Indication for Large Rescatterings in Charmless Rare B Decays
Extracted source text ยท arXiv hep-ph/0210002
% ****** Start of file apssamp.tex ******
%
% This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
% Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001
%
% Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
%
% See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
%
% TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed
% as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.0
%
% See the REVTeX 4 README file
% It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:
%
% 1) latex apssamp.tex
% 2) bibtex apssamp
% 3) latex apssamp.tex
% 4) latex apssamp.tex
%
\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
%\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
% Some other (several out of many) possibilities
%\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
%\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
%\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
\usepackage{epsfig}
\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
\usepackage{bm}% bold math
%******************DEFINITIONS FOR FIGURES******************
% These should work on Mac's and Unix machines. You need epsf.def.
%\input epsf.tex
\def\DESepsf(#1 width #2){\epsfxsize=#2 \epsfbox{#1}}
% Null macro in case the ones above don't work.
%\def \DESepsf(#1 width #2){\bf #1 here: just uncomment the macro.}
\newcommand{\im}{{\rm Im}}
\newcommand{\out}{{\rm out}}
%******************END DEFINITIONS*************************
%\nofiles
\begin{document}
%\preprint{APS/123-QED}
%%
\title{\boldmath{Indication for Large Rescatterings in
Charmless Rare $B$ Decays}}
%
\author{$^{a)}$Chun-Khiang Chua}
%\altaffiliation[Also at ]{Physics Department, XYZ University.}
%Lines break automatically or can be forced with \\
\author{$^{a)}$Wei-Shu Hou}%
%\email{Second.Author@institution.edu}
\author{$^{b)}$Kwei-Chou Yang}
% \homepage{http://www.Second.institution.edu/~Charlie.Author}
\affiliation{%
$^{a)}$Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei,
Taiwan 10764, Republic of China\\
$^{b)}$Department of Physics, Chung Yuan Christian University,
Chung-Li, Taiwan 32023, Republic of China
}%
%\affiliation{$^{b)}$Department of Physics, Chung Yuan Christian
%University, Chung-Li, Taiwan 32023, Republic of China
%}%
\date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
% but any date may be explicitly specified
\begin{abstract}
%
The current wealth of charmless $B$ decay data may suggest the
presence of final state rescattering. In a factorized amplitude
approach, better fits are found by incorporating two SU(3)
rescattering phase differences, giving $\delta \sim 65^\circ$ and
$\sigma \sim 90^\circ$--$100^\circ$. Fitting with unitarity phase
$\phi_3$ as a fit parameter gives $\phi_3 \sim 96^\circ$, the $CP$
asymmetries $A_{\pi\pi}$, $S_{\pi\pi}$ agree better with BaBar,
and the $\sigma$ phase is slightly lower. Keeping $\phi_3 =
60^\circ$ fixed in fit gives $S_{\pi\pi}\sim -0.9$, which agrees
better with Belle. With the sizable $\delta$, $\sigma$
rescattering phases as fitted, many direct $CP$ asymmetries flip
sign, and $B^0\to \pi^0\pi^0$, $K^-K^+$ rates are of order
$10^{-6}$, which can be tested soon.
%
\end{abstract}
%
\pacs{11.30.Hv, %Flavor symmetries
13.25.Hw, %Decays of bottom mesons}
14.40.Nd} %Bottom mesons
%\pacs{ %Valid PACS appear here
%}
% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
% Classification Scheme.
%\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
%display desired
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
Based on data from the CLEO experiment, it was pointed out in
1999~\cite{gamma} that the emerging $B\to K\pi$, $\pi\pi$ rates
support factorization, {\it if the phase angle $\gamma$}
(or $\phi_3 \equiv \arg V_{ub}^*$~\cite{PDG}) of
the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark mixing matrix {\it is
large}. We now have some theoretical basis for
factorization~\cite{QCD,PQCD} in charmless $B$ decays, and it is
common for $B$ physics practitioners to take $\phi_3 \sim
80^\circ$--$90^\circ$, which is in contrast with the $\sim
60^\circ$ value indicated by CKM fits~\cite{CKM} to other data.
At the turn of the century,
the dramatic ascent of the B
factories brought the CLEO era to an end. %. As a last hurrah,
CLEO did make an attempt~\cite{CLEO_CP} to measure direct $CP$
violating rate asymmetries ($A_{\rm CP}$) in a few modes, where
for a $B\to f$ decay
\begin{equation}
A_{\rm CP}(f)\equiv\frac{{\mathcal B}(\overline B\to\overline f)-{\mathcal B}(B\to f)}
{{\mathcal B}(\overline B\to\overline f)+{\mathcal B}(B\to f)}.
\end{equation}
%
The central values of the CLEO measurements differed from
factorization expectations, but errors were large. Some other
oddities lingered, such as the smallness of $\pi^-\pi^+$ rate
compared with $\pi^-\pi^0$. It was thus suggested~\cite{delta}
that one {\it may need large rescattering, in addition to large
$\phi_3$}. Though speculative, this had implications beyond the
shifted pattern in $A_{\rm CP}$s: $\pi^0\pi^0$ would become
prominent, and $CP$ violation in $\overline B{}^0\to \pi^-\pi^+$
could be sizable. A few years later, it is surprising that the
speculated patterns seem to be really emerging!
Let us give a snapshot of the current
landscape~\cite{hh_belle,hh_babar,hh_cleo,pipi_belle,pipi_babar,moriond}
(as summarized in Tables~\ref{tab:rate} and \ref{tab:ACPs}). All
the $K\pi$, $\pi\pi$ modes have been measured by both Belle and
BaBar experiments to some accuracy, and with good agreement. The
$A_{\rm CP}$ in $K^-\pi^{+}$ mode is now significant, and seem
{\it opposite in sign} to the factorization
expectation~\cite{QCD}; the 3$\sigma$ effect in $\overline
K{}^0\pi^-$ mode reported by Belle is no more. The conflicting
signs between Belle and BaBar on $A_{\rm CP}$ in $K^-\pi^{0}$ and
$\overline K^0\pi^{-}$ modes keeps these asymmetries rather
consistent with zero. Both experiments have hints for
$\pi^0\pi^0\sim 10^{-6}$, and have measured the mixing dependent
$CP$ asymmetries in $\pi^-\pi^+$ mode. For the latter, the two
experiments diverge. We thus scale the error-bars by an $S$ factor
following the Particle Data Group (PDG)~\cite{PDG} for these
modes.
%
Following Belle, we denote the two measurables as $A_{\pi\pi}$
($\equiv -C_{\pi\pi}$), equivalent to $A_{\rm CP}$ in $\overline
B{}^0\to \pi^-\pi^+$, and $S_{\pi\pi}$, where
\begin{eqnarray}
A^{\pi\pi}_{\rm CP}(t)&=&\frac{{\mathcal B}(\overline B {}^0(t)\to\pi^+\pi^-)-
{\mathcal B}(B^0(t)\to \pi^+\pi^-)}
{{\mathcal B}(\overline B {}^0(t)\to\pi^+\pi^-)+
{\mathcal B}(B^0(t)\to \pi^+\pi^-)}
\nonumber\\
&=&A_{\pi\pi}\cos(\Delta m_B t)+S_{\pi\pi} \sin(\Delta m_B t).
