# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The long awaited recent report  on a clear observation of direct CP violation in $`K\pi \pi `$ decays, $`\mathrm{Re}(ϵ^{}/ϵ)=(28.0\pm 3.0\pm 2.6\pm 1.0)\times 10^4`$, is the first evidence for the important role played by penguin amplitudes in the phenomena of CP violation . $`B`$ decays are expected to provide a variety of CP asymmetry measurements, as well as measurerments of certain combinations of rates, some of which carry the promise of determining the angles of the unitarity triangle , $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$. This can test the commonly accepted hypothesis that CP violation arises solely from phases in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix . Let us review  a few of the ideas involved in this study, paying particular attention to the role of penguin amplitudes.

* $`\beta `$: In the experimentally feasible  and theoretically pure example of $`B^0(t)J/\psi K_S`$ the decay amplitude is real to a very high precision. Theoretically , the time-dependent mixing-induced CP asymmetry measures the phase $`\beta \mathrm{Arg}V_{td}`$ controlling $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixing to an accuracy of 1$`\%`$ .
* $`\alpha `$$`B^0(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ involves direct CP violation from the interference between a dominant current-current amplitude carrying a weak phase $`\gamma `$ and a smaller penguin contribution, which “pollutes” the measured $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$ term in the time-dependent asymmetry . A ratio of penguin to tree amplitudes $`|P/T|=0.3\pm 0.1`$ in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is inferred  from the measured rates  of $`BK\pi `$ dominated by a penguin amplitude. Such a penguin contribution introduces a sizable uncertainty  in the determination of $`\alpha =\pi \beta \gamma `$ in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. Isospin symmetry may be used  to remove this unknown correction to $`\alpha `$ by measuring also the time-integrated rates of $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ and $`B^0(\overline{B}^0)\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. In the likely case that the decay rate into $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ cannot be measured with sufficient precision, one can at least use this measurement to set upper limits on the error in $`\alpha `$ . Further out in the future, one may combine the time-dependence of $`B^0(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ with the U-spin related $`B_s(t)K^+K^{}`$ to determine separately $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ . This involves uncertaities due to SU(3) breaking.
* $`\gamma `$: The angle $`\gamma `$ is apparently the most difficult to measure. It was suggested some time ago  to obtain information about this angle from charged $`B`$ decays to $`K\pi `$ final states by measuring the relative phase between a dominant real penguin amplitude and a smaller current-current amplitude carrying the phase $`\gamma `$. This is achieved by relating the latter amplitude through flavor SU(3)  to the amplitude of $`B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, introducing SU(3) breaking in terms of $`f_K/f_\pi `$.

In the above two examples of determining $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$, QCD penguin amplitudes were taken into account in terms of their very general properties, whereas electroweak penguin (EWP) contributions were first neglected and later on analyzed in a model-dependent manner . Such an approach relies on factorization and on form factor assumptions , and involves theoretical uncertainties in hadronic matrix elements similar to those plaguing $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ .

In the present report we will focus on recent developments in the study of EWP contributions, which partially avoid these uncertainties, thereby improving the potential accuracy of measuring $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$.

## 2 Model-independent treatment of electroweak penguins

The weak Hamiltonian governing $`B`$ decays is given by 

$$=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{q=d,s}{}\left(\underset{q^{}=u,c}{}\lambda _q^{}^{(q)}[c_1Q_1+c_2Q_2]\lambda _t^{(q)}\underset{i=3}{\overset{10}{}}c_iQ_i^{(q)}\right),$$
(1)   
where $`Q_1=(\overline{b}q^{})_{VA}(\overline{q}^{}q)_{VA},Q_2=(\overline{b}q)_{VA}(\overline{q}^{}q^{})_{VA},\lambda _q^{}^{(q)}=V_{q^{}b}^{}V_{q^{}q},q=d,s,q^{}=u,c,t,\lambda _u^{(q)}+\lambda _c^{(q)}+\lambda _t^{(q)}=0`$. The dominant EWP operators $`Q_9,Q_{10}`$ ($`|c_{7,8}||c_{9,10}|`$) have a (V-A)(V-A) chiral structure, similar to the current-current operators $`Q_1,Q_2`$. Thus, isospin alone relates the matrix elements of these operators in $`B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ 

$$\sqrt{2}P^{EW}(B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0)=\frac{3}{2}\kappa (T+C),\kappa =\frac{c_9+c_{10}}{c_1+c_2}=0.0088,$$
(2)   
where $`T+C`$ represents graphically  the current-current amplitudes dominating $`B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$. Similarly, flavor SU(3) implies 

$$P^{EW}(B^+K^0\pi ^+)+\sqrt{2}P^{EW}(B^+K^+\pi ^0)=\frac{3}{2}\kappa (T+C),$$
(3)   
$$P^{EW}(B^0K^+\pi ^{})+P^{EW}(B^+K^0\pi ^+)=\frac{3}{2}\kappa (CE).$$
(4)   
In the next three sections we describe briefly applications of these three relations to the determination of $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ from $`B\pi \pi `$ and $`BK\pi `$, respectively.

