-
B→Kπ decay processes provide good probes for new physics (NP) beyond the Standard Model (SM) as tree-level amplitudes are suppressed, increasing their sensitivity to potential NP contributions. Based on the isospin consideration, the amplitudes ofB→Kπ weak decays are related by [1–3]AB+→K0π++√2AB+→K+π0=AB0→K+π−+√2AB0→K0π0,
(1) from which a sum rule between the
CP asymmetries ofB→Kπ processes is derived [4]:AK+π−CP+B(K0π+)B(K+π−)τ0τ+AK0π+CP=2B(K+π0)B(K+π−)τ0τ+AK+π0CP+2B(K0π0)B(K+π−)τ0τ+AK0π0CP.
(2) The
CP -asymmetry sum rule can be further simplified to a more crude relation between theCP asymmetries ofB+→K+π0 andB0→K+π− [5]:AK+π0CP−AK+π−CP≈0,
(3) which clearly contradicts the latest world average of the
CP -asymmetry difference between the two processes [6–11]:ΔACP(Kπ)≡AK+π0CP−AK+π−CP=0.115±0.014.
(4) This is essentially a shortened version of the long-standing
Kπ -puzzle.The
Kπ -puzzle has received significant theoretical attention, particularly from studies exploring the possibility of NP [12–20]. Additionally there are studies attempting to understand it within the SM [21–26]. This paper examines the role of the isospin breakingπ0−η−η′ mixing effect in theKπ -puzzle. The effects ofπ0−η−η′ mixing on theCP asymmetries of B meson decays have been studied in several decay channels, such asB→ππ [27, 28]. -
The basic principle is that, as there are
π0 s in the final states ofB→Kπ decay processes, the isospin-breakingπ0−η−η′ mixing effect [29–33] occurs. This effect initially appears negligible [34], which is perhaps why its influence on theKπ -puzzle has not previously been examined. However, isospin-breaking effects potentially affectCP asymmetries more signficantly than previously assumed [35].Within the context of the
π0−η−η′ mixing effect, theπ0 meson can be expressed as an admixture of the isospin eigenstateπ3 and the mass eigenstates η andη′ ,|π0⟩=|π3⟩+ϵ|η⟩+ϵ′|η′⟩,
(5) where
ϵ andϵ′ are small parameters accounting for the mixing betweenπ0 and η andη′ , respectively [30, 31]. Both the branching ratios and theCP asymmetry parameters ofB+→K+π0 andB0→K0π0 require corrections because of theπ0−η−η′ mixing effect. Taking the decay processB+→K+π0 as an example, the full decay amplitude can be expressed asAB+→K+π0=AB+→K+π3+AB+→K+ηϵ+AB+→K+η′ϵ′,
(6) accounting for the
π0−η−η′ mixing effect. Up toO(ϵ) andO(ϵ′) , the branching ratio ofB+→K+π0 can be expressed asBB+→K+π0=BB+→K+π3[1+2ℜ(AB+→K+ηAB+→K+π0)ϵ+2ℜ(AB+→K+η′AB+→K+π0)ϵ′],
(7) where
BB+→K+π3 is the branching ratio ofB+→K+π3 , which is also the branching ratio ofB+→K+π0 in the absence of theπ0−η−η′ mixing effect.The
CP asymmetry ofB+→K+π0 is modified to①AK+π0CP=AK+π3CP+ΔK+π0IB
(8) because of the
π0−η−η′ mixing effect, whereAK+π3CP is theCP asymmetry of the decay channelK+π3 , taking the formAK+π3CP≡|AB−→K−π3|2−|AB+→K+π3|2|AB−→K−π3|2+|AB+→K+π3|2 .ΔK+π0IB represents the correction of theπ0−η−η′ mixing effect to theCP asymmetry ofB+→K+π0 . Up toO(ϵ) andO(ϵ′) , this can be expressed asΔK+π0IB=ℜ[(AB−→K−ηAB−→K−π0−AB+→K+ηAB+→K+π0)ϵ+(AB−→K−η′AB−→K−π0−AB+→K+η′AB+→K+π0)ϵ′].
(9) To account for the potential relative phases between the decay amplitudes, which could arise from effects such as final state interactions, two strong phases θ and
θ′ are introduced to Eq. (9), which becomesΔK+π0IB=ℜ[(AB−→K−ηAB−→K−π0−AB+→K+ηAB+→K+π0)eiθϵ+(AB−→K−η′AB−→K−π0−AB+→K+η′AB+→K+π0)eiθ′ϵ′].