\end{eqnarray}
%
Belle finds $A_{\pi\pi}\simeq 1$ and $S_{\pi\pi}\simeq
-1$~\cite{pipi_belle}
(hence outside the physical domain), while
BaBar finds~\cite{pipi_babar} both $\simeq 0$.
Note that Belle's updated numbers
are consistent with earlier results,
and the discrepancy with BaBar~\cite{pipi_babar} remains.
The two central values for $A_{\pi\pi}$ now do agree in sign,
but are {\it opposite} to (QCD) factorization expectations~\cite{QCD}.
Independent hint for rescattering~\cite{CHY} comes from the
unexpected emergence of color-suppressed $\overline B{}^0\to
D^{(*)0}h^0$ decays~\cite{D0h0}, where $h^0 = \pi^0$, $\eta$ and
$\omega$; the rates are all larger than expected. In this paper we
extend the model of Ref.~\cite{delta} and explore the implications of
present data on both $\phi_3$ and rescattering phases.
The pattern change in rates, such as $\pi^0\pi^0$, $K^-K^{+,0}$,
the sizable ``{\it opposite sign}" $A_{\rm CP}$s in various modes,
and especially $A_{\pi\pi}$ and $S_{\pi\pi}$, can
be tested in the near future.
\begin{table*}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\caption{Experimental data for CP-averaged $\overline B\to hh$
branching ratios in units of
$10^{-6}$~\cite{hh_belle,hh_babar,hh_cleo,pipi_belle,pipi_babar,moriond}.
\label{tab:rate}}
\begin{tabular}{lcccr}\hline \hline
${\cal B}\times 10^6$
& CLEO%\cite{Cronin-Hennessy:kg,Richichi:1999kj}
& BaBar%\cite{Aubert:2002jm,bevan_BABAR}
& Belle %\cite{Casey:2002yd}
& Average \\
\hline
%
$K^-\pi^+ $
& $18.0^{+2.3}_{-2.1}{}^{+1.2}_{-0.9}$
& $17.9 \pm 0.9\pm 0.7$
& $18.5 \pm 1.0 \pm 0.7$
& $18.2\pm0.8$
\\
$K^- \pi^0$
& $12.9^{+2.4}_{-2.2}{}^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$
& $12.8^{+1.2}_{-1.1}\pm 1.0$
& $12.8\pm1.4^{+1.4}_{-1.0}$
& $12.8 \pm 1.1$
\\
$\overline K {}^0 \pi^-$
& $18.8^{+3.7}_{-3.3}{}^{+2.1}_{-1.8}$
& $20.0\pm1.6\pm1.0$
& $22.0\pm1.9\pm 1.1$
& $20.6\pm 1.3$
\\
$\overline K {}^0 \pi^0$
& $12.8^{+4.0}_{-3.3}{}^{+1.7}_{-1.4}$
& $10.4 \pm 1.5 \pm 0.8$
& $12.6\pm2.4\pm 1.4$
& $11.2 \pm 1.4 $
\\
$\pi^- \pi^0$
& $4.6^{+1.8}_{-1.6}{}^{+0.6}_{-0.7}$
& $5.5^{+1.0}_{-0.9}\pm 0.6$
& $5.3\pm1.3\pm 0.5$
& $5.3 \pm 0.6 $
\\
$\pi^+ \pi^-$
& $4.5^{+1.4}_{-1.2}{}^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$
& $4.7 \pm 0.6 \pm 0.2$
& $4.4 \pm 0.6\pm 0.3$
& $4.5 \pm 0.4$
\\
$\pi^0 \pi^0$
& $2.2^{+1.7}_{-1.3}\pm 0.7$
& $1.6^{+0.7}_{-0.6}{}^{+0.6}_{-0.3}$
& $1.8^{+1.4}_{-1.3}{}^{+0.5}_{-0.7}$
& $1.7 \pm 0.6$
\\
$\eta \pi^- $
& ---%$1.2^{+2.8}_{-1.2}$(<5.7)
& $4.2\pm1.0\pm0.3$
& $5.4^{+2.0}_{-1.7}\pm0.6$%(<8.2)
& $3.9\pm 0.8$
\\
$\eta K^- $
& ---%$2.2^{+2.8}_{-2.2}$%(<6.9)
& $2.8\pm0.8\pm0.2$
& $ 5.3^{+1.8}_{-1.5}\pm 0.6 $
& $3.2\pm 0.7$
\\
$\eta \overline K {}^0 $
& ---%$<9.3$
& $<4.6$
& ---
& $<4.6$
\\
$K^- K^0$
& $<3.3$
& $<2.2$
& $(1.7\pm1.2\pm0.1)<3.4$
& $<2.2$
\\
$K^- K^+ $
& $<0.8$
& $<0.6$
& $<0.7$
& $<0.6$
\\
$\overline K^0 K^0$
& $<3.3$
& $<1.6$
& $(0.8\pm0.8\pm0.1)<3.2$
& $<1.6$
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\vspace{0.3truecm}
\begin{center}
\caption{Experimental data for direct CP asymmetries in $\overline
B\to hh$
decays~\cite{CLEO_CP,hh_babar,pipi_belle,pipi_babar,moriond}.
\label{tab:ACPs}}
\begin{tabular}{lcccr}
\hline \hline
%
$A_{\rm CP}$~(\%)
& CLEO %\cite{Chen:2000hv}
& BaBar %\cite{bevan_BABAR}
& Belle %\cite{suzuki_BELLE}
& Average
\\
\hline
%
$K^-\pi^+ $
& $-4\pm 16$
& $-10.2\pm 5\pm1.2$
& $-7\pm 6\pm 1$
& $-9\pm4$
\\
$K^-\pi^0 $
& $-29\pm 23$
& $-9\pm 9\pm 1$
& $23\pm 11^{+1}_{-4}$
& $1\pm 12$\footnotemark[1]
\\
$\overline K^0\pi^-$
& $18\pm 24$
& $-5.3\pm 7.9\pm1.3$
& $7^{+9}_{-8}{}^{+1}_{-3}$
& $1\pm 6$
\\
$\overline K {}^0\pi^0 $
& ---
& $3\pm 36\pm 9$
& ---
& $3\pm 36$
\\
$\pi^-\pi^0$
& ---
& $-3\pm 18\pm 2$
& $-14\pm 24^{+5}_{-4}$
& $-7\pm14$
\\
$A_{\pi\pi}$
& ---
& $30\pm25\pm4$
& $77\pm27\pm8$
& $51\pm23$\footnotemark[2] %$S=1.2$
\\
$S_{\pi\pi}$
& ---
& $2\pm34\pm5$
& $-123\pm41^{+8}_{-7}$
& $-49\pm61$\footnotemark[2] %$S=2.3$
\\
$\eta K^-$
& ---
& $-32\pm 20\pm 1$
& ---
& $-32\pm20$
\\
$\eta \pi^-$
& ---
& $-51\pm 19\pm 1$
& ---
& $-51\pm19$
\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\footnotetext[1]{Error-bars of $A^{\rm expt}_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^0)$
is scaled by $S=1.8$.}
%
\footnotetext[2] {Error-bars of $A_{\pi\pi}$, $S_{\pi\pi}$ are
scaled by $S=1.2$, 2.3, respectively.}
\end{table*}
\section{Formalism}
Our picture is that of factorized $B$ decay amplitudes followed by
{\it final state} rescattering (FSI), i.e.
\begin{equation}
\langle i; \mbox{\rm out}|H_{\rm W}|B\rangle
= \sum_l {\cal S}^{1/2}_{il} {\cal A}^f_{l},
\label{eq:master}
\end{equation}
%
%
%
where $| i; \mbox{\rm out}\rangle$ is the out state, ${\cal S}$ is
the strong scattering matrix, and ${\cal A}^f_{l}$ is a
factorization amplitude.
