q_1}`$ and $`C_{Q_2}`$ also depend on other MSSM parameters like chargino masses and splittings, stop masses and splittings etc. But as is well known these masses and splittings are constrained by the process $`BX_s\gamma `$ Lopez:1994vs . In our numerical analysis we will take a $`95\%`$ C.L. bound expbsg :

$$2\times 10^4<Br(BX_s\gamma )<4.5\times 10^4$$
(25)
which is agreement with CLEO and ALEPH results.

We shall now discuss the models used in our numerical analysis. The MSSM is defined on the basis of four basic assumptions (for a review of the MSSM refer to Nilles:1983ge ): (i) Minimal gauge group, which is $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ which is the SM group also, (ii) minimal particle content, (iii) R-parity conservation, (iv) minimal set of soft SUSY breaking terms. If we use only these conditions then the model which is constructed is called the unconstrained MSSM (also called the phenomenological MSSM as one can readily study the phenomenology of it). But this sort of model gives rise to many phenomenological problems like FCNC, unusually large CP violation, incorrect value of Z mass etc. But these sorts of problems can be resolved once we make some assumptions such as all SUSY breaking parameters are real and hence no new source of CP violation, matrices for sfermion masses and trilinear couplings are diagonal which prevents tree level FCNC processes, first and second generation sfermion universality which helps us in getting away with the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing problem.

But there is another way of solving all the problems of the unconstrained MSSM model, which is to require all the soft SUSY breaking parameters have a universal value at some GUT (grand unified theory) scale. If we make the universal values of these parameters real then even the CP violation problem is solved. This is the case in case of constrained MSSM and minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) models.

Aside from the universality of all the gauge coupling constants in mSUGRA models the other conditions are: universality of all the scalar masses, unification of all the gaugino masses and universality of all the trilinear couplings at the GUT scale. With all these constraints if we impose the condition of correct electroweak symmetry breaking then we have another parameter which is $`\mathrm{sgn}(\mu )`$333$`\mu `$ is the SUSY Higgs mass parameter. and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ which is the ratio of the vev of the Higgs doublets. So in all the mSUGRA frameworks have five parameters

$$m,M,A,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\mathrm{sgn}(\mu ).$$

But it is interesting to study the departure of these sorts of models. By departure we mean what would happen if we relax some of the above mentioned conditions of mSUGRA model. With this sort of relaxing of conditions we effectively introduce additional parameters in the model. One can study such relaxed models also and have reasonable predictions of such SUSY models if the number of new parameters introduced is not large.444Effectively this sort of model lies somewhere in between the unconstrained MSSM and the mSUGRA model. There can be many options available; such as relaxation of universality of gaugino masses at GUT, relaxation of universality of scalar masses at GUT etc.

In our analysis we will choose to relax the condition of univarsality of the scalar masses at GUT. We will assume non-universality of sfermionic and Higgs masses, i.e. the sfermions and Higgs have different universal masses at GUT scale. This sort of model we will call the rSUGRA model. With this sort of relaxation we have to introduce another parameter, this parameter we will take to be the mass of pseudo-scalar Higgs boson mass $`m_A`$.

We shall now discuss the constraints put on the parameters of our models. We will consider only that region of parameter space which satisfies the $`BX_s\gamma `$ constraints given in Eq. (25). Within the SM this decay is mediated by loops containing the charge $`2/3`$ quarks and $`W`$ bosons. For the set of parameters given in Appendix B our SM value of $`Br(BX_s\gamma )`$ turns out to be $`3.4\times 10^4`$. In SUSY theories there are additional contributions to $`bs\gamma `$ which come from the chargino-stop loop, top quark and charged Higgs loop and loops involving gluino and neutralinos.555The contribution due to the loops involving gluino and neutralinos are small as shown in Bertolini:1990if ; Lopez:1994vs . Also this branching ratio constrains only the magnitude of $`C_7^{eff}`$. For $`\mathrm{sgn}(\mu )>0`$ the chargino-stop contribution interferes destructively with SM and charged Higgs contribution.666In our sign convention for $`\mu `$ it appears in the chargino mass matrix with a positive sign. The chargino stop contributions grows with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and because of its destructive interference with the SM and charged Higgs contributions can give us a region of allowed parameter space. Recently there have been calculations about the NLO QCD corrections to the $`bs\gamma `$ decay rate in SUSY Ciuchini:1998xy  but for our work we will use the LO calculations as far as the SUSY corrections are concerned Bertolini:1990if ; Lopez:1994vs .

As has been emphasized in many works goto1 ; RaiChoudhury:1999qb  the universality of scalar masses is not a constraint in SUGRA. To suppress large $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing, the requirement is that all squarks should have universal mass at GUT scale. So that one can relax the condition of universality of scalar masses at GUT scale. This sort of model we have called rSUGRA. The advantage of this model arises as here we can have some handle on the Higgs boson mass and as has been emphasized earlier in many works the new Wilson coefficients $`C_{Q_1}`$ and $`C_{Q_2}`$ are very sensitive to Higgs masses. So in this sort of model one can more easily see the dependence of various observables on the new Wilson coefficients.

We also present the results of the average polarization asymmetries. The averaging is defined as

$$𝒫\frac{{\displaystyle _{(3.646+0.02)^2/m_B^2}^{(m_Bm_K^{})^2/m_B^2}}𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{s}}}𝑑\widehat{s}}{{\displaystyle _{(3.646+0.02)^2/m_B^2}^{(m_Bm_K^{})^2/m_B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{s}}}𝑑\widehat{s}}.$$
(26)
Although we have given the expected values of all the double polarization asymmetries with the SM in Table 1, but in the graphs we have shown only those polarization asymmetries whose integrated values exceeds $`0.1`$ either in the SM or in the various SUGRA models we have considered.