(10) Similarly, the
CP asymmetry ofB0→K0π0 is modified toAK0π0CP=AK0π3CP+ΔK0π0IB,
(11) where the correction term is expressed as
ΔK0π0IB=ℜ[(A¯B0→¯K0ηA¯B0→¯K0π0−AB0→K0ηAB0→K0π0)ei˜θϵ+(A¯B0→¯K0η′A¯B0→¯K0π0−AB0→K0η′AB0→K0π0)ei˜θ′ϵ′].
(12) The different behaviors of the
π0−η−η′ mixing effect in the branching ratios and theCP asymmetry parameters can be easily determined through a comparison of Eqs. (7) and (8). Theπ0−η−η′ mixing effect is clearly negligible for the branching ratios in Eq. (7). However, its contribution to theCP asymmetry parameters,ΔK+π0IB , cannot be neglected, as a smallCP asymmetry parameterAK+π3CP is potentially comparable withΔK+π0IB . Moreover, with a large difference between the amplitudes of the pair ofCP -conjugate processesB±→K±η(′) ,ΔK+π0IB can be further enlarged. This is the case forB±→K±η , as theCP asymmetry of this process is as large as−0.37±0.08 [36], indicating a large difference between the corresponding decay amplitudes of theCP -conjugate processes.The influence of the
π0−η−η′ mixing effect in Eqs. (2) and (3) can now be studied. As these two equations are obtained under the ignorance of the theπ0−η−η′ mixing effect, theπ0 s are the isospin eigenstatesπ3 s. Consequently, Eqs. (2) and (3) are rewritten asAK+π−CP+B(K0π+)B(K+π−)τ0τ+AK0π+CP=2B(K+π3)B(K+π−)τ0τ+AK+π3CP+2B(K0π3)B(K+π−)τ0τ+AK0π3CP,
(13) and
AK+π3CP−AK+π−CP≈0,
(14) respectively. It should be noted that all the branching ratios and
CP asymmetries containingπ3 in the final state are not strictly physically observable. However, this issue can be resolved using Eqs. (8) and (11) and by rewriting Eqs. (13) and (14) in terms of the physical branching ratios andCP asymmetries withπ0 s contained in the final states. TheCP -asymmetry sum rule and theCP -asymmetry difference are now expressed asAK+π−CP+B(K0π+)B(K+π−)τ0τ+AK0π+CP=2B(K+π0)B(K+π−)τ0τ+AK+π0CP+2B(K0π0)B(K+π−)τ0τ+AK0π0CP−ΔIB,
(15) and
AK+π0CP−AK+π−CP≈ΔIB,
(16) respectively, where
ΔIB accommodates theπ0−η−η′ mixing correction and takes the formΔIB=2B(K+π0)B(K+π−)τ0τ+ΔK+π0IB+2B(K0π0)B(K+π−)τ0τ+ΔK0π0IB.
(17) Note that the
π0−η−η′ mixing corrections from the branching ratiosB(K+π0) andB(K0π0) , which are proportional toAK+,0π0CPϵ(′) , are neglected inΔIB asAK+,0π0CP are signficantly less than 1.An interesting behavior of this modification is that, although Eq. (3) relates only the
CP asymmetries ofB0→K+π− andB+→K+π0 , the isospin-breaking correction termΔIB in Eq. (16) contains not only the contribution of the processB+→K+π0 , but also that of the processB0→K0π0 . The latter is of greater numerical importance inΔIB . The reason for the presence ofΔK0π0IB in Eq. (16) is that it is not obtained by substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (14). If that were the case, Eq. (16) would read asAK+π0CP−AK+π−CP≈ΔK+π0IB . Instead, Eq. (16) is derived from Eq. (15), which follows a similar logic to obtaining Eq. (3) from Eq. (2). In this respect, the approximate relation of Eq. (16) is more reasonable, as its isospin-breaking contributions are more complete.The impact of the the isospin-breaking correction term
ΔIB on theKπ -puzzle can now be estimated. The amplitudes in Eqs. (10) and (12) can be calculated theoretically via various approaches, such as QCD factorization [37, 38], perturbative QCD factorization [39, 40], soft collinear effective theory [41], or strategies with the aid of experimental data [23, 25]. However, the four strong phases θ,θ′ ,˜θ , and˜θ′ are non-perturbative, which prevents an accurate prediction ofΔIB . Nevertheless, it is possible to obtain an approximate estimation of the possible range ofΔIB by treating the four strong phases as free parameters, varying from 0 to2π independently. Based on this strategy, using the amplitudes from Ref. [23], the latest world average values of the branching ratios, and the life times from Particle Data Group [37],ΔIB is estimated as②ΔIB=(−0.37,+0.37)×ϵ+(−1.16,+1.16)×ϵ′.