%
It was pointed out in Ref.~\cite{Donoghue} that elastic
rescattering effects may not yet be greatly suppressed at $m_B$
scale, while inelastic rescattering contributions may be
important.
We would clearly lose control if the full structure of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:master}) is employed. It is clear that the subset of
two body final states from elastic rescatterings stand out against
inelastic channels. Furthermore, it has been shown from
duality~\cite{GH} as well as statistical arguments~\cite{SW} that
inelastic FSI amplitudes tend to cancel among themselves and lead
to small FSI phases $\lesssim 20^\circ$. Thus, quasi-elastic
scattering may well be still relevant in two-body $B$ decays, and
we should allow experiment as the final judge.
%
For example, if the factorization amplitudes are already good
enough, the data will force us to have ${\cal S}^{1/2}\sim 1$, and
vice versa.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\caption{ World average inputs and fitted outputs; data in
brackets are not used in fit, while $\eta_8 K(\pi)^-$ entries are
for $\eta K(\pi)^-$. Horizontal lines separate rescattering
subsets. Fit 1 or 2 stand for $\phi_3$ free or fixed at
$60^\circ$. Setting $\delta = \sigma = 0$ but keeping other
parameters fixed give the results in parentheses; the fitted
parameters and $\chi^2_{\rm min.}$ are given in
Table~\ref{tab:phase}.
\label{tab:output} }
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lcrrcrr}
Modes
& ${\mathcal B}^{\rm expt}\times10^6$
& ${\mathcal B}^{\rm Fit1}\times10^6$
& ${\mathcal B}^{\rm Fit2}\times10^6$
& $A_{\rm CP}^{\rm expt}~(\%)$
& $A_{\rm CP}^{\rm Fit1}~(\%)$
& $A_{\rm CP}^{\rm Fit2}~(\%)$\\
\hline
$K^-\pi^+$
& $18.2\pm0.8$
& $19.4^{+1.0}_{-1.2}$ $(19.7)$
& $18.5\pm0.6$ $(18.1)$
& $-9\pm 4$
& $-6^{+2}_{-3}$ $(9)$
& $-4\pm 1$ $(7)$\\
$\overline K {}^0\pi^0$
& $11.2\pm1.4$
& $8.3^{+1.3}_{-0.4}$ $(7.3)$
& $9.1\pm 0.3$ $(8.7)$
& $\,\,\,\,[3\pm 37]$
& $24^{+4}_{-30}$ $(0)$
& $16^{+2}_{-21}$ $(0)$ \\
$\overline K {}^0 \eta_8$
& [$< 4.6$ (90\% CL)]
& $3.4^{+0.8}_{-0.6}$ $(4.1)$
& $3.9^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$ $(4.6)$
& ---
& $24^{+9}_{-4}$ $(0)$
& $15^{+3}_{-2}$ $(0)$\\
\hline $\overline K {}^0 \pi^-$
& $20.6\pm1.3$
& $19.6^{+2.2}_{-1.4}$ $(18.5)$
& $21.6\pm 0.6$ $(20.9)$
& $1\pm 6$
& $8^{+2}_{-1}$ $(0)$
& $5\pm 0$ $(0)$\\
$K^-\pi^0$
& $12.8\pm1.1$
& $11.6^{+0.5}_{-1.0}$ $(12.1)$
& $11.0\pm 0.3$ $(10.9)$
& $1\pm 12$%\footnotemark[1]
& $-19^{+4}_{-7}$ $(7)$
& $-14^{+1}_{-2}$ $(6)$\\
$K^-\eta_8$
& $[3.2\pm0.7]$
& $3.6^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ $(4.2)$
& $4.6^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$ $(5.4)$
& $[-32\pm20]$
& $\,\,\,\, 33^{+15}_{-9}$ $(-9)$
& $\,\,\,\, 19^{+6}_{-4}$ $(-5)$\\
\hline $\pi^-\pi^0$
& $5.3\pm0.6$
& $4.4^{+1.2}_{-0.6}$ $(4.4)$
& $3.2^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ $(3.2)$
& $\,\,\,\,[-7\pm 14]$
& $0$ $(0)$
& $0$ $(0)$ \\
\hline $\pi^-\eta_8$
& $[3.9\pm0.8]$
& $1.2^{+0.1}_{-0.3}$ $(1.4)$
& $1.5^{+0.0}_{-0.1}$ $(1.8)$
& $[-51\pm19]$
& $\,\,\,\, 75^{+25}_{-18}$ $(-32)$
& $\,\,\,\, 42^{+9}_{-6}$ $(-19)$\\
$K^-K^0$
& $< 2.2$ (90\% CL)
& $1.7^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ $(1.5)$
& $1.3\pm 0.1$ $(1.0)$
& ---
& $-84^{+9}_{-14}$ $(-4)$
& $-79\pm3$ $(-3)$\\
\hline $\pi^- \pi^+$
& $4.5\pm0.4$
& $4.7^{+0.7}_{-0.8}$ $(7.4)$
& $5.1^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ $(8.7)$
& $[A_{\pi\pi}=\,\,\,\,51\pm 23]$%\footnotemark[2]
& $A_{\pi\pi}=12^{+14}_{-50}$ $(-24)$
& $A_{\pi\pi}=\,\,\,\,13\pm 2$ $(-17)$\\
%$\pi^+\pi^-$
&
&
&
& $[S_{\pi\pi}=-49\pm 61]$%\footnotemark[2]
& $S_{\pi\pi}= -15^{+69}_{-0}$ $(-5)$
& $S_{\pi\pi}=-90^{+1}_{-0}$ $(-88)$\\
$\pi^0\pi^0$
& $1.7\pm 0.6$
& $2.5^{+0.4}_{-0.9}$ $(0.2)$
& $2.8^{+0.3}_{-0.7}$ $(0.1)$
& ---
& $-56^{+1}_{-16}$ $(1)$
& $-35^{+1}_{-6}$ $(1)$\\
$K^-K^+$
& $<0.6$ (90\% CL)
& $0.2^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ $(0.0)$
& $0.6^{+0}_{-0.1}$ $(0.0)$
& ---
& $-13^{+9}_{-76}$ ( --- )
& $-11^{+2}_{-1}$ ( --- )\\
$\overline K {}^0K^0$
& $<1.6$ (90\% CL)
& $1.5^{+0.3}_{-0.6}$ $(1.5)$
& $1.1\pm 0.1$ $(1.0)$
& ---
& $-63^{+141}_{-24}$ $(-4)$
& $-86^{+6}_{-1}$ $(-3)$\\
$\pi^0\eta_8$
& ---
& $0.4^{+0.2}_{-0}$ $(0.3)$
& $0.2\pm0.0$ $(0.2)$
& ---
& $-3\pm0$ $(-4)$
& $-3\pm0$ $(-4)$\\
$\eta_8\eta_8$
& ---
& $0.2\pm0.0$ $(0.1)$
& $0.2\pm0.1$ $(0.1)$
& ---
& $-10^{+96}_{-75}$ $(-6)$
& $-91^{+14}_{-3}$ $(-6)$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table*}
We extend from the quasi-elastic $\overline B\to DP$~\cite{CHY}
case to the $\overline B\to PP$ case, where $D$ is the SU$(3)$
$D$-meson triplet and $P$ the pseudoscalar octet. That is, we
extend the ${\bf 3} \bigotimes {\bf 8} \to {\bf 3} \bigotimes {\bf
8}$ FSI formalism developed for color-suppressed $D^0h^0$ modes,
to ${\bf 8} \bigotimes {\bf 8} \to {\bf 8} \bigotimes {\bf 8}$
rescattering in light $PP$ final states. Bose symmetry then
implies that the ${\cal S}^{1/2}$ matrix in Eq.~(\ref{eq:master})
takes up the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal S}^{1/2}=
e^{i\delta_{\bf 27}} |{\bf 27}\rangle\langle {\bf 27}|
+e^{i\delta_{\bf 8}} |{\bf 8}\rangle\langle {\bf 8}|
+e^{i\delta_{\bf 1}} |{\bf 1}\rangle\langle {\bf 1}|,
\label{eq:Smatrix}
\end{equation}
hence there are just two physical phase differences, which we take
as $\delta \equiv \delta_{\bf 27} - \delta_{\bf 8}$ and $\sigma
\equiv \delta_{\bf 27} - \delta_{\bf 1}$. These rescattering
phases redistribute the factorized decay amplitudes ${\cal
A}^f_{l}$ according to Eq. (\ref{eq:master}),
%
but they also can be viewed as {\it a simple two parameter model
extension} beyond the usual $B\to PP$ amplitudes.