In Fig. 1 we have plotted the variation of differential decay rate with the scaled invariant mass of the dileptons. In Figs. 2-7 we have plotted the various double polarization asymmetries. In Fig. 8 we have shown the variation of the branching ratio of $`BK^{}\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$as a functions of the pseudo-scalar Higgs mass in the rSUGRA model. In Fig. 9 we have shown the variation of branching ratio as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the mSUGRA model. Similarly in Fig.s 10-15 we have shown the variation of the various integrated double polarization asymmetries as a function of the mass of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson mass $`m_A`$ in the rSUGRA model for various values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In Figures 16-21 we have shown the variation of various integrated double polarization asymmetries as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the mSUGRA model for various values of $`m`$ (the unified mass of sleptons and squarks at GUT scale).

It is clear from the figures that several of these polarization asymmetries are sizable and that they are sensitive to the inclusion of the supersymmetric contributions both in regards to the magnitude and sometimes with regard to the sign also. The SM predictions are quite definitive; the only parameter not yet totally fixed is the mass $`m_b`$, however, varying this within the acceptable limits does not change the values of the various asymmetries appreciably. Experimental observations of these polarization asymmetries will provide useful confirmatory verification of the validity of MSSM in rare decays of the $`B`$ meson together with other experimental signatures such as single lepton polarization, forward-backward asymmetry etc.

In presenting our results we have omitted showing the values of the polarization asymmetry parameters $`𝒫_{NT}`$ and $`𝒫_{TN}`$, since their values are less than 0.01 and thus would be nearly impossible for observation with or without SUSY contributions. However, if future experiments arise with values for these which are much larger than that, it will be a clear indication of physics not only beyond the SM but also beyond the MSSM within the range of parameters allowed by other experimental constraints.

Finally, our results pertain to the decay $`BK^{}(p_k)\mathrm{}^+(p_+)\mathrm{}^{}(p_{})`$. As discussed in the last section, for the charge conjugate process with the momenta unchanged, i.e. $`\overline{B}\overline{K^{}}(p_k)\mathrm{}^{}(p_+)\mathrm{}^+(p_{})`$ the polarization asymmetries ($`\overline{𝒫}_{ij}`$) will be given by $`\pm 𝒫_{ji}`$, with the negative sign for $`𝒫_{LN}`$ and $`𝒫_{NT}`$ and the positive sign for the others. Observations of these asymmetries for $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ decays would obviously need tagging of the $`B`$ mesons. Observations without tagging with an equal number of $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ mesons would clearly produce a null value for $`𝒫_{LN}`$ and $`𝒫_{NT}`$ but would yield value of $`𝒫_{LL}`$, $`𝒫_{NN}`$, $`𝒫_{TT}`$ and $`(𝒫_{LT}+𝒫_{TL})`$. The situation will change in the CKM-suppressed related process $`B\rho l^+l^{}`$ where because of the presence of two terms in the effective Hamiltonian with different CKM factors, the CKM phase would show up in the interference term and would change sign in going from this process to its conjugate one. Observations of asymmetries in such a process with mixtures of $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$, as and when they become experimentally accessible, would provide another way of studying the CP violation through CKM phases.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work of S.R.C. and N.G. was supported under the SERC scheme of the Department of Science and Technology (DST), India. A.S.C. would like to acknowledge the Department of Physics and Astrophysics, University of Delhi and the SERC project of the DST, India for partial financial support during his visit to India where this work was initiated.

## Appendix A  Form factors

The exclusive decay $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$can be described in terms of matrix elements of the quark operators in Eq. (2) over meson states, which can be parameterized in terms of form factors. For $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+`$the matrix elements in terms of form factors of the $`BK^{}`$ transition are Ali:1999mm ; Yan:2000dc

$`K^{}(p_K)|(VA)_\mu |B(p_B)=`$ $`iϵ_\mu ^{}(m_B+m_K^{})A_1(s)+i(p_B+p_K)_\mu (ϵ^{}.p_B){\displaystyle \frac{A_2(s)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}`$ (27)
$`+iq_\mu (ϵ^{}.p_B){\displaystyle \frac{2m_K^{}}{s}}(A_3(s)A_0(s))+ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ^\nu p_B^\alpha p_K^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{2V(s)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}`$
and

$`K^{}(p_K)|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu (1+\gamma _5)b|B(p_B)=`$ $`iϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ_\nu ^{}p_B^\alpha p_K^\beta 2T_1(s)+T_2(s)\{ϵ_\mu ^{}(m_B^2m_K^2)(ϵ^{}.p_B)(p_B+p_K)_\mu \}`$ (28)
$`T_3(s)(ϵ^{}.p_B)\{q_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_B^2m_K^{}^2}}(p_B+p_K)_\mu \}`$
where in the above equations $`p_K`$ and $`ϵ_\mu `$ are the four momentum and polarization vector of the $`K^{}`$ meson respectively. By using the equations of motion we can get a relationship between the form factors as

$$A_3(s)=\frac{m_B+m_K^{}}{2m_K^{}}A_1(s)\frac{m_Bm_K^{}}{2m_K^{}}A_2(s).$$
(29)
To get the matrix element of the scalar and pseudo-scalar currents are arrived at by multiplying Eq. (27) by $`q^\mu `$ on both the sides:

$$K^{}(p_K)|\overline{s}(1\pm \gamma _5)b|B(p_B)=2i\frac{m_K^{}}{m_b}(ϵ^{}.q)A_0(s).$$
(30)
For the form factors we use the results given in Ali:1999mm  where we parameterize the form factors as

$$F(\widehat{s})=F(0)\mathrm{exp}(c_1\widehat{s}+c_2\widehat{s}^2).$$
(31)
The related parameters ($`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$) are given in Table 2.

## Appendix B  Input parameters

$`m_B=5.26`$ GeV, $`m_b=4.8`$ GeV, $`m_c=1.4`$ GeV,

$`m_\mu =0.106`$ GeV, $`m_\tau =1.77`$ GeV,

$`m_w=80.4`$ GeV, $`m_z=91.19`$ GeV,

$`V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}=0.0385`$, $`\alpha =\frac{1}{129}`$, $`m_K^{}=0.892`$ GeV,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_B=4.22\times 10^{13}`$ GeV,

$`G_F=1.17\times 10^5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.


text:
# 1 (a) Log-Log plot of the normalized average load versus connectivity for the same models as in [] with 𝑚=2. The power law fits (straight lines) give 𝜂=1.27±0.01 (𝑁=3.10⁴), 1.467±0.006 (𝑁=5.10⁴), and 1.68±0.02 (𝑁=5.10⁴) for 𝛾=2, 2.5, and 3 respectively. For the BA model, 𝜂=1.81±0.02 (𝑁=5.10⁴). (b) 𝜂 versus 𝛾. If the universality proposed in [] would be correct, the measured values for 𝛾∈[2,3) should lie on the “universal” straight line corresponding to 𝛿=2.2 (class I).