(18) In Table 1, using different values of
ϵ andϵ′ from different studies, the corresponding allowable range ofΔIB is calculated via Eq. (18). Note that the mixing parametersϵ andϵ′ take significantly different values in different studies, resulting in different ranges ofΔIB , as presented in the last column of the table. From Table 1 it can be seen that the isospin-breaking-correction termΔIB ranges from 0.2 to 2.2% for different fitting values ofϵ andϵ′ . As this range is quite large, a definitive conclusion is unobtainable. However, there is still a good chance thatΔIB can be as high as several percent, which indicates that the influence of theπ0−η−η′ mixing effect on theCP -asymmetry sum rule ofB→Kπ and theCP -asymmetry difference ofB+→K+π0 andB0→K+π− cannot be ignored. Taking theCP -asymmetry difference betweenB+→K+π0 andB0→K+π− as an example and combining Eq. (16) with theCP -asymmetry difference in Eq. (14), which is approximately zero in the isospin limit, provides the expressionTable 1.
π0−η−η′ mixing parameters from different references and their corresponding range ofΔIB . Only the central values ofϵ andϵ′ are used when obtaining the range ofΔIB .AK+π3CP−AK+π−CP≈(AK+π0CP−AK+π−CP)+ΔIB,
(19) where the
CP -asymmetry difference in parentheses is the measuredΔACP(Kπ) in Eq. (4). Treating theΔIB -term as an uncertainty, with the mixing parameters from Ref. [33], theCP -asymmetry difference is now expressed asAK+π3CP−AK+π−CP=0.115±0.014±0.041π0−η−η′=0.115±0.043,
(20) from which it is clear that the uncertainty caused by the
π0−η−η′ mixing effect can be larger than the other experimental uncertainties combined. Hence, the significance of the nonzeroness of thisCP difference is considerably reduced to less than three standard deviations.It should be noted that the exact values of the
π0−η−η′ mixing correction term,ΔIB , depend highly on the values of the four strong phases. Here, the possible maximum pollution of theπ0−η−η′ mixing effect on theKπ -puzzle has been estimated by treating the four phases as free varying parameters. However, when the limits of all four strong phases are zero, the value ofΔIB will be reduced significantly. More specifically, ifϵ andϵ′ take the four different sets of values in Table 1,ΔIB would take the values of−0.1% ,−0.02% ,−1.0% , and−0.3% , respectively, under the zero-value limit for these four phases. Under this limit, the corrections of theπ0−η−η′ mixing effect are not sufficiently large to explain theKπ -puzzle. All four values are negative, which can bring the central value of Eq. (20) closer to zero, thus slightly reducing the significance of the nonzeroness of this equation. In conclusion, further study on the determination of the values of the four strong phases is crucial to assess whether theπ0−η−η′ mixing effect provides considerable corrections for theCP asymmetries of channels involved in theKπ -puzzle. -
In conclusion, the contribution of the isospin-breaking
π0−η−η′ mixing effect to theCP asymmetries ofB→Kπ was investigated in this paper. It was found that there is a high chance that theπ0−η−η′ mixing effect pollutes theKπ -puzzle, to a greater degree than previously expected. This pollution is imbedded in the parameterΔIB , which can present high uncertainty for theCP -asymmetry sum rule ofB→Kπ and theCP -asymmetry difference ofB+→K+π0 andB0→K+π− . Although a definitive conclusion on the pollution from theπ0−η−η′ mixing effect is unobtainable, the analysis in this paper suggests that the implications on theKπ -puzzle should be carefully considered. -
I thank Pablo Roig, Hsiang-nan Li, Xin Liu, and Xin-Qiang Li, for their helpful discussions.
Potential pollution of the Kπ-puzzle by the isospin-breaking π0-η-η' mixing effect
- Received Date: 2022-03-22
- Available Online: 2022-09-15
Abstract: The influence of the isospin-breaking