%
The detailed formalism is given elsewhere. There are also some
similar works in the literature~\cite{similar}. We shall see that
$\vert \delta - \sigma \vert \lesssim 50^\circ$ turns out to be
the case of interest.
%
%
As in~\cite{CHY}, we drop the SU$(3)$ singlet ${\bf 1}$, or
$\eta_1$, from the rescattering formulation. For the present case,
one anyway has the difficulty in explaining the huge rate
observed~\cite{PDG} for $B\to \eta^\prime K$.
For ${\cal A}^f_{l}$, the present QCD~\cite{QCD} or
PQCD~\cite{PQCD} factorization approaches involve effects that are
subleading in $1/m_b$, such as weak annihilation contributions. To
avoid double counting hadronic effects, we shall
use~\cite{absorpt} naive factorization~\cite{AKL} amplitudes. In
fact, for QCD factorization, which is close to naive
factorization, removing all subleading effects but keeping the
$1/m_s^{\rm eff}$ chiral enhancement seems to give a better fit to
$K\pi$, $\pi\pi$ rates~\cite{Beneke}.
We follow the $\chi^2$ fit strategy of Ref.~\cite{HSW},
but keeping the $\delta$ and $\sigma$ phases of
Eqs. (\ref{eq:master}) and~(\ref{eq:Smatrix}) as additional parameters.
%
As input, we take central values of $\vert V_{cb}\vert$
and $\vert V_{ub}\vert$ from Ref.~\cite{PDG}.
We focus on $\overline B\to PP$ modes, since the $VP$, $VV$
situation is not yet settled. We thus take only the 7 $K\pi$ and
$\pi\pi$ rates, the better measured $A_{\rm CP}$s
in $K^-\pi^{+,0}$ and $K^0\pi^-$ modes,
and average over the current values reported by BaBar, Belle and
CLEO~\cite{CLEO_CP,hh_belle,hh_babar,hh_cleo,pipi_belle,pipi_babar,moriond},
as given in Table~\ref{tab:rate} and \ref{tab:ACPs}.
%
We also constrain $f_\pi F_0^{BK}/f_K F_0^{B\pi}=0.9\pm
0.1$~\cite{QCD}. We use the stringent upper limit~\cite{moriond}
of $2.2\; (0.6) \times 10^{-6}$ for $K^-K^{0\,(+)}$ of BaBar. The
limits are implemented as boundaries. {\it We do not use
$A_{\pi\pi}$ and $S_{\pi\pi}$ as input}, since the experimental
situation is still controversial. We do not use $\eta\pi^-(K^-)$
rates and $A_{\rm CP}$s, but give $\eta_8\pi^-(K^-)$ only.
The fit parameters are $F_0^{BK}$, the chiral enhancement
parameter $1/m_s^{\rm eff}$~\cite{gamma}, the FSI phases
$\delta$ and $\sigma$, and possibly $\phi_3$. Because of the
$S_{\pi\pi}$ controversy, we explore two cases:
$\phi_3$ free (Fit~1), or fixed (Fit~2) at $60^\circ$~\cite{CKM}.
%
%
\section{Results}
The fitted rates, $A_{\rm CP}$s, and especially
$A_{\pi\pi}$ and $S_{\pi\pi}$, together with inputs,
are given in Table~\ref{tab:output}.
Setting $\delta$ and $\sigma$ to zero but keeping
all other parameters as determined by the fit,
the results are given in parentheses to indicate FSI cross-feed.
Note that $\sigma$ appears only in the
$\pi^-\pi^+$, $\pi^0\pi^0$, $K^-K^+$, $K^0\overline K^0$,
$\pi^0\eta_8$ and $\eta_8\eta_8$ rescattering subset.
%
The $\chi^2_{\rm min.}$ and fitted parameters are given in
Table~\ref{tab:phase}.
%
The $\chi^2_{\rm min.}/{\rm d.o.f.}$ for Fit 1 and 2 are 17/5
(giving $\phi_3 \cong 96^\circ$)
vs. 25/6, and the former seems better. Both fits are much worse
without FSI: $\chi^2_{\rm min.}/{\rm d.o.f.}$ is 50/7 (65/8) for
Fit~1 (2), as seen in the last column of Table~\ref{tab:phase}.
%
For illustration, we obtain output errors for both Tables by scanning the
$\chi^2\leq \chi^2_{\rm min.}+1$ parameter space.
\begin{table}[b!]
\caption{
The $\chi^2_{\rm min.}$ and fitted parameters for Fits 1, 2.
We constrain $f_\pi F_0^{BK}/f_K F_0^{B\pi} = 0.9\pm 0.1$,
and $1/m_s^{\rm eff}$ gives the effective chiral enhancement for
$\langle O_6\rangle$~\cite{AKL}.
The last column is for $\phi_3$ free (fixed) without FSI phases.
