text:
# Spin-flip transitions between Zeeman sublevels in semiconductor quantum dots

## I Introduction.

Quantum dots (QD’s) in semiconductor heterostructures provide a unique opportunity to study the properties of the electron quantum states in detail and manipulate the electrons in these ”artificial atoms” in a controllable way (see reviews ). The shape and size of quantum dots can be varied by changing the gate voltage. This also tunes the number of electrons in the dot. Besides, the electronic states can be significantly modified by a magnetic field applied perpendicular to the plane of the heterostructure.

Quantum dots are considered as possible candidates for building a quantum computer. The crucial point of the idea is the necessity to couple dots coherently and keep coherence on sufficiently long time scales. In this respect, there is a great demand in the theoretical estimation of the typical spin dephasing time of the electron in the QD. In our previous work  we have shown that the localized character of the electron wave functions in the QD’s suppresses the most effective intrinsic spin-flip mechanisms related to the absence of inversion symmetry in GaAs-like crystals. This leads to an unusually low rate of spin-flip transitions. However, in Ref.  we concentrated on the case of inelastic transitions between the neighbouring quantized energy levels in the dot which corresponds to a relatively large energy transfer. On the other hand, the quantum bit was proposed to involve two Zeeman sublevels of the same orbital level. Therefore, in the present work we consider the transitions between such sublevels. Since the transition involves a fairly small energy transfer, the resuls are very different from those of Ref. .

As in Ref. , we concentrate on the spin-flip processes due to the spin-orbit interaction. This is the main source of the spin-flips for the three- and two-dimensional electron states in the GaAs-type crystal without an inversion center. Besides, in such a polar-type crystal one finds a strong coupling of electrons to the bosonic environment via the piezo-electric interaction with acoustic phonons. The combination of these two mechanisms provides an effective spin-lattice relaxation of free carriers in $`A_{III}B_V`$ semiconductors and heterostructures. We show, however, that the spin-lattice relaxation for the electron localized in the QD is much less effective.

We have calculated the rates for the different spin-orbit related mechanisms which cause a spin-flip in the course of the phonon-assistant transition between the Zeeman sublevels. Besides, we have estimated the spin-flip rates due to several other mechanisms, for example, due to the fluctuating magnetic field produced by the fluctuating electron density in the leads or due to modulation of the hyperfine coupling with nuclei by lattice vibrations.

## II Spin-orbit mechanisms.

We consider the case of a strong confinement in the z-direction and the typical lateral dot size is of the order of thousand $`\AA `$ and much larger than the width of the 2D layer in the z-direction. We begin with the following one-electron Hamiltonian that is derived from the Kane model (see Ref. ) and describes the 2D electrons of the conduction band in the presence of magnetic field $`𝐁`$, lateral confining potential $`U(𝐫)`$ and the phonons:

$`\widehat{}={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐩}^2}{2m}}+U(𝐫)+U_{ph}(𝐫,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g\mu _B\widehat{𝝈}𝐁+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\widehat{}_i;`$ (1)
$`\widehat{}_1=\beta (\widehat{\sigma }_x\widehat{p}_x+\widehat{\sigma }_y\widehat{p}_y);\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}p_z^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{(2mE_g)^{1/2}m_{cv}E_g}};\widehat{}_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_0\widehat{𝝈}\widehat{𝝋};\widehat{}_3=\stackrel{~}{g}\mu _B{\displaystyle \underset{ik}{}}u_{ik}\widehat{\sigma }_iB_k`$ (2)
Here $`\widehat{𝐩}=i\mathrm{}\mathbf{}+(e/c)𝐀`$ is the 2D electron momentum operator, $`m`$ the effective mass, $`\widehat{𝝈}`$ the Pauli matrices. Axes $`x,y,z`$ coincide with the main crystallographic ones with the z-axis along the normal to the 2D plane (the  orientation). The magnetic field has an arbitrary direction. The third term describes the spin-independent interaction with the phonons, including the piezoelectric ones. The fourth term is the Zeeman energy. The other three terms describe all possible spin-orbit effects. $`\widehat{}_1`$ stems from the absence of the inversion symmetry in the bulk. Velocity $`\beta `$ takes the values in the interval $`(1÷3)10^5cm/s`$ for GaAs heterostructures. $`\widehat{}_2`$ describes the spin-orbit splitting of the electron spectrum due to the strain field produced by the acoustic phonons. There $`\widehat{\phi }_x=(1/2)\{u_{xy},\widehat{p}_y\}_+`$, $`\widehat{\phi }_y=(1/2)\{u_{yx},\widehat{p}_x\}_+`$, $`\widehat{\phi }_z=(1/2)\{u_{zx},\widehat{p}_x\}_+(1/2)\{u_{zy},\widehat{p}_y\}_+`$, where $`\{,\}_+`$ denotes the anticommutator, $`u_{ij}`$ is the lattice strain tensor, and $`V_0=8\times 10^7cm/s`$.  In GaAs the electron $`g`$-factor ($`g=0.44`$) differs strongly from the free electron value $`g_0=2`$ owing to the strong spin-orbit interaction which mixes the valence band and conduction band states . The admixture depends on the lattice deformation. Coefficient $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ can be found within the Kane approach, $`\stackrel{~}{g}=(2m_0/\sqrt{3}m)(\mathrm{\Delta }/E_g)(d/E_g)`$, $`d=4.5`$ eV is one of the three deformation constants describing the strain effect on the hole band splitting , $`\stackrel{~}{g}10.4`$.

