Charmless Two-body $B(B_s)\to VP$ decays In Soft-Collinear-Effective-Theory

Wang, Wei; Wang, Yu-Ming; Yang, De-Shan; Lu, Cai-Dian

doi:10.48550/arxiv.0801.3123

Cited by 17 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the experience in B → P P and B → V P phenomenological study, we know that the hard-scattering form factor ζ J is potentially large. Furthermore, as we have shown in Ref [27],. the corresponding Wilson coefficient is of order 1 which amounts to a large effective Wilson coefficient a 2 .…”

supporting

confidence: 68%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What can we learn from $B\to a_1(1260)(b_1(1235))π(K)$ decays?

Wang,

Li,

Lü

2008

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the B → a 1 (1260)(b 1 (1235))π(K) decays under the factorization scheme and find many discrepancies between theoretical predictions and the experimental data. In the tree dominated processes, large contributions from colorsuppressed tree diagrams are required in order to accommodate with the large decaywhich are both induced by b → s transition, theoretical predictions on their decay rates are larger than the data by a factor of 2.8 and 5.5, respectively. Large electro-weak penguins or some new mechanism are expected to explain the branching ratios ofThe soft-collinear-effective-theory has the potential to explain large decay rates of B − → a 0 1 π − and B − → a − 1 π 0 via a large hard-scattering form factor ζ B→a 1 J . We will also show that, with proper charming penguins, predictions on the branching ratios of B0 → (a + 1 , b + 1 )K − can also be consistent with the data.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 68%

“…which contribute to the B → P and B → A form factors.Including the non-perturbative contributions from loop diagrams involving cc[20,21,22,23,24,25], the SCET can successfully explain most of B → P P and B → V P decays[21,26,27]. This phenomenological approach has many important features.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What can we learn from $B\to a_1(1260)(b_1(1235))π(K)$ decays?

Wang,

Li,

Lü

2008

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(31). For example, a recent global fit analysis of charmless B decays using SCET gives [26] 4 (in units of 10 −6 )…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

B d → π − K (*)+ and B s → π +(ρ +)K − decays with QCD factorization and flavor symmetry

Zhu

2010

J. High Energ. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The QCD factorization (QCDF) method usually contains infrared divergences which introduce large model dependence to its predictions on charmless B decays. The amplitudes of charmless B decays can be decomposed into "tree" and "penguin" parts which are conventionally defined, not from the topology of the dominant diagrams, but through their associated CKM factors V * ub V uq and V * tb V tq , respectively, with q = d, s. We find that for B d,s → π ∓ K ± decays, the "tree" amplitude can be well estimated in QCDF with small errors, as the endpoint singularities have been canceled to a large extent. With this as the only input from QCDF and combined with flavor symmetry, the branching ratio of B s → π + K − is estimated to be significantly larger than the CDF measurement.This contradiction could be solved if the form factor F BsK is smaller than the light cone sum rules estimation or the "tree" amplitude has been over estimated in QCDF. The latter possibility could happen if charming penguins are nonperturbative and not small, as argued in soft collinear effective theory. To differentiate between these two possibilities, we examine the similar B s → ρ + K − decay with the same technique. It is found that a large part of the uncertainties are canceled in the ratioIn QCDF, it is predicted to be 2.5 ± 0.2 which is independent on the form factor. However if charming penguins are important, this ratio could be very different from the QCDF prediction. Therefore the ratio of these two branching ratios could be an interesting indicator of the role of charming penguins in charmless B decays.

show abstract

“…There are several QCD-based approaches in calculating hadronic B decays [22,23,24]. ∆S f from calculations of QCDF [9,10], pQCD [11], SCET [12,13] are summarized in Table 1. The QCDF calculations on P P , V P modes are from [9] [32], while those in SP modes are from [10].…”

Section: ∆S F From Short-distance Calculations a ∆S F In Two-body Modesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The QCDF calculations on P P , V P modes are from [9] [32], while those in SP modes are from [10]. The SCET calculations on P P modes are from [12], while those on V P modes are from [13]. It is interesting to note that (i) ∆S f are predicted to be small and positive in most cases, while experimental central values for ∆S f are all negative, except the one from f 0 K S ; (ii) In most cases, QCDF and pQCD results agree with each other, since the main difference of these two approach is the (penguin) annihilation contribution, which hardly affects S f ; (iii) The SCET results involve some non-perturbative contributions fitted from data.…”

Section: ∆S F From Short-distance Calculations a ∆S F In Two-body Modesmentioning

confidence: 99%