Comment on: ‘Universal Behavior of Load Distribution in Scale-free Networks’

In a previous Letter, Goh et al have presented a numerical study of the load—or betweenness centrality—distribution in a scale-free network whose degree distribution follows a power law $`p(k)k^\gamma `$ where $`\gamma [2,\mathrm{}[`$ is a tunable parameter. They showed that the load $`\mathrm{}`$ is distributed according to a power-law $`P(\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^\delta `$ with exponent $`\delta `$. On the basis of their numerical results, they conjectured that the value of $`\delta 2.2`$ is independent of $`\gamma `$ for the interval $`[2,3)`$. Based on this apparent universality, a classification of scale-free networks according to the value of $`\delta 2.2`$ (class I) or $`\delta =2`$ (class II) was proposed. In this comment we argue that the value of $`\delta `$ is not universal and varies significantly as $`\gamma `$ changes in the interval $`[2,3)`$. The power law fits of the cumulative function $`\text{Prob}(\text{load}\mathrm{})`$ for the model proposed in gives the values $`\delta =1.84\pm 0.04`$, $`2.05\pm 0.05`$ and $`2.25\pm 0.05`$ for $`\gamma =2`$, $`2.5`$, and $`3`$ respectively, while for the BA model $`\delta =2.3\pm 0.1`$. The variations of $`\delta `$ are significant enough to claim that it is not universal but in order to double-check our results we use an indirect way of computing $`\delta `$. We study the relation between the load and the connectivity which is of the form $`\mathrm{}k^\eta `$ where the exponent $`\eta `$ depends on the network. As can be seen on Fig. (1a), the power law holds remarkably for a large range of $`k`$ allowing for an accurate measure of $`\eta `$. We also checked that the value of $`\eta `$ does not change significantly for different values of the system size (For $`\gamma =2.5`$, we obtain a relative variation due to size going from $`N=10^4`$ to $`5.10^4`$ less than $`1\%`$). The exponents $`\eta `$ and $`\delta `$ are not independent and it is easy to show that $`\eta =(\gamma 1)/(\delta 1)`$. If the value of $`\delta 2.2`$ is universal then $`\eta `$ is a linear function of $`\gamma `$ with slope $`1/1.20.83`$. In Fig. (1b) we plot the measured $`\eta `$ versus $`\gamma `$ for the different types of networks studied and the corresponding value predicted by universality. This Fig. (1b) shows that if for $`\gamma 3`$ the value $`\delta =2.2`$ seems to be acceptable, the claim of universality for $`\gamma [2,3)`$ proposed in does not hold (our results do not fit in the other class $`\delta =2.0`$ either). In addition, we tested the universality for different values of $`m`$ and we also obtain variations ruling it out: For $`\gamma =2.5`$ and for $`N=2.10^4`$, we obtain $`\eta =1.477\pm 0.006,1.56\pm 0.006`$, and $`1.64\pm 0.01`$ for $`m=2,4,6`$ respectively.

The important exponent thus appears to be $`\eta `$ and it is interesting to note that $`\eta `$ is significantly smaller than the maximum value $`\eta =2`$. This maximum value is reached when nodes with large centrality (ie. with large $`k`$) link together disconnected parts of roughly the same size. The load of these nodes is then of the order of $`\mathrm{}k(k1)/2k^2`$. The fact that $`\eta <2`$ indicates that the different parts are also connected by shortest paths which do not pass through the central node. More generally, it would be interesting to understand how $`\eta `$ depends on the different parameters of the network such as $`\gamma `$ and the degree correlation.

Marc Barthélemy
CEA-Service de Physique de la Matière Condensée
BP12 Bruyères-Le-Châtel, France


text:
# 𝐷_𝑠 decays into ϕ and 𝑓₀(980) mesons

## I Introduction

The interpretation of the nature of the lightest scalar mesons have been controversial since their first observation over thirty years ago. Due to the complications of the nonperturbative strong interactions there is still no general agreement about their structure. Actually, the observed light scalar states are too numerous PDG  to be accomodated in a single $`q\overline{q}`$ multiplet, and therefore, it has been suggested that some of them escape the quark model interpretation. It is not known whether there is necessarily a glueball among the light scalar, and whether some of the too numerous scalars are multiquark or some meson-meson bound states, or even admixtures of quarks and gluons cloto .

In particular, the structure of the meson $`f_0(980)`$ has been extensively debated. It has been interpreted as an $`s\overline{s}`$ state torn ; bev ; col , as an four quark $`s\overline{s}q\overline{q}`$ state jaffe , as a bound state of hadrons wein ; clo1 , and as a result of a process known as hadronic dressing torn ; bev ; faz .

The recently measured relative weight of the reaction $`D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ Ait01 , may serve as a tool for the estimation of the $`s\overline{s}`$ component of the meson $`f_0(980)`$. As a matter of fact, if $`f_0(980)`$ has a pure strangeness component ($`f_0(980)=s\overline{s}`$), the dominant $`D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+`$ decay proceeds via the spectator mechanism, as shown in Fig. 1. However, in the four quark scenario ($`f_0(980)=s\overline{s}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})/2`$) the decay $`D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+`$ is expected to proceed through a much more complicated recombination.