\label{tab:phase} }
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{crrc}
&Fit 1
&Fit 2
&No FSI
\\
\hline
$\chi^2_{\rm min.}/{\rm d.o.f.}$
& $\,\,17/5$
& $\,\,25/6$
&$50/7$ ($65/8$)
\\
$\phi_3$
& \ $(96^{+21}_{-10})^\circ$
& \ $[\,60^\circ]$
&$106^\circ$ ($[\,60^\circ]$)
\\
$\delta$
& $(67^{+21}_{-11})^\circ$
& $(63^{+6}_{-0})^\circ$
& ---
\\
$\sigma$
& $(90^{+14}_{-59})^\circ$
&$(103^{+0}_{-4})^\circ$
& ---
\\
$F_0^{B\pi}$
& $0.29^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$
& $0.24^{+0.00}_{-0.01}$
&0.25 (0.16)
\\
$F_0^{BK}$
& $0.33^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$
& $0.27^{+0.00}_{-0.02}$
&0.27 (0.18)
\\
$m_s^{\rm eff}$ (MeV)
& $81^{+26}_{-14}$
& $57^{+1}_{-3}$
& 66 (35)
\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
Let us illustrate the roles played by various inputs. The $K\pi$
rates are now measured with some precision. As before, together
with the large $K^-\pi^+/\pi^-\pi^+$ ratio, these are the main
driving force for large $\phi_3$~\cite{gamma,HSW}. What is new is
the pull of $A_{\rm CP}$s.
%which attests to the arrival of $B$ factories.
With the 3$\sigma$ effect from Belle gone, $A_{\rm CP}(K^0\pi^-)$
is consistent with zero and not very constraining. But the $A_{\rm
CP}$s in $K^-\pi^+$ now has some significance ($\sim 2\,\sigma$),
with the central value {\it opposite in sign} with respect to
factorization, which may call for~\cite{delta} rescattering. We
illustrate in Fig.~\ref{fig:acp} the $\delta$ dependence of
$A_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^{+,0})$. Indeed, we see that for both fits, a
finite, positive $\sin\delta$ can turn the two $A_{\rm CP}$s
negative. Note that BaBar and CLEO give a negative $A_{\rm
CP}(K^-\pi^0)$, while the present Belle result flips sign from its
previous result and prefers a positive asymmetry. Although
$\sin\delta<0$ is allowed by rate data, it is disfavored by
$A_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^+)$.
%The asymmetry favor $\delta\sim 90^\circ$,
%but such a large strong phase gives a too negative $A_{\rm
%CP}(K^-\pi^0)$.
The two modes compete and settle on the fit output of $\delta \sim
65^\circ$, i.e. the $A_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^+)$ preference for larger
$\delta$ is held back by $A_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^0)$. A similar tug of
war is seen between the rates of $\overline K{}^0\pi^0$ (and
$\pi^-\pi^+$) vs. $K^-\pi^{+,0}$, $\overline K{}^0\pi^-$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
%\smallskip\smallskip\smallskip
\centerline{%{\hskip0.352cm
{\epsfxsize1.75 in \epsffile{acpkpi.eps}}
\hskip-0.1cm
{\epsfxsize1.75 in \epsffile{acpkpi0.eps}}}
%\smallskip\smallskip\smallskip\smallskip
\caption{ $A_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^{+,0})$ vs. $\delta$.
Solid (dashed) line is for Fit~1 (Fit~2), and
shaded bands are 1$\sigma$ experimental ranges. }
\label{fig:acp}
\end{figure}
As remarked earlier, the stringent bounds on $K^-K^{0,+}$ rates
require special care. The limits are not Gaussian so should not
enter the $\chi^2$ fit, but were enforced as strict bounds. As can
be seen from Table~\ref{tab:output}, while the fitted $K^-K^0$
rate is below the bound, for $K^-K^+$ the Fit~2 output sits right
at the bound. For Fit~1 it is also rather close. This implies
sensitivity to the bounds and the way they are implemented.
%
In Fig.~\ref{fig:kk0kk} we give the $\delta$ ($\sigma$) dependence
of $K^-K^{0(+)}$ and the bounds that we employ. Note that a
vanishing $K^+K^-$ rate is possible with finite $\sigma$. We
stress that data is still fluctuating, as both BaBar and Belle
have raised their bounds on $K^-K^0$ rates from the summer 2002
results.
\begin{figure}[b!]
%\smallskip\smallskip %\smallskip
\centerline{%{\hskip0.352cm
{\epsfxsize1.67in \epsffile{k0k.eps}}
\hskip-0.2cm
{\epsfxsize1.67in \epsffile{kk.eps}}}
%\smallskip\smallskip\smallskip\smallskip
\caption{ Rates ($\times 10^{6}$) for (a) $K^0K^-$ vs. $\delta$
and (b) $K^+K^-$ vs $\sigma$. Solid (dashed) line is for Fit 1
(Fit 2), with $\delta$ fixed at $55^\circ$ ($61^\circ$) in (b).
See text for choice of experimental limits. } \label{fig:kk0kk}
\end{figure}
%%%
Unlike $K^0K^-$ mode which is already $\sim 10^{-6}$ under
factorization, $K^-K^+$ is very suppressed hence sensitive to FSI.
Fig.~\ref{fig:kk0kk}(b) illustrates some subtlety of our SU(3) FSI
fit. From Eq. (\ref{eq:Smatrix}), if $\delta_{\bf 1}$,
$\delta_{\bf 8}$, $\delta_{\bf 27}$ are all randomly sizable, one
would expect $K^-K^+ \sim \pi^-\pi^+ > 10^{-6}$, which is realized
in Fig.~\ref{fig:kk0kk}(b) for $\vert \delta - \sigma \vert
\gtrsim 60^\circ$. But this is ruled out by the absence of
$K^-K^+$ so far. However, as also can be seen from
Fig.~\ref{fig:kk0kk}(b), for $\vert \delta - \sigma \vert \lesssim
50^\circ$, the $K^-K^+$ rate can be comfortably below the present
limit, {\it while $\delta$, $\sigma$ can be separately large}. The
subtlety is traced to the SU(3) decomposition
%
\begin{equation}
\left\langle (\pi\pi)_{I = 0} \left\vert {\cal S}^{1\over 2}
\right\vert (\pi\pi)_{I = 0}\right\rangle = \left( \frac{3}{8} \,
e^{i\delta_{\bf 1}} + \frac{3}{5} \, e^{i\delta_{\bf 8}} +
\frac{1}{40}e^{i\delta_{\bf 27}} \right).
\nonumber %\label{subtle}
\end{equation}
%
Thus, because of the small weight of ${\bf 27} \to {\bf 27}$ in
the $I = 0$ $\pi\pi\to \pi\pi$ amplitude, when $\delta_{\bf 8}
\sim \delta_{\bf 1}$, i.e. $\delta \sim \sigma$, one finds $|
\langle (\pi\pi)_{I = 0}| {\cal S}^{1\over 2} \vert (\pi\pi)_{I =
0}\rangle \vert \simeq 1$, and ``leakage" to $\vert (K\overline
K)_{I = 0}\rangle$ is suppressed.
%%%
Note that $K^0\overline K{}^0 \sim K^0K^-$ also remains little perturbed.
While $\sin\sigma < 0$ is strongly disfavored by $K^-K^+$ mode,
the driving force for large $\sigma$ rests in the $\pi\pi$ sector,
where {\it all} measurables turn out to be volatile
--- {\it all} three rates and $A_{\pi\pi}$, $S_{\pi\pi}$.
