Direct CP Asymmetries in hadronic D decays

Direct CP Asymmetries in hadronic D decays

Cai-Dian Lü( 吕才典 )IHEP, Beijing

Based on work collaborated with Hsiang-nan Li, Fu-Sheng Yu, arXiv:1203.3120, accepted by PRD

Outline

• Motivation, CPV• Branching Ratios, study decay mechanism– Factorization, with QCD dynamics

• Penguin parameterization– Use hadronic parameters fixed by data of BRs– Combine short-distance dynamics of penguin

• Predict direct CP asymmetries in SM• Summary

2CD Lu

Introduction: Evidence of CPV • First evidence of CP violation in charmed meson

decays by LHCb, with 3.5 σ [arXiv:1112.0938]

• Confirmed by CDF , with 2.7 σ [CDF note 10784]

• Naively expected much smaller in the SM

• Necessary to predict more precisely in the SM.3CD Lu

Introduction: Dynamics of D decays

• To predict CPV, we have to well understand the important decay mechanism.

• At first, branching ratios should be well explained — not trivial

A long-standing puzzle:

• R=1 in the SU(3) flavor symmetry limit Large SU(3) breaking effects

4CD Lu

SU(3) breaking effects

• In the factorization method• Large SU(3) breaking effects in W exchange diagram• Dynamics in the annihilation amplitudes has not yet

been well understood 5CD Lu

Annihilation contributions

Pure annihilation process

• It vanishes in the SU(3) symmetry limit• But experimentally,

Large annihilation-type contributions Large SU(3) breaking effects in annihilation

processes6CD Lu

Must Explain BRs wellotherwise, some important dynamics may

be missed

penguin parameterization related to tree as much as possible and predict

direct CP asymmetries

7CD Lu

Topology diagrams for BRs• According to weak interactions

and flavor flows• Include all strong interaction

effects, involving final state interaction (FSI) effects

• Magnitude and phase are introduced to each topology

• This is a complete set • Penguins are neglected for BRs

due to suppression of CKM matrix elements

8CD Lu

Guidelines• However, topology diagrams in SU(3) symmetry

cannot predict right CP asymmetry• We apply factorization hypothesis: so that to

include SU(3) breaking effect– Short-distance dynamics: Wilson coefficients– Long-distance dynamics: hadronic matrix elements

of four-fermion operators • Charm Perturbation in coupling constant and

1/mc is not reliable• mass just above 1 GeV. Introduce important

non-perturbative parameters

9CD Lu

Emission amplitudes T & C

• Factorization:

• Scale-dependent Wilson coefficients:

– Nonfactorizable contributions– Relative strong phase , due to inelastic FSI – They are universal, to be determined by data

10CD Lu

Evolution scale• Important flavor SU(3) breaking effects• Non-negligible mass ratios• Suggested by the PQCD approach, the scale is

set to the energy release depending on masses of final states

• : the momentum of soft degrees of freedom, a free parameter to be determined

11CD Lu

Exchange(E) vs Annihilation (A)

• Life time of D mesons

E contributes to decaysA contributes to decays

It is also obtained from global fits [1001.0987, 1101.4714]

In factorization, |E|<| A|. But, factorizable contributions are helicity-suppressed, and can be neglected

We consider only nonfactorizable contributions for annihilation-type amplitudes

12CD Lu

Parameterization of E and A

• b’s represent the involved matrix elements, nonfactorizable contributions

• The superscripts q , s differentiate light quarks and strange quarks strongly produced in pairs, requested by SU(3) symmetry breaking. To explain

• and are universal and to be fitted13CD Lu

So far, the SU(3) breaking is not enough to explain the difference

• NLO diagrams related to nonfactorizable amplitudes contributing to Glauber divergence

14CD Lu

Mode-dependent dynamics

Glauber strong phase associated with pion in nonfactorizable amplitudes [H.n Li, S. Mishima, 09]

• Pion : massless Goldstone boson, and bound state?