Since the spectator mechanism provides a strong production of the $`\varphi (1020)`$ meson in the decay $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$, in this work we consider the ratio

$$R=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+)},$$
(1)
to evaluate the importance of the $`s\overline{s}`$ component in the $`f_0(980)`$ meson. This same ratio was evaluated in recent calculations by using the spectral integration technique adn , and the constituent quark meson model detc . In both calculations the authors concluded that the $`s\overline{s}`$ component dominates the $`f_0(980)`$ meson and, therefore, the spectator mechanism dominates the $`D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+`$ decay. Here we use the QCD sum rules method to evaluate the ratio in Eq. (1), as well as the branching ratios for the nonleptonic $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ and semileptonic $`D_s^+\varphi \mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`D_s^+f_0(980)\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ decays. The two branching ratios involving the meson $`\varphi `$ will be used to check the reliability of the method, since these two branching ratios are known experimentaly PDG :

$$^{exp}(D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+)=(3.6\pm 0.9)\%,$$
(2)
$$^{exp}(D_s^+\varphi \mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}})=(2.0\pm 0.5)\%.$$
(3)
## II Decay widths

The decay width of the nonleptonic process $`D_s^+M\pi ^+`$, where $`M`$ stands for the $`\varphi `$ or $`f_0(980)`$ mesons, is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+M\pi ^+)=\frac{1}{16\pi m_{D_s}^3}||^2\sqrt{\lambda (m_{D_s}^2,m_M^2,m_\pi ^2)},$$
(4)
with $`\lambda (x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^22xy2xz2yz`$. The QCD factorization formula (in the limit $`m_\pi ^20`$) gives for $`f_0(980)`$:

$$|(D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+)|^2=\frac{G_F^2}{2}|V_{cs}|^2|V_{ud}|^2\left(c_1+\frac{c_2}{3}\right)^2f_\pi ^2(m_{D_s}^2m_{f_0}^2)^2f_+^2(0),$$
(5)
where $`f_+`$ is the $`D_sf_0(980)`$ form factor defined as

$$f_0(p^{})|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c|D_s(p)=i(f_+(t)(p+p^{})_\mu +f_{}(t)q_\mu ),$$
(6)
with $`t=q^2`$ and $`q=pp^{}`$. And for $`\varphi `$ we have

$`|(D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+)|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{8m_\varphi ^2}}|V_{cs}|^2|V_{ud}|^2(c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{3}})^2f_\pi ^2\lambda (m_{D_s}^2,m_\varphi ^2,m_\pi ^2)[(m_{D_s}+m_\varphi )A_1(0)`$ (7)
$``$ $`(m_{D_s}m_\varphi )A_2(0)]^2,`$
where $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are $`D_s\varphi `$ form factors defined as bbd91

$`\varphi (p^{})|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c|D_s(p)`$ $`=`$ $`i(m_{D_s}+m_\varphi )A_1(t)ϵ_\mu ^\varphi +i{\displaystyle \frac{A_2(t)}{m_{D_s}+m_\varphi }}ϵ^\varphi .p(p+p^{})_\mu `$ (8)
$`+`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{A_3(t)}{m_{D_s}+m_\varphi }}ϵ^\varphi .pq_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{2V(t)}{m_{D_s}+m_\varphi }}ϵ_\mu ^{\nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_\nu ^\varphi p_\rho p_\sigma ^{}.`$
In Eqs. (5) and (7) the coefficients $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are the Wilson coefficients entering the effective weak Hamiltonian evaluated at the normalization scale $`\mu `$ bubu :

$$H_W=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cs}V_{ud}^{}\left[\left(c_1(\mu )+\frac{c_2(\mu )}{3}\right)O_1+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(9)
with $`O_1=(\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d)(\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)c)`$. Therefore, in calculating the ratio in Eq. (1) we are free from the uncertainties in the Wilson coefficients and in the CKM transition elements.

In the case of the semileptonic decays $`D_s^+M\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ the differential decay rates are given by

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dt}=\frac{G_F^2|V_{cs}|^2}{192\pi ^3m_{D_s}^3}\lambda ^{3/2}(m_{D_s}^2,m_{f_0}^2,t)f_+^2(t),$$
(10)
for $`D_s^+f_0(980)\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$. The decay rate for the decay $`D_s^+\varphi \mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ is written in terms of the helicity amplitudes

$$H_\pm (t)=(m_{D_s}+m_\varphi )A_1(t)\frac{\lambda ^{1/2}(m_{D_s}^2,m_\varphi ^2,t)}{m_{D_s}+m_\varphi }V(t),$$
(11)
$$H_0(t)=\frac{1}{2m_\varphi \sqrt{t}}\left((m_{D_s}^2m_\varphi ^2t)(m_{D_s}+m_\varphi )A_1(t)\frac{\lambda (m_{D_s}^2,m_\varphi ^2,t)}{m_{D_s}+m_\varphi }A_2(t)\right),$$
(12)
so that

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm }{dt}=\frac{G_F^2|V_{cs}|^2}{192\pi ^3m_{D_s}^3}t\lambda ^{1/2}(m_{D_s}^2,m_{f_0}^2,t)|H_\pm (t)|^2,$$
(13)
$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{dt}=\frac{G_F^2|V_{cs}|^2}{192\pi ^3m_{D_s}^3}t\lambda ^{1/2}(m_{D_s}^2,m_{f_0}^2,t)|H_0(t)|^2,$$
(14)
$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_T}{dt}=\frac{d}{dt}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_++\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}),\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dt}=\frac{d}{dt}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_T).$$
(15)
## III Sum rules

The $`D_s^+`$ meson in the initial state is interpolated by the pseudoscalar current

$$j_{D_s}(x)=\overline{s}(x)i\gamma _5c(x),$$
(16)
where $`c`$ and $`s`$ are the fields of the charmed and strange quark respectively. Summation over spinor and colour indices being understood but not indicated explicitly. The final hadronic state $`M`$ is interpolated by the current

$$j_M(x)=\overline{s}(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }_Ms(x),$$
(17)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M=\end{array}\{\begin{array}{c}1\text{ for }M=f_0(980)\\ \gamma _\alpha \text{ for }M=\varphi \end{array}$$
(18)
Using the QCD sum rule technique svz , the form factors in Eqs. (6) and (8) can be evaluated from the time ordered product of the two interpolating fields in Eqs. (16) and (17) and the weak current $`j_\mu ^W=\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c`$

$$T_{\mu M}(p,p^{})=id^4xd^4y0|\mathrm{T}[j_M(x)j_\mu ^W(y)j_{D_s}^{}(0)]|0e^{i(p^{}.xq.y)}.$$
(19)
In order to evaluate the phenomenological side we insert intermediate states for $`D_s`$ and $`M`$, we use the definitions in Eqs. (6) and (8), and obtain the following relations