The $\pi^-\pi^+$ and $\pi^0\pi^0$ rates are sensitive to both
$\delta$ and $\sigma = \delta_{\bf 27} - \delta_{\bf 1}$. To
illustrate, we fix $\delta$ to the fit values of
Table~\ref{tab:phase} and plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:pipi} the
$\pi^-\pi^+$, $\pi^0\pi^0$ rates vs. $\sigma$. The two fits are
similar and clearly favor large $\sigma \sim 90,\,103^\circ$, as
given in Table~\ref{tab:phase}.
%
%
The driving force for large $\sigma$ is the smallness of
$\pi^-\pi^+$ rate. For instance, if $\phi_3$ went upward by
$1\sigma$ in Fit~1, i.e. $\phi_3\sim 117^\circ$, the stress from
$\pi^-\pi^+$ rate would be greatly released and $\sigma$ can come
down to $\sim 31^\circ$.
%
%
But for Fit 2 where $\phi_3$ is held fixed at $60^\circ$,
one needs more FSI to reduce $\pi^-\pi^+$ rate by
shifting it partly to $\pi^0\pi^0$.
It is therefore intriguing that
{\it both Belle and BaBar have hints for the latter!}
\begin{figure}[t!]
%\smallskip
\centerline{
{\epsfxsize1.67 in \epsffile{pipipi0pi0.eps}}
}
%\smallskip\smallskip\smallskip\smallskip
\caption { $\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\pi^0\pi^0$ rates ($\times 10^{6}$)
vs. $\sigma$. Solid (dashed) line is for Fit~1 (Fit~2) with
$\delta$ fixed at $67^\circ$ ($63^\circ$). Horizontal bands are
1$\sigma$ experimental ranges. } \label{fig:pipi}
\end{figure}
At this point we note that the $\pi^-\pi^0$ rate in
Fit~2 is $\sim 3\sigma$ below experiment, and accounts for most of
the $\chi^2$ difference between Fits~1 and 2. Unless both
experiments are wrong, this makes Fit 2 less desirable; further
symptoms are the need for larger $1/m_s^{\rm eff}$ and lower
$F_0^{B\pi(K)}$. The situation comes about because, with low
$\phi_3$, it is hard to get low $\pi^-\pi^+$ rate, even with
rescattering. The fit resorts to reducing $F_0^{B\pi}$ by 20\%
(vs. Fit 1), hence reducing $\pi\pi$ rates by 36\%. Since
$\pi^-\pi^0$ rate is independent of $\phi_3$ and FSI,
this makes $\pi^-\pi^0$ too small.
What is intriguing --- and makes considering Fit~2 worthwhile
--- is $A_{\pi\pi}$ and $S_{\pi\pi}$.
We plot these in Fig.~\ref{fig:apipispipi} with $\delta$ fixed at
fit values of Table~\ref{tab:phase}. While we are aware that the
two experiments are in conflict, we have forcefully ``combined"
the present Belle~\cite{pipi_belle} and BaBar~\cite{pipi_babar}
results (with enlarged error bars) in the plots. The experiments
do, however, agree on the {\it sign of $A_{\pi\pi}$}: Belle finds
$0.77\pm0.27\pm0.08$, and BaBar finds $0.30 \pm 0.25 \pm 0.04$
($\equiv -C_{\pi\pi}$). With $\sigma \simeq 100^\circ$, Fits 1 and
2 return $A_{\pi\pi}\simeq 0.12$, which agree with data in sign.
Without the FSI phases, both fits would give opposite sign.
%
\begin{figure}[t!]
%\smallskip
\centerline{
%\hskip0.4cm
{\epsfxsize1.7 in \epsffile{apipi.eps}}
\hskip-0.25cm %\hskip0.4cm
{\epsfxsize1.7 in \epsffile{spipi.eps}}
}
%\smallskip\smallskip\smallskip\smallskip
\caption { (a) $A_{\pi\pi}$ and (b) $S_{\pi\pi}$ vs. $\sigma$,
with notation as in Fig.~\ref{fig:pipi}. } \label{fig:apipispipi}
\end{figure}
As a measure of direct $CP$ violation, $A_{\pi\pi}$ is clearly
sensitive to FSI phases, but it does not distinguish much between
Fits~1 and 2; most results (except $\pi^-\pi^0$) are not that
different. It is $S_{\pi\pi}$, which probes the $CP$ phase of the
combined mixing and decay amplitudes, that is sensitive to
$\phi_3$, as is evident in Fig.~\ref{fig:apipispipi}(b). Various
$A_{\rm CP}$s and rates have constrained $\sin\delta > 0$ and
$\sin\sigma>0$. We have checked that $S_{\pi\pi}$ is not just flat
in $\sigma$ for $\sin\sigma > 0$ and $\delta \simeq 65^\circ$, as
seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:apipispipi}(b), but is relatively flat for
all $\delta,\ \sigma \lesssim 180^\circ$.
%
The sensitivity with $\phi_3$ gives rise to intriguing results.
{\it Fit~1} gives $\phi_3 \cong 96^\circ$, and $S_{\pi\pi} \sim
-15\%$ is {\it consistent with BaBar}. However, sensitivity to
$\phi_3$ brings $S_{\pi\pi}$ up to 50\% for $\phi_3=117^\circ$.
For {\it Fit~2}, one fixes $\phi_3 = 60^\circ$ to the CKM fit
value, and $S_{\pi\pi} \sim -0.9$ is {\it consistent with Belle}.
We have included Fit~2 in large part because of the present
volatility in $S_{\pi\pi}$. Otherwise it has much poorer $\chi^2$.
It is useful to compare with the
elastic (SU(2) or isospin) case given in Ref.~\cite{delta}.
For the whole range of $\delta$ and $|\delta-\sigma|\lesssim 70^\circ$,
the summed rates in $K^-\pi^+$--$\overline K{}^0\pi^0$
($\overline K{}^0\pi^-$--$K^-\pi^0$) and
$\pi^-\pi^+$--$\pi^0\pi^0$ systems vary by
no more than few\% and 20\%, respectively.
We can reproduce the results of Ref.~\cite{delta}
for this parameter range by taking
$\delta_{K\pi} \equiv \delta_{3/2}-\delta_{1/2}
\sim {\rm arg}\,(1+9 e^{i\delta})$
and $\delta_{\pi\pi} \equiv \delta_2 - \delta_0
\sim {\rm arg}\,(1+24 e^{i\delta}+15 e^{i\sigma})$~\cite{erratum}.
We see from Fig.~\ref{fig:apipispipi}(a) that,
to reach the Belle and BaBar ``average" $A_{\pi\pi}$,
a very large $\sigma \sim 180^\circ$
(hence large deviation from SU(2)) would be called for.
%, and would correspond to a significant
%deviation from the elastic or SU(2) case.
This situation is not supported by the absence of $K^-K^+$ and the
fact that $\pi^-\pi^+ > 4 \times 10^{-6}$.
%It is useful to compare with Ref.~\cite{delta}, where
%$A_{\rm CP}(\pi^-\pi^+) \equiv A_{\pi\pi}$ actually turns
%more negative with $\delta_{\pi\pi} \equiv \delta_2 - \delta_0$,
%the phase difference between $I = 2$ and $I = 1$ channels.
%We have checked that this behavior is reflected in our
%$\delta \equiv \delta_{\bf 27} - \delta_{\bf 8}$ dependence.