The three terms in Hamiltonian (2) correspond to the three distinct mechanisms of the spin flip. The first mechanism is due to the spin-orbit admixture of state with an opposite spin. While without the spin-orbit interaction the Zeeman sublevels correspond to the orbital state with the spin up or down, the spin-orbit terms provide a small admixture of the state of the opposite spin to each sublevel. This enables the phonon-assistant transition between the two states. This mechanism corresponds to term $`\widehat{}_1`$.

The second and the third mechanisms are described by the $`\widehat{}_2`$ and $`\widehat{}_3`$ terms and correspond to two distinct kinds of direct spin-phonon coupling. Below we show that the admixture mechanism is actually a dominant one.

### A Admixture mechanism.

Let us show that for this mechanism the matrix element of the $`U_{ph}(𝐫,t)`$ operator for the spin-flip transition between the Zeeman levels is proportional to the product of the Zeeman energy and the phonon strain field. Since we deal with a small energy transfer, we consider only the interaction with piezo-phonons, hence, for mode $`𝐪\alpha `$, $`\alpha =l,t`$ , we have

$$U_{ph}^{𝐪\alpha }(𝐫,t)=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2\rho \omega _{𝐪\alpha }}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}i\omega _{𝐪\alpha }t)eA_{𝐪\alpha }b_{𝐪\alpha }^++c.c.;A_{𝐪\alpha }=\xi _i\xi _k\beta _{ikj}e_{𝐪\alpha }^j,$$
(3)
where the effective piezo-electric modulus $`A_{𝐪\alpha }`$ of wave $`𝐪\alpha `$ has been introduced, $`\beta _{ikj}`$ is the piezo-tensor, $`𝝃=𝐪/q`$, $`𝐪`$ the phonon wave vector, $`𝐞`$ the phonon unit polarization vector and $`\rho `$ is the crystal mass density. For the crystal of cubic symmetry without an inversion center (class $`T_d`$) tensor $`\beta _{ikj}`$ has only non-zero components (all of them equal to each other) when all three indexes $`i,k,j`$ are different, $`\beta _{xyz}=\beta _{xzy}=\mathrm{}.=h_{14}`$. For GaAs $`eh_{14}=1.2\times 10^7eV/cm`$, see, for example, Ref..

The matrix element for the spin-flip transition between the Zeeman sublevels of orbital level $`n`$ with emission of phonon $`𝐪\alpha `$ is:

$$nU_{ph}^{𝐪\alpha }n=\underset{kn}{}[\frac{(U_{ph}^{𝐪\alpha })_{nk}(\widehat{}_1)_{kn}^{}}{E_nE_kg\mu _BB}+\frac{(\widehat{}_1)_{nk}^{}(U_{ph}^{𝐪\alpha })_{kn}}{E_nE_k+g\mu _BB}],$$
(4)
where states $`n,k`$ and corresponding energies $`E_n,E_k`$ are determined by first two terms in Hamiltonian (2). The spin quantization axis coincides with the magnetic field vector. In the absence of a magnetic field the two terms in Eq.(4) cancel each other since $`(\widehat{}_1)_{nk}^{}=(\widehat{}_1)_{kn}^{}`$ and the matrix elements involving the phonon operator are symmetric with respect to the interchange of indexes $`n`$ and $`k`$. This ”Van Vleck cancellation”  is a consequence of Kramers’ theorem and reduces the matrix element by a factor of $`g\mu _BB/\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ being the typical distance between the orbital levels in the dot. Note that this cancellation occurs for a spin-orbit Hamiltonian of an arbitrary form. For instance, it could include the third order terms in the lateral momentum operator.  This is in strong contrast with the cancellation of the linear in the $`\beta `$ terms in the matrix elements for the spin-flip transition between different orbital levels , which results from the fact that spin-orbit terms $`\widehat{}_1`$ are linear in the lateral momentum operators, $`\widehat{p}_{x,y}`$. Expanding in the above formula with respect to the Zeeman energy, using relation $`(\widehat{p}_i)_{nk}=(im/\mathrm{})(E_nE_k)(x_i)_{nk}`$ and the condition that the phonon wave length is much larger than the dot size (i.e. $`g\mu _BB\sqrt{ms^2\mathrm{}\omega _0}`$, $`s`$ is the sound velocity), we obtain the efective spin-flip Hamiltonian which acts on the subspace of the Zeeman sublevels of orbital level $`n`$:

$$\widehat{H}_{so}^{(n)}=g\mu _BB\frac{m\beta }{\mathrm{}e}[\widehat{\sigma }_x\alpha _{xx}^{(n)}E_x\widehat{\sigma }_y\alpha _{yy}^{(n)}E_y+\frac{(\alpha _{xy}^{(n)}+\alpha _{yx}^{(n)})}{2}(\widehat{\sigma }_xE_y\widehat{\sigma }_yE_x)],$$
(5)
where $`E_{x,y}=_{x,y}U_{ph}(x,y)/e`$ is the phonon-induced electric field in the location of the dot. Here we introduce polarizability tensor $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ that may depend on $`B_z`$. It is given by:

$$\alpha _{ik}^{(n)}(B_z)=2e^2\underset{mn}{}\frac{(x_i)_{nm}(x_k)_{mn}}{E_nE_m}$$
(6)
Effective Hamiltonian (5) is a very general one and can be used to calculate the spin-flip rates for arbitrary states and dots. To specify, we will consider only parabolic elliptic dots with the main axes along the $`x,y`$ symmetry axes, $`\omega _{x,y}`$ being the oscillator frequencies. Then the symmetry of the kinetic coefficients ensures that $`(\alpha _{xy}^{(n)}+\alpha _{yx}^{(n)})=0`$. We have to calculate the spin flip matrix elements $`<+1/2\widehat{\sigma }_{x,y}1/2>`$ over functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ,\mu =\pm 1/2`$, which are the eigenfunctions of operator $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^{}`$, where the $`z^{}`$ axis is directed along the magnetic field vector. These functions are expressed through the eigenfunctions $`\chi _m`$ of $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ operator: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu =_{m=\pm 1/2}D_{\mu m}^{(1/2)}(\phi ,\vartheta ,0)\chi _m`$, where $`D^{(1/2)}`$ is the finite rotations matrix  and $`\phi ,\vartheta `$ are the azimuthal and polar angles presenting $`𝐁`$ in the spherical coordinates. We substitute $`E_{x,y}`$ in terms of the boson creation/annihilation operators. Then for the square modulus of the spin flip matrix element that involves emission of a phonon with wave vector $`𝐪`$ we obtain:

$`\widehat{H}_{so}^{}(𝐪\alpha )^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\mu _BBm\beta }{\mathrm{}e}}\right)^2A_{𝐪\alpha }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\rho \omega _{𝐪\alpha }}}\right)\times `$ (7)
$`\{(\alpha _{xx}^2q_x^2+\alpha _{yy}^2q_y^2){\displaystyle \frac{(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{2}}[(\alpha _{xx}^2q_x^2\alpha _{yy}^2q_y^2)\mathrm{cos}2\phi 2\alpha _{xx}\alpha _{yy}q_xq_y\mathrm{sin}2\phi ]\}`$ (8)
The summing up over all $`𝐪`$ yields the rate due to the first mechanism