$`T_\mu ^{phen}(p,p^{})`$ $`=`$ $`m_{f_0}f_{f_0}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{D_s}^2f_{D_s}}{m_c+m_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_+(t)(p+p^{})_\mu +f_{}(t)q_\mu }{(p^2m_{D_s}^2)(p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_{f_0}^2)}}`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`\text{contributions of higher resonances},`$
for $`f_0(980)`$, and

$`T_{\mu \alpha }^{phen}(p,p^{})`$ $`=`$ $`m_\varphi f_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{m_{D_s}^2f_{D_s}}{m_c+m_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^2m_{D_s}^2)(p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_\varphi ^2)}}((m_{D_s}+m_\varphi )A_1(t)g_{\mu \alpha }`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_2(t)}{(m_{D_s}+m_\varphi )}}(p+p^{})_\mu p_\alpha 2i{\displaystyle \frac{V(t)}{(m_{D_s}+m_\varphi )}}ϵ_{\mu \alpha \rho \sigma }p_\rho p_\sigma ^{}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{})+\text{ contributions of higher resonances},`$
for $`\varphi `$, where we have shown only the structures important for the evaluation of the form factors $`A_1,A_2`$ and $`V`$.

In the above equations the coupling of the $`f_0(980)`$ to the scalar current $`j_s=\overline{s}s`$, was parametrized in terms of the constant $`f_{f_0}`$ as:

$$0|\overline{s}s|f_0=m_{f_0}f_{f_0},$$
(22)
and we have used the standard definitions of the couplings of $`D_s`$ and $`\varphi `$ with the corresponding currents:

$$0|j_{D_s}|D_s=\frac{m_{D_s}^2f_{D_s}}{m_c+m_s},$$
(23)
$$0|\overline{s}\gamma _\alpha s|\varphi =m_\varphi f_\varphi ϵ_\alpha ,$$
(24)
The three-point function Eq.(19) can be evaluated by perturbative QCD if the external momenta are in the deep Euclidean region

$$p(m_c+m_s)^2,p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4m_s^2,t(m_c+m_s)^2.$$
(25)
In order to approach the not-so-deep-Euclidean region and to get more information on the nearest physical singularities, nonperturbative power corrections are added to the perturbative contribution. In practice, only the first few condensates contribute significantly, the most important ones being the 3-dimension, $`\overline{s}s`$, and the 5-dimension, $`\overline{s}g_s\sigma .Gs`$, condensates. For each invariant structure, $`i`$, we can write

$`T_i^{theor}(p^2,p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{(m_c+m_s)^2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle _{4m_s^2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i(s,u,t)}{(sp^2)(up_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}}`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`T_i^{D=3}\overline{s}s+T_i^{D=5}\overline{s}g_s\sigma .Gs+\mathrm{}.`$
The perturbative contribution is contained in the double discontinuity $`\rho _i`$.

In order to suppress the condensates of higher dimension and at the same time reduce the influence of higher resonances, the series in Eq. (26) is Borel improved, leading to the mapping

$$f(p^2)\widehat{f}(M^2),\frac{1}{(p^2m^2)^n}\frac{(1)^n}{(n1)!}\frac{e^{m^2/M^2}}{(M^2)^n}.$$
(27)
Furthermore, we make the usual assumption that the contributions of higher resonances are well approximated by the perturbative expression

$$\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}_{s_0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_{u_0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u\frac{\rho _i(s,u,t)}{(sp^2)(up_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}$$
(28)
with appropriate continuum thresholds $`s_0`$ and $`u_0`$. By equating the Borel transforms of the phenomenological expression for each invariant structure in Eqs.(20), (21) and that of the “theoretical expression”, Eq. (26), we obtain the sum rules for the form factors (at the order $`m_s`$):

$`C_{f_0}e^{m_{D_s}^2/M^2}e^{m_{f_0}^2/M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}f_+(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{(m_c+ms)^2}^{s_0}}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^{u_0}}𝑑u\left[e^{s/M^2}e^{u/M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\rho _+(s,u,t)\right]`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{s}s}{2}}e^{m_c^2/M^2}[m_c+2m_s+{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2m_s}{2M^2}}]+\overline{s}g_s\sigma .Gse^{m_c^2/M^2}[{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2(m_cm_s)}{8M^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_cm_s}{6M^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2(4m_c3m_s)2t(m_cm_s)}{24M^2M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_c2m_s}{6M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2m_s2t(m_cm_s)}{24M^2M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}],`$
$`C_\varphi (m_{D_s}+m_\varphi )^2e^{m_{D_s}^2/M^2}e^{m_\varphi ^2/M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}A_1(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{(m_c+ms)^2}^{s_0}}ds{\displaystyle _0^{u_0}}du[e^{s/M^2}e^{u/M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ (30)
$`\times `$ $`\rho _1(s,u,t)]+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{s}s}{2}}e^{m_c^2/M^2}[tm_c^2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}m_cm_s{\displaystyle \frac{m_cm_s}{2M^2}}(tm_c^2)]`$
$`+`$ $`\overline{s}g_s\sigma .Gse^{m_c^2/M^2}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2(m_c^2+2m_cm_st)}{8M^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_c^2+3m_cm_s2t}{12M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3m_c^2+9m_cm_s4t}{12M^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_c(2m_c^3+3m_cm_s+tm_s)/2t(2m_c^2+3m_cm_s/22t)}{6M^2M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}],`$
$`C_\varphi e^{m_{D_s}^2/M^2}e^{m_\varphi ^2/M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}A_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{(m_c+ms)^2}^{s_0}}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^{u_0}}𝑑u\left[e^{s/M^2}e^{u/M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\rho _2(s,u,t)\right]`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{s}s}{2}}e^{m_c^2/M^2}(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_cm_s}{2M^2}})\overline{s}g_s\sigma .Gse^{m_c^2/M^2}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6M^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{8M^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_c^2m_cm_s2t}{12M^2M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right],`$
and