%But Fig.~\ref{fig:pipi}(b) plots
%$\sigma \equiv \sigma_{\bf 27} - \sigma_{\bf 1}$ dependence,
%which actually shows $A_{\pi\pi}$ {\it grows positive}
%for growing $\sigma$, and is positive for $\cos\delta \lesssim 0$!
%This is a new feature emerging from our extension from SU$(2)$ to SU$(3)$,
%or from rescattering between two channels to six channels
%(see the last 6 rows of Table~\ref{tab:output}).
%We also see from Fig.~\ref{fig:apipispipi}(a) that,
%if one wanted to reach the average $A_{\pi\pi}$ between Belle and BaBar,
%a very large $\sigma \sim 180^\circ$ would be called for.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
Some remarks are now in order.
%
First, the $S_{\pi\pi}$ sensitivity to $\phi_3$ and its numerics
are similar to other discussions~\cite{QCD,CKM,Fleischer:2002zv},
except we show that $S_{\pi\pi}$ is {\it insensitive} to FSI for $\sin\delta,\
\sin\sigma >0$.
%
Second, with current data, not only $\pi^0\pi^0 \gtrsim 10^{-6}$,
but also $K^-K^0$, $K^-K^+ \sim 10^{-6}$ are inevitable for our
rescattering model. Besides the rates of $\pi^-\pi^+$,
$\pi^0\pi^0$, they are largely driven by $A_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^+)$
(otherwise sign would be wrong).
It is also strongly suggested by
the need to change sign for $A_{\pi\pi}$.
With a factorization contribution at $10^{-6}$ level,
$K^-K^0$ should be seen soon, but
for $K^-K^+$, it is possible to get vanishing rates at
$\sigma\simeq\delta$, the ``SU(2) limit".
%
Third, our $\pi^-\eta_8$ rate is quite low and the $A_{\rm CP}$ is
opposite to the experimental result. This may be due to our
inability to treat $\eta_1$, or indicate an experimental problem,
or both.
%
Four, it has been pointed out that subleading, flavor exchange $PP
\to PP$ scattering need not be small at $m_B$
scale~\cite{Donoghue}. Note the present $\delta$ and $\sigma$
phases are {\it effective}~\cite{delta} parameters beyond
factorization. Their link to the actual $PP \to PP$ phases are
nontrivial and has to be studied further.
%
Fifth, a fully SU(3) analysis also hints at large FSI phases~\cite{He}.
%
Finally, let us compare with (P)QCD factorization approaches. For
QCD factorization, removing all subleading effects
(hence $\sim$ naive factorization)
gives better fit~\cite{Beneke} to $K\pi$, $\pi\pi$ rates.
To account for $A_{\rm CP}$s, Ref.~\cite{QCD}
resorts to a sizable {\it complex} $X_{H,A}$ hadronic parameter,
which is a form of large strong phase.
%
PQCD factorization fares better with $A_{\rm CP}$s~\cite{keum} by
having a sizable absorptive part in some penguin annihilation
diagrams. But it gives a larger $\pi^-\pi^+$ and a smaller
$\pi^-\pi^0$ rate than data, the absence of $\pi^0\pi^0$, while
$K^-K^+$ is always very small~\cite{ChenLi}. Our results can
therefore be distinguished from QCD and PQCD factorization
approaches.
In summary,
we find that a minimal extension of
two quasi-elastic SU(3) FSI phases, $\delta$ and $\sigma$,
can suffice to account for current charmless $B$ decay data.
The observables to be tested in the near future are:
%
sign of $A_{\rm CP}$s, with $A_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^{0}) \simeq -20\%$;
%
the rates of $\pi^0\pi^0 \gtrsim 10^{-6}$, $K^-K^+ \lesssim 10^{-6}$;
%
$A_{\pi\pi} > 0$, and $S_{\pi\pi}$ could, depending on $\phi_3$,
agree with either BaBar or Belle values.
%
The $\pi^-\pi^0$ rate should be double checked.
%
Many $A_{\rm CP}$s are large and have sign flipped, but can only
be checked later. More details of the present work would be given
elsewhere.
%\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent %{\bf Acknowledgement}.\ \
This work is supported in part by grants from NSC,
91-2112-M-002-027, 91-2811-M-002-043, 91-2112-M-033-013,
the MOE CosPA Project,
and %the BCP Topical Program of
NCTS.
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{gamma}
X.G.~He, W.S.~Hou, K.C.~Yang,
%``Indications for Re V(ub) < 0 from rare B decay data,''
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 1100 (1999).
%[arXiv:hep-ph/9902256].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902256;%%
\bibitem{PDG}
K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
%``Review Of Particle Physics,''
Phys. Rev. D~{\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
%%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
\bibitem{QCD}
M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert, C.T.~Sachrajda,
%``QCD factorization in B $\to$ pi K, pi pi decays and
%extraction of Wolfenstein parameters,''
Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 606}, 245 (2001).
%[arXiv:hep-ph/0104110].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104110;%%
\bibitem{PQCD}
Y.Y.~Keum, H.n.~Li, A.I.~Sanda,
%``Penguin enhancement and B $\to$ K pi decays in perturbative QCD,''
Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 054008 (2001).
%[arXiv:hep-ph/0004173].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004173;%%
\bibitem{CKM}
M.~Ciuchini {\it et al.},
%``2000 CKM-triangle analysis: A critical review with
%updated experimental inputs and theoretical parameters,''
JHEP {\bf 0107}, 013 (2001).
%[arXiv:hep-ph/0012308].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012308;%%
\bibitem{CLEO_CP}
S.~Chen {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
%``Measurement of charge asymmetries in charmless
%hadronic B meson decays,''
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 525 (2000).
%[arXiv:hep-ex/0001009].
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0001009;%%
%\cite{Hou:1999st}
\bibitem{delta}
W.~S.~Hou and K.~C.~Yang,
%``Possibility of large final state interaction phases in light of B $\to$ K pi and pi pi data,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 4806 (2000). [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf
90}, 039901 (2003)]. % [arXiv:hep-ph/9911528].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911528;%%
%\bibitem{delta}
%W.S.~Hou, K.C.~Yang,
%``Possibility of large final state interaction phases in light of
%B $\to$ K pi and pi pi data,''
%Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 4806 (2000).
%[arXiv:hep-ph/9911528].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911528;%%
%\bibitem{ichep02}
%The summer 2002 snapshot can be glimpsed from
%various experimental talks at
%%the 31st International Conference on High Energy Physics (
%the ICHEP 2002 conference,
%%), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24--31 July 2002;
%see http://www.ichep02.nl/.
%Some BaBar results were last updated at the DPF 2002 meeting;
%see http://www.dpf2002.org/.
\bibitem{hh_belle}
H.C.~Huang [Belle Collaboration],
%``Rare B decays at Belle,''
%arXiv:
hep-ex/0205062;
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0205062;%%
B.~C.~Casey {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
%``Charmless hadronic two-body B meson decays,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 092002 (2002). % [arXiv:hep-ex/0207090].
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207090;%%
\bibitem{hh_babar}
%\cite{Aubert:2002jb}
B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
%``Measurements of branching fractions and CP-violating asymmetries in B0 $\to$ pi+ pi-, K+ pi-, K+ K- decays,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 281802 (2002).