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{\alpha =l,t}{}C_\alpha \widehat{H}_{so}^{}(𝐪\alpha )^2\delta (\mathrm{}s_\alpha qg\mu _BB)}=`$ (9)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(g\mu _BB)^5}{35\pi \rho \mathrm{}^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h_{14}m\beta }{e\mathrm{}}}\right)^2[(\alpha _{xx}^2+\alpha _{yy}^2)(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )(\alpha _{xx}^2\alpha _{yy}^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta \mathrm{cos}2\phi ]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_l^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3s_t^5}}\right).`$ (10)
Here $`C_l=1,C_t=2`$ and $`s_l,s_t`$ are the longitudinal and transverse sound velocities. The anisotropy factors used are: $`A_{𝐪,l}^2=36h_{14}^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^4\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi `$ where $`\varphi ,\theta `$ are the azimuthal and polar angles of vector $`𝐪`$. $`<A_{𝐪,t}^2>=4h_{14}^2<(\xi _x\xi _ye_z+\xi _x\xi _ze_y+\xi _y\xi _ze_x)^2>=2h_{14}^2[\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{sin}^4\theta (19\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi ]`$, where $`<\mathrm{}>`$ means averaging over the orientations of the $`𝐞`$ vector in the plane which is perpendicular to $`𝐪`$. The averaging is done by the formula: $`<e_ie_k>=(1/2)(\delta _{ik}\xi _i\xi _k)`$. As usual, in the case of finite temperature Eq.(10) should be multiplied by factors $`N_\omega +1(N_\omega )`$ for the transition with emission (absorbsion) of a phonon, $`N_\omega =1/(e^{\mathrm{}\omega /T}1),\mathrm{}\omega =g\mu _BB`$. Thus, in the case of high temperature $`Tg\mu _BB`$ the spin-flip rate will be proportional to $`(g\mu _BB)^4T`$.

In the particular case of a circular dot $`\omega _x=\omega _y=\omega _0`$ we have $`\alpha _{xx}(B_z)=\alpha _{yy}(B_z)=\alpha _{xx}(0)=e^2/m\omega _0^2`$. Then, for instance, for the transition between the Zeeman sublevels of the ground state of the circular dot with emission of a piezo- phonon we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\frac{(g\mu _BB)^5}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\omega _0)^4}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta );\mathrm{\Lambda }_p\frac{2}{35\pi }\frac{(eh_{14})^2\beta ^2}{\rho \mathrm{}}\left(\frac{1}{s_l^5}+\frac{4}{3s_t^5}\right).$$
(11)
The dimensionless constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ shows the strength of the effective spin-piezo-phonon coupling in the heterostructure and ranges from $`710^3`$ to $`610^2`$ depending on $`\beta `$. The spin-flip rate exhibits a very strong dependence on the Zeeman energy and lateral confinement energy $`\omega _0`$. To give a number, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_11.510^3s^1`$ for $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=10K`$ and a relatively large magnetic field $`B=1T`$.

Formula (4) is written with allowance for the wave function corrections of the first order with respect to the spin-orbit Hamiltonian. The corrections of the second order are described by the following spin-orbit Hamiltonian:

$$\widehat{}_{\sigma _z}=\frac{m\beta ^2}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\sigma }_z(x\widehat{p}_yy\widehat{p}_x)$$
(12)
Then, using this Hamiltonian in formula (4) instead of $`\widehat{}_1`$, we can get a nonzero contribution to the spin flip matrix element even with zero Zeeman splitting in the denominator (but with taking into account the orbital magnetic field). Keeping again only the term which is linear in $`\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}`$ in the expansion of exponent $`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫})`$, for the rate finally we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_,^{(n)}=\frac{2}{35\pi }\frac{(g\mu _BB)^3(eh_{14})^2}{\mathrm{}^4\rho }\left(\frac{m\beta ^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta \left((D_x^{(n)})^2+(D_y^{(n)})^2\right)\left(\frac{1}{s_l^5}+\frac{4}{3s_t^5}\right),$$
(13)
where