$`2C_\varphi e^{m_{D_s}^2/M^2}e^{m_\varphi ^2/M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}V(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{(m_c+ms)^2}^{s_0}}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^{u_0}}𝑑u\left[e^{s/M^2}e^{u/M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\rho _V(s,u,t)\right]`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`\overline{s}se^{m_c^2/M^2}(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_cm_s}{2M^2}})\overline{s}g_s\sigma .Gse^{m_c^2/M^2}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3M^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{4M^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_c^2m_cm_s2t}{6M^2M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right],`$
where

$$C_{f_0}=\frac{m_{f_0}f_{f_0}m_{D_s}^2f_{D_s}}{m_c+m_s},\text{and}C_\varphi =\frac{m_\varphi f_\varphi m_{D_s}^2f_{D_s}}{(m_c+m_s)(m_{D_s}+m_\varphi )}.$$
(33)
The decay constants $`f_{D_s},f_{f_0}`$ and $`f_\varphi `$ defined in Eqs. (22), (23), and(24), and appearing in the constants $`C_{f_0}`$ and $`C_\varphi `$, can also be determined by sum rules obtained from the appropriate two-point functions. The explicit expressions for the two-point sum rules and for the double discontinuities in Eqs. (29), (30), (31) and (32) are given in Appendices A and B respectively.

## IV Evaluation of the sum rules and results

In the complete theory, the form factors on the right hand side of Eqs. (29), (30), (31) and (32) should not depend on the Borel variables $`M^2`$ and $`M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. However, in a truncated treatment there will always be some dependence left. Therefore, one has to work in a region where the approximations made are supposedly acceptable and where the result depends only moderately on the Borel variables. To decrease the dependence of the results on the Borel variables $`M^2`$ , we take them in the two-point functions at half the value of the corresponding variables in the three-point sum rules bbd91 ; ra . We furthermore choose

$$\frac{M^2}{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}=\frac{m_{D_s}^2m_c^2}{m_M^2}.$$
(34)
If the momentum transfer, $`t`$, is larger than a critical value $`t_{cr}`$, non-Landau singularities have to be taken into account bbd91 . Since anyhow we have to stay away from the physical region , i.e. we must have $`t(m_c+m_s)^2`$, we limit our calculation to the region $`0.5<t<0.4\text{GeV}`$. In this range the t-dependence can be obtained from the sum rules directly. It can be fitted by a monopole, and extrapolated to the full kinematical region.

Since we do not take into account radiative corrections we choose the QCD parameters at a fixed renormalisation scale of about $`1\text{GeV}^2`$: the strange and charm mass $`m_s=0.14\text{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.3\text{GeV}`$. We take for the strange quark condensate $`\overline{s}s=0.8\overline{q}q`$ with $`\overline{q}q=(0.24)^3\text{GeV}^3`$, and for the mixed quark-gluon condensate $`\overline{s}g_s\sigma .Gs=m_0^2\overline{s}s`$ with $`m_0^2=0.8\text{GeV}^2`$.

For the continuum thresholds we take the values discussed in the Appendix A: $`s_0=7.7\pm 1.1\text{GeV}^2`$ and,

$$\begin{array}{c}u_0=\end{array}\{\begin{array}{c}1.6\pm 0.1\text{GeV}\text{ in Eq.(}\text{29}\text{}\\ 2.0\pm 0.1\text{GeV}\text{ in Eqs.(}\text{30}\text{), (}\text{31}\text{) and (}\text{32}\text{}\end{array}$$
(35)
We evaluate our sum rules in the range $`4.5M^29.0\text{GeV}^2`$, which is compatible with the Borel ranges used for the two-point functions in Appendix A. In Fig. 2 we show the different contributions to the form factors $`f_+,A_1,A_2`$ and $`V`$ at zero momentum transfer, from the sum rules in Eqs. (29), (30), (31) and (32), as a function of the Borel variable $`M^2`$, using the continuum thresholds $`s_0=8.8\text{GeV}^2`$ and $`u_0=1.6\text{GeV}^2`$ or $`2.0\text{GeV}^2`$ for $`f_0`$ or $`\varphi `$ respectively. We see that $`A_2(0)`$ gets a big contribution from the quark condensate, while the perturbative contribution is the largest one for all other form factors. Such kind of behaviour had been already obtained in the $`DK^{}`$ semileptonic decay studied in bbd91 . The mixed condensate contribution is negligible for all four form factors, and the stability is quite satisfactory in the Borel range studied. Varying the continuum threshold $`s_0`$ in the range discussed in Appendix A, and also evaluating the sum rules using or the expressions given in Appedix A for the meson decay constants, or its numerical values, we get for the form factors at $`t=0`$:

$`0.40f_+(0)0.48,`$ $`0.71V(0)0.89,`$
$`0.32A_1(0)0.42,`$ $``$ $`0.43A_2(0)0.37.`$ (36)
The value obtained for $`f_+(0)`$ is smaller than the value obtained for the same form factor in ref. detc  by using the constituent quark meson model.

The $`t`$ dependence of the form factors evaluated at $`M^2=7\text{GeV}^2`$ is shown in Fig. 3. In the range $`0.5t0.4\text{GeV}^2`$ no non-Landau singularities occur for our choices of the continuum thresholds. The QCD sum rules results can, in this $`t`$-range, be very well approximated by a monopole expression

$$F(t)=\frac{F(0)}{1\frac{t}{M_P^2}},$$
(37)
for all four form factors. The reult of the fit is also shown in Fig. 3. the different values for the pole mass, $`M_P`$, for the different form factors are given by:

$$\begin{array}{c}M_P=\end{array}\{\begin{array}{c}(1.6\pm 0.2)\text{GeV}\text{ for }f_+(t)\\ (4.2\pm 0.5)\text{GeV}\text{ for }A_1(t)\\ (8.0\pm 2.0)\text{GeV}\text{ for }A_2(t)\\ (1.95\pm 0.10)\text{GeV}\text{ for }V(t)\end{array}$$
(38)
In the case of $`A_2`$ we get a very hight $`M_P`$ showing a very weak $`t`$ dependence. This approximate $`t`$ independence stems from a mutual cancelation in the sum rule of an increase in the perturbative and a decrease in the quark condensate contributions. Even for $`A_1`$ the $`t`$ dependence is much weaker than for $`f_+`$ and $`V`$. It is also interesting to notice that $`M_P^{(V)}`$ is of the same order than the one for the semileptonic $`DK^{}\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ found in bbd91 , and $`M_P^{(f_+)}`$ is compatible with the ones found for the $`D_s`$ decays into $`\eta `$ cofa  and $`D\kappa \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ dfnn .