%[arXiv:hep-ex/0207055];
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207055;%%
%
%\cite{Aubert:2003qj}
%\bibitem{Aubert:2003qj}
%B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
%``Observation of the decay B+- $\to$ pi+- pi0, study of B+- $\to$ K+- pi0, and search for B0 $\to$ pi0 pi0,''
%arXiv:
hep-ex/0303028;
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0303028;%%
%
%\cite{Aubert:2003ez}
%\bibitem{Aubert:2003ez}
%B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
%``Observation of B meson decays to eta pi and eta K,''
%arXiv:
hep-ex/0303039.
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0303039;%%
\bibitem{hh_cleo}
D.~M.~Asner {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
%``Search for B0 $\to$ pi0 pi0 decay,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 031103 (2002); % [arXiv:hep-ex/0103040];
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103040;%%
A.~Bornheim {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
%``Measurements of charmless hadronic two-body B meson decays and the ratio B(B $\to$ D K)/B(B $\to$ D pi),''
%arXiv:
hep-ex/0302026.
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0302026;%%
\bibitem{pipi_belle}
K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
%``Measurement of CP-violating asymmetries in B0 $\to$ pi+ pi- decays,''
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 071801 (2002);
%arXiv:hep-ex/0204002.
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0204002;%%
%\cite{Abe:2003ja}
%\bibitem{Abe:2003ja}
%K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
%``Evidence for CP-Violating Asymmetries B0->pi+pi- Decays and Constraints on the CKM Angle phi2,''
%arXiv:
hep-ex/0301032.
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0301032;%%
\bibitem{pipi_babar}
B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.
{\bf 87}, 151802 (2001);
%[arXiv:hep-ex/0105061].
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0105061;%%
%``Measurements of branching fractions and CP-violating asymmetries in
%B0 $\to$ pi+ pi-, K+ pi-, K+ K- decays,''
{\it ibid}. {\bf 89}, 281802 (2002).
%hep-ex/0207055.
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207055;%%
%\cite{moriond}
\bibitem{moriond}
M.~Pivk, [BABAR Collaboration], talk given at XXXVIIIth Rencontres
de Moriond Conference, March, 2003;
%
T.~Tomura, [Belle Colaboration], talk given at XXXVIIIth
Rencontres de Moriond Conference, March, 2003;
Y.~Unno and
K.~Suzuki [Belle Collaboration],
%``Improved measurement of the partial-rate CP asymmetry in B+ $\to$ K0 pi+ and B- $\to$ anti-K0 pi- decays,''
arXiv:hep-ex/0304035.
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0304035;%%.
\bibitem{CHY}
C.K.~Chua, W.S.~Hou, K.C.~Yang,
%``Final state rescattering and color-suppressed anti-B0 $\to$
% D(*)0 h0 decays,''
Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 096007 (2002).
%[arXiv:hep-ph/0112148].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112148;%%
\bibitem{D0h0}
K.~Abe {\it et al.} [BELLE Collaboration],
%``Observation of color-suppressed anti-B0 $\to$ D0 pi0, D*0 pi0,
%D0 eta and D0 omega decays,''
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 052002 (2002);
%[arXiv:hep-ex/0109021].
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0109021;%%
T.E.~Coan {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
%``Observation of anti-B0 $\to$ D0 pi0 and anti-B0 $\to$ D*0 pi0,''
{\it ibid}. {\bf 88}, 062001 (2002).
%[arXiv:hep-ex/0110055].
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110055;%%
\bibitem{Donoghue}
J.F.~Donoghue, E.~Golowich, A.A.~Petrov, J.M.~Soares,
%``Systematics of soft final state interactions in $B$ decay,''
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 2178 (1996).
%[arXiv:hep-ph/9604283].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604283;%%
%\cite{Gerard:1990ni}
\bibitem{GH}
J.~M.~Gerard and W.~S.~Hou,
%``CP Violation In Inclusive And Exclusive Charmless B Decays,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43}, 2909 (1991).
%%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,2909;%%
%\cite{Suzuki:1999uc}
\bibitem{SW}
M.~Suzuki and L.~Wolfenstein,
%``Final state interaction phase in B decays,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 074019 (1999).
% [arXiv:hep-ph/9903477].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903477;%%
%\cite{Lach:2002fj}
\bibitem{similar}
P.~Lach and P.~Zenczykowski,
%``Zweig-rule-satisfying inelastic rescattering in B decays to pseudoscalar mesons,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 054011 (2002);
% [arXiv:hep-ph/0206127];
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206127;%%
%%\cite{Smith:1998nu}
%\bibitem{Smith:1998nu}
C.~Smith,
%``SU(N) elastic rescattering in B and D decays,''
Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 10}, 639 (1999).
% [arXiv:hep-ph/9808376].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808376;%%
\bibitem{absorpt}
Short distance ``inelastic" phases via penguins
are included in standard way.
\bibitem{AKL}
A.~Ali, G.~Kramer, C.D.~L\"u,
%``Experimental tests of factorization in charmless non-leptonic
% two-body B decays,''
Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 094009 (1998);
%[arXiv:hep-ph/9804363].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804363;%%
Y.H.~Chen, H.Y.~Cheng, B.~Tseng, K.C.~Yang,
%``Charmless hadronic two-body decays of B/u and B/d mesons,''
{\it ibid}. D {\bf 60}, 094014 (1999).
%[arXiv:hep-ph/9903453].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903453;%%
\bibitem{Beneke}
M.~Beneke,
%``Recent results from the QCD factorization approach to
%non-leptonic B decays,'' arXiv:
hep-ph/0207228.
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207228;%%
\bibitem{HSW}
W.S.~Hou, J.G.~Smith, F.~W\"urthwein,
%``Determination of the phase of V(ub) from charmless hadronic
% B decay rates,''
hep-ex/9910014.
%%CITATION = HEP-EX 9910014;%%
\bibitem{erratum}
In Ref. \cite{delta}, $\delta_{\pi\pi}$ should actually read
$\delta_{\pi\pi}=-(\delta_2 -\delta_0)$ [Erratum-Phys.\ Rev.\
Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 039901 (2003)].
%\cite{Fleischer:2002zv}
\bibitem{Fleischer:2002zv}
R.~Fleischer, J.~Matias,
%``Exploring CP violation through correlations in B $\to$ pi K, B/d $\to$ pi+ pi-, B/s $\to$ K+ K- observable space,''
Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 054009 (2002).
%[arXiv:hep-ph/0204101].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204101;%%
%\cite{Fu:2002nr}
\bibitem{He}
H.~K.~Fu, X.~G.~He, Y.~K.~Hsiao and J.~Q.~Shi,
%``CP violation in B $\to$ P P in the SM with SU(3) symmetry,''
arXiv:hep-ph/0206199.
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206199;%%
\bibitem{keum}
Y.~Y.~Keum, H.~n.~Li and A.~I.~Sanda,
%``A novel PQCD approach in charmless B meson decays,''
AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 618}, 229 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0201103];
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201103;%%
Y.Y.~Keum, hep-ph/0209208.
\bibitem{ChenLi}
C.H.~Chen, H.n.~Li,
%``Final state interaction and B $\to$ K K decays in perturbative QCD,''
Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 014003 (2001).
%[arXiv:hep-ph/0006351].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006351;%%
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}