– Massless boson => huge spacetime => large separation between qqbar

=> high mass due to confinement => contradiction!

– Reconciliation : Tight bound qqbar, but multi-parton => soft could (Lepage, Brodsky 79; Nussinov, Shrock 08; Duraisamy, Kagan 08)

– Glauber phase corresponds to soft could [H.n Li, S. Mishima, 09]15CD Lu

Glauber phase for pion in E & A

• Glauber phase: only in nonfactorizable contribution• Introduce a phase factor for each pion

involved in the amplitudes E and A, which are dominated by nonfactorizable contributions

• For ππ final state, • We don’t introduce Glauber phase to emission

amplitudes which are dominated by factorizable contributions

16CD Lu

Summary of SU(3) breaking effects• In emission amplitudes

• Evolution of Wilson coefficients• Transition form factors• Decay constants

• In annihilation amplitudes• Evolution of Wilson coefficients• Decay constants• Matrix elements and phases• Glauber phase for pion

17CD Lu

Global fit• 12 free parameters are extracted from 28

experimental data of D->PP branching ratios

• Λ describes the soft momentum in D meson• The value of Glauber phase is consistent with the

value extracted from B->πK data, resolving the puzzle for direct asymmetries in this mode [H.n Li, S. Mishima, 0901.1272]

18CD Lu

Cabibbo-favored branching ratios(%), well consistent with data

19CD Lu

Singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays(10-3), better agreement with data

20CD Lu

Improvement of BRs involving η’• Benefited from the scale-dependent Wilson

coefficients, predictions on all the η’ involved modes are improved, compared to the pole model and diagrammatic approach

21CD Lu

Direct CP asymmetry• Definition:

• Occurs only in singly Cabibbo-suppressed

decays

• Interference of Tree and Penguin contributions

22CD Lu

Penguin parameterization

• Use the long-distance hadronic parameters fixed by the data of branching ratios

• Try to formulate penguin contribution without introducing additional free parameters

• The tree operators are all (V-A)(V-A)• For penguins, the hadronic matrix elements

with (V-A)(V-A) operators are the same as tree level operators

23CD Lu

• Those with (V-A)(V+A) or (S-P)(S+P) are different

• They can be related to tree matrix elements by chiral enhancement, or neglected by power suppression

• Unambiguous predictions of direct CP asymmetries

24CD Lu

Penguin topologies

• All topological penguin diagrams for D->PP

25CD Lu

Penguin operators

26CD Lu

Color-suppressed Penguin emission amplitude PT

• Directly related to tree amplitudes T, by replacing short-distance Wilson coefficients

27CD Lu

Penguin emission amplitude PC

• Large contribution from the enhancement by the chiral factor

28CD Lu

Penguin annihilation amplitude PA• Factorizable contribution is neglected• Consider only nonfactorizable contributions

from O4 and O6

• For O6, we have the following equality from PQCD

• Because only the vector current V contributes to the production of two pseudoscalar mesons

29CD Lu

Penguin exchange amplitude PE• Helicity suppression doesn’t apply for O5,O6 in PE

• (S-P)(S+P) contributes to factorizable amplitude• Under factorization hypothesis — It is new

• Assume the scalar matrix element is dominated by the lowest scalar resonances

• Breit-Wigner propagator • Scalar decay constant 30CD Lu

Predictions of Direct CP asymmetries

31CD Lu

Difference of CP asymmetries

• The prediction in the SM

• LHCb• CDF• The prediction is much smaller than

experimental measurements• If we vary the strong phases arbitrarily, it

could be at most

32CD Lu

Summary

• Predict penguin contributions, related to tree-level amplitudes under factorization hypothesis– Fix hadronic parameters using data of branching ratios– Combine short-distance dynamics associated with

penguin operators

• Unambiguous predictions of direct CP asymmetries in D->PP in the SM• Especially • Much smaller than LHCb and CDF measurements

33CD Lu

THANK YOU!

34CD Lu