Having the form factors we can evaluate the decay widths for the $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ and $`D_s^+\varphi \mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ decays, given by Eqs. (4) and (15) respectively. We obtain the following branching ratios:

$$(D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+)=(2.8\pm 0.7)\%,$$
(39)
and

$$(D_s^+\varphi \mathrm{}^+\nu )=(1.4\pm 0.4)\%$$
(40)
where we have used $`V_{ud}=V_{cs}=0.975`$, $`f_\pi =0.132`$ and the values $`c_1(m_c)=1.263`$ and $`c_2(m_c)=0.513`$, corresponding to the results for the Wilson coefficients obtained at the leading order in renormalization group improved perturbation theory at $`\mu 1.3\text{GeV}`$ cofa . The errors in the above results were estimated only by taking into account the uncertainties in the form factors in Eq. (36) and should be understood as limiting values for the branching ratios.

We see that, within the errors, our results are compatible with the experimental results given in Eqs. (2) and (3). Therefore, in the case of the $`D_s`$ decay into $`\varphi `$, we can say that the factorization approximation works well. From this it seems reasonable to suppose that, if $`f_0(980)`$ has a dominant $`\overline{s}s`$ component, the factorization approximation should also work well for the $`D_s`$ decay into $`f_0(980)`$. Using Eqs. (4), (5) and (7), and the values for the form factors at $`t=0`$ given in Eq.(36) we get:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+)}=0.44\pm 0.18.$$
(41)
In the recently measured spectra from the reaction $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ Ait01 , the relative weight of the channel $`\pi ^+f_0(980)`$ is evaluated to be

$$\frac{(D_s^+\pi ^+f_0(980))(f_0(980)\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{(D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{})}=(56.5\pm 6.4)\%,$$
(42)
and the ratio of yields

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+)}=0.245\pm 0.028_{0.012}^{+0.019},$$
(43)
is measured. Taking into account the results in Eqs. (42) and (43) one gets:

$$R=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+)}=\frac{0.140\pm 0.046}{(f_0\pi ^+\pi ^{})}.$$
(44)
Using the branching ratio $`(f_0(980)\pi ^+\pi ^{})53\%`$, the authors in ref. adn  have estimated the ratio $`R`$ to be $`R=0.275(1\pm 0.25)`$. In a different way E791, using couple-channel Breit-Wigner function Ait01 , found a non significative $`g_K`$, that means indirectly a non significative contribution for the decay channel $`f_0(980)KK`$. Thus if we assume that $`(f_0(980)\pi \pi )1`$ which implies $`(f_0(980)\pi ^+\pi ^{})2/3`$ (2/3 being the isospin factor), using this in Eq. (44) we get

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+)}=0.210\pm 0.069.$$
(45)
Therefore, from our result in Eq. (41), we conclude that there is a significant deviation from the factorization approximation for the $`D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+`$ decay. This could be an indication that there is a sizeable nonstrange component in the $`f_0(980)`$ meson, or even that the $`f_0(980)`$ structure is more complex than indicated by the naive quark model.

It is interesting to notice that the result obtained in ref. detc  for the ratio in Eq. (1) is very similar to our result in Eq. (41). However, the authors in detc  concluded that their result supports a description of $`f_0(980)`$ as a $`s\overline{s}`$ state with a possible virtual $`K\overline{K}`$ cloud, but with no substantial mixture of $`u\overline{u},d\overline{d}`$. We believe that this conclusion was reached because the authors in ref. detc  misinterpreted the experimental result Ait01 . In their words, the E791 collaboration measured $`R=0.62`$, with a very small error. Since from the Particle Data Group PDG  we only know that $`(f_0\pi \pi )`$ is dominant without knowing the exact number, there is still an indetermination in the ratio Eq. (44). As explained above, if we consider $`(f_0\pi ^+\pi ^{})2/3`$, we arrive at the result in Eq. (45), which is smaller than our result in Eq. (41), leading us to an opposite conclusion compared with detc .

One possible way to test if there really is a sizeable nonstrange component in the $`f_0(980)`$ is through the measurement of the semileptonic $`D_s^+f_0(980)\mathrm{}^+\nu `$ decay, since in this decay we do not have problems with the factorization approximation. Our predicition for the branching ratio obtained from Eq.(10), by supposing $`f_0(980)`$ as a $`\overline{s}s`$ state, is:

$$(D_s^+f_0(980)\mathrm{}^+\nu )=(0.55\pm 0.10)\%.$$
(46)
Any significant deviation from that will definitively imply in a sizeable nonstrange component in the $`f_0(980)`$ meson, which could be or not accomodated in the naive quark model. Therefore, we urge the experimentalists to search for this decay.

## V Summary and conclusions

We have presented a QCD sum rule study of the $`D_s^+`$ decays to final states containing $`\varphi `$ and $`f_0(980)`$ mesons. We have evaluated the $`t`$ dependence of the form factors $`f_+(t)`$, $`A_1(t)`$, $`A_2(t)`$ and $`V(t)`$ in the region $`0.5t0.4\text{GeV}^2`$. The $`t`$ dependence of the form factors could be fitted by a monopole form and extrapolated to the full kinematical region. The axial-vector form factors $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ have a much weaker $`t`$ dependence than the form factors $`f_+`$ and $`V`$.