## 3 Controlling EWP contributions in $`B\pi \pi `$

The time-dependent rate of $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ includes a term $`\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha +\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }mt)`$, where the correction $`\theta `$ is due to penguin amplitudes . Using isospin (2), the EWP contribution to $`\theta `$, denoted by $`\xi `$, is found to be very small 

$$\mathrm{tan}\xi =\frac{x\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{1+x\mathrm{cos}\alpha },x\frac{3}{2}\kappa |\frac{\lambda _t^{(d)}}{\lambda _u^{(d)}}|=0.013|\frac{\lambda _t^{(d)}}{\lambda _u^{(d)}}|,$$
(5)   
and is nicely incorporated into the analysis of Ref. 12 which determines $`\alpha `$.

## 4 $`\gamma `$ from $`B^+K\pi `$

Using (3), EWP terms are included in the triangle construction of Ref. 15 

$$\sqrt{2}A(B^+K^+\pi ^0)+A(B^+K^0\pi ^+)=\stackrel{~}{r}_uA(B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0)\left(1\delta _{EW}e^{i\gamma }\right),$$
(6)   
where $`\stackrel{~}{r}_u=(f_K/f_\pi )\mathrm{tan}\theta _c0.28,\delta _{EW}=(3/2)|\lambda _t^{(s)}/\lambda _u^{(s)}|\kappa 0.66\pm 0.15`$. This relation and its charge-conjugate permit a determination of $`\gamma `$  under the assumption that a rescattering amplitude with phase $`\gamma `$ can be neglected in $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$. This amplitude is bounded by the U-spin related rate of $`B^\pm K^\pm \overline{K}^0`$ . Present limits are at the level of $`2030\%`$ of the dominant penguin amplitude , and are expected to be improved to the level of 10$`\%`$. In this case the rescattering effect, which depends strongly on the final state phase difference $`\varphi `$ between $`I=3/2`$ current-current and penguin amplitudes, introduces an uncertainty at a level of $`15^{}`$ in the determination of $`\gamma `$ if $`\varphi `$ is near $`90^{}`$ . A considerably smaller theoretical error  would be implied if this measurable phase is found to be far from $`90^{}`$.

Other sources of errors in $`\gamma `$, such as SU(3) breaking, are discussed elsewhere at this meeting . We note that in this determination of $`\gamma `$ SU(3) breaking does not occur in the leading penguin amplitudes as it does in some other methods .

The phase $`\gamma `$ can also be constrained by measuring only charge-averaged $`B^\pm K\pi `$ rates. Defining

$$R_{}^1=\frac{2[B(B^+K^+\pi ^0)+B(B^{}K^{}\pi ^0)]}{B(B^+K^0\pi ^+)+B(B^{}\overline{K}^0\pi ^{})},$$
(7)   
one finds using (3) 

$$R_{}^1=12ϵ\mathrm{cos}\varphi (\mathrm{cos}\gamma \delta _{EW})+𝒪(ϵ^2,ϵ_A^2,ϵϵ_A),$$
(8)   
where  $`ϵ=\stackrel{~}{r}_u\sqrt{2}|A(B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0)/A(B^\pm K^0\pi ^\pm )|0.24`$, while $`ϵ_A`$ is the suitably normalized rescattering amplitude. The resulting bound

$$|\mathrm{cos}\gamma \delta _{EW}|\frac{|1R_{}^1|}{2ϵ},$$
(9)   
which neglects second order corrections, can be used to exclude an interesting region around $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma =\delta _{EW}`$ if $`R_{}^11`$ is measured. Again, this would be very difficult if $`\varphi 90^{}`$. The present value of the ratio of rates is  $`R_{}^1=2.1\pm 1.1`$.

## 5 $`\gamma `$ from the ratio of $`B^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ to $`B^\pm K^0\pi ^\pm `$ rates

Denoting this ratio of charged-averaged rates by $`R`$ , one finds using (4) a constraint very similar to (9) 

$$|\mathrm{cos}\gamma \delta _{EW}^{}|\frac{|1R|}{2ϵ^{}}$$
(10)   
where $`\delta _{EW}^{}0.2\delta _{EW}0.13`$ represents color-suppressed EWP contributions, and  $`ϵ^{}0.2`$ is the ratio of tree to penguin amplitudes in $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$. In contrast to (9), this bound neglects first order rescattering effects, and the values of $`\delta _{EW}^{}`$ and $`ϵ^{}`$ are less solid than those of $`\delta _{EW}`$ and $`ϵ`$ in (9). Eq. (10) can exclude a region around $`\gamma =90^{}`$ if $`R1`$ is found. Presently  $`R=1.07\pm 0.45`$.

## 6 Conclusion

* In $`B\pi \pi `$ strong and electroweak penguins are controlled by isospin.
* In $`BK\pi `$ strong penguins dominate and EWP are controlled by SU(3).
* Interesting bounds on $`\gamma `$, in one case susceptible to rescattering effects, are implied if the $`BK\pi `$ charge-averaged ratios of rates differ from 1.
* A precise determination of $`\gamma `$ from $`BK\pi `$ is challenging and requires a combined effort involving further theoretical and experimental studies.

Acknowledgment: This work is supported by the United States $``$ Israel Binational Science Foundation under Research Grant Agreement 94-00253/3.