The form factors were used to evaluate the branching ratios for the decays $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ and $`D_s^+\varphi \mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ and we have obtained a good agreement with experimental data. Since the evaluation of the decay width, in the nonleptonic decay, is based on the factorization approximation, our first conclusion is that the factorization approximation works well in the case of the decay $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$.

We have also evaluated the ratio $`D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+/(D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+)`$ and we got a result bigger than estimate based on experimental data. Based on the fact that factorization approximation works well in the case of the decay $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$, this result can be interpretated as an indication that there is a sizeable nonstrange component in the $`f_0(980)`$ meson, or even that the $`f_0(980)`$ structure is more complex than indicated by the naive quark model. This hypothesis could be tested by the measurement of the semileptonic $`D_s^+f_0(980)\mathrm{}^+\nu `$ decay, since there is no problem with the factorization approximation in the semileptonic decays.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank H.G. Dosch for giving us the idea for this calculation and F.S. Navarra for fruitful discussions. This work has been supported by CNPq and FAPESP (Brazil).

## Appendix A Two-point sum rules

In ref. faz  the two-point sum rule for the $`f_0(980)`$ meson was evaluated by considering $`f_0`$ as a $`\overline{s}s`$ state. They got:

$`m_{f_0}^2f_{f_0}^2e^{m_{f_0}^2/M^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{4m_s^2}^{u_0}}𝑑uu\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_s^2}{u}}\right)^{3/2}e^{u/M^2}`$ (47)
$`+`$ $`m_se^{m_s^2/M^2}\left[\overline{s}s\left(3+{\displaystyle \frac{m_s^2}{M^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{s}g_s\sigma .Gs}{M^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_s^2}{2M^2}}\right)\right].`$
Considering $`M^2`$ in the interval $`1M^22\text{GeV}^2`$, $`u_0=1.6\pm 0.1\text{GeV}^2`$ they got

$$f_{f_0}=(0.180\pm 0.015)\text{GeV}.$$
(48)
If we consider $`m_s^2=0`$, the result for $`f_{f_0}`$ does not change significantly, and we get $`f_{f_0}=(0.19\pm 0.02)\text{GeV}`$.

The sum rule for $`\varphi `$ is given by rr :

$$f_\varphi ^2e^{m_\varphi ^2/M^2}=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}_{4m_s^2}^{u_0}𝑑u\frac{(u+2m_s^2)\sqrt{u4m_s^2}}{u^{3/2}}e^{u/M^2}+\frac{2m_s\overline{s}s}{M^2}+\frac{g^2G^2}{48\pi ^2M^2}.$$
(49)
Considering $`m_s`$ at most linearly and using $`u_0=2.0\pm 0.1\text{GeV}^2`$ we get

$$f_\varphi =(0.232\pm 0.010)\text{GeV},$$
(50)
in the interval $`1M^22\text{GeV}^2`$, in a very good agreement with the experimental value $`f_\varphi ^{exp}=0.234\text{GeV}`$ PDG .

For $`f_{D_s}`$ the two point sum rule is given by:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{D_s}^4f_{D_s}^2}{(m_c+m_s)^2}}e^{m_{D_s}^2/M^2}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{(m_c+m_s)^2}^{s_0}}𝑑s(1{\displaystyle \frac{(m_cm_s)^2}{s}})\sqrt{\lambda (s,m_c^2,m_s^2)}e^{s/M^2}`$ (51)
$`+`$ $`\overline{s}se^{m_c^2/M^2}\left(m_c+{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_sm_c^2}{M^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_c\overline{s}g_s\sigma .Gs}{2M^2}}e^{m_c^2/M^2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{2M^2}}\right).`$
Considering $`m_s`$ at most linearly and using $`s_0=8.8\text{GeV}^2`$ we get

$$f_{D_s}=(0.22\pm 0.02)\text{GeV},$$
(52)
in the interval $`2.3M^24.5\text{GeV}^2`$, in a good agreement with the value quoted in ref. ck00 , and also with recent lattice determination lat : $`f_{D_s}=(0.252\pm 0.009)\text{GeV}`$.

## Appendix B Perturbative Contributions to the three-point functions

In all this work we take into account the mass of the strange quark at most linearly. We have checked that the contibution of terms proportional to $`m_s^2`$ and higher powers are negligible. The perturbative contributions for the sum rules defined in Sec. III are:

$`\rho _+(s,u,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\lambda ^{3/2}(s,u,t)}}\{u[2m_cm_s(2m_c^2st+u)+m_c^2(st+u)+s(s+t+u)]`$ (53)
$``$ $`(2m_c^2st+u)(su+m_cm_s(st+u))\}\theta (ss_M),`$
$`\rho _1(s,u,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\lambda ^{3/2}(s,u,t)}}\{m_cu[\lambda (s,u,t)+2m_c^2(m_c^2st+u)+2st]`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`m_s[s^3t^3+2ut^2+ut(2m_c^2u)2m_c^2u(m_c^2+u)`$
$``$ $`s^2(3t+2u)+s(3t^22tu+u(2m_c^2+u))]\}\theta (ss_M),`$
$`\rho _2(s,u,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\lambda ^{5/2}(s,u,t)}}\{m_cu(stu)[\lambda (s,u,t)+6st+6m_c^2(m_c^2st+u)]`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`m_s[s^4+t^4t^3u+2m_c^2u^2(3m_c^2+u)ut^2(10m_c^2+u)`$
$``$ $`s^3(4t+3u)+tu(6m_c^4+8m_c^2u+u^2)+s^2(6t^2tu+u(2m_c^2+3u))`$
$``$ $`s(4t^35t^2u4tu(2m_c^2+u)+u(6m_c^4+4m_c^2u+u^2))]\}\theta (ss_M),`$
$`\rho _V(s,u,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\lambda ^{3/2}(s,u,t)}}\{m_cu(2m_c^2st+u)`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`m_s[s^2+t^2ut2um_c^2s(2t+u)]\}\theta (ss_M),`$
where

$$s_M=m_c^2+\frac{m_c^2u}{m_c^2t}.$$
(57)