$$D_x^{(n)}=2Re\underset{mn}{}\frac{x_{nm}(\widehat{L}_z+(eB_zr^2/2c))_{mn}}{E_nE_m},\widehat{L}_z=i\mathrm{}\left(x\frac{}{y}y\frac{}{x}\right).$$
(14)
In the absence of the magnetic field quantities $`D_x,D_y`$ are identically equal to zero. Using the properties of the matrix elements for the linear oscillators we obtain that in the case of elliptic (circular) dots $`D_x=D_y=0`$. Keeping the term which is quadratic in $`\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}`$ in the expansion of the exponent $`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫})`$, we obtain a non-zero contribution but the corresponding spin-flip rate is smaller than contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ by a factor of $`(\beta /s)^2(\omega _c/\omega _0)^2<1`$, here $`\omega _c=eB_z/mc`$. It is also clear that in the case of irregular dots quantities $`D_{x,y}`$ are not equal to zero. The ratio of the corresponding rate and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ can be estimated as $`\tau ^2(m_0\beta a/\mathrm{})^2`$, where $`\tau `$ is a dimensionless parameter which describes the deviation from ellipticity and $`a`$ is a dot size. Even when $`\tau 1`$ this ratio is of the order of unity for a typical dot size $`a10^3\AA `$. Therefore, for $`\tau 1`$ we can expect that contribution Eq.(13) is much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$.

Note that, besides term $`\widehat{}_1`$ which is linear in the 2D momentum, the initial Hamiltonian also contains the term which is cubic in the momentum: $`(1/2)\widehat{\sigma }_x\{\widehat{p}_x,\widehat{p}_y^2\}_+(1/2)\widehat{\sigma }_y\{\widehat{p}_y,\widehat{p}_x^2\}_+`$. Again, in the presence of the orbital magnetic field we could get some contribution to the spin-flip rate. To this end, we need to calculate quantities $`\stackrel{~}{D}_x,\stackrel{~}{D}_y`$ obtained from $`D_x,D_y`$ by replacing operator $`\widehat{L}_z+(eB_zr^2/2c)`$ by $`(1/2)\{\widehat{p}_x,\widehat{p}_y^2\}_+`$ or $`(1/2)\{\widehat{p}_y,\widehat{p}_x^2\}_+`$. In the case of elliptic (circular) dots we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{D}_x=\stackrel{~}{D}_y=0`$ because of the symmetry.

### B Direct spin-phonon coupling.

Using the standard presentation for the strain tensor in terms of the acoustic phonon modes, we calculate the matrix element of $`\widehat{}_2`$ for the electron spin-flip transition between the Zeeman sublevels of orbital state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with emission of a phonon with momentum $`𝐪`$:

$$M_,=\frac{V_0}{4}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\rho \omega _q}\right)^{1/2}[q_xe_y+q_ye_x]\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}\{(\widehat{p}_x+i\widehat{p}_y),\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫})\}_+\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(15)
For simplicity, here we set $`𝐁z`$. Similar expressions were obtained in Ref.  for a different problem. The total spin-flip rate is given by the Fermi golden rule:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\frac{\pi \mathrm{}V_0^2}{16\rho g\mu _BB}\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}(q_x^2+q_y^2)\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}\{(\widehat{p}_x+i\widehat{p}_y),\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫})\}_+\mathrm{\Phi }^2\delta (\mathrm{}sqg\mu _BB).$$
(16)
The relevant phonon wave length is much larger than the dot size, which allows for further simplifications. We concentrate on a circular dot with confining frequency $`\omega _0`$. For the orbital states with $`n=0`$ and $`l=0,\pm 1`$ (the ground and the first two excited states):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\frac{V_0^2(g\mu _BB)^5}{240\pi \rho s^7\mathrm{}^4}[l+\frac{\omega _c}{2\sqrt{\omega _0^2+(\omega _c^2/4)}}(l+1)!]^2.$$
(17)
The spin-flip rate produced by term $`\widehat{}_3`$ does not depend on the structure of the orbital state and is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_3\frac{(\mu _B\stackrel{~}{g}B)^2(\mu _BgB)^3}{\rho s_t^5\mathrm{}^4}$$
(18)
Let us now compare the rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2,3}`$ obtained. All of them are proportional to the fifth power of energy splitting $`g\mu _BB`$, so that their ratio hardly depends on the magnetic field. First, we note that the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is of the order of $`(\stackrel{~}{g}s_t/gV_0)^27.810^31`$. So that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is more important. The ratio of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is of the order of $`(eh_{14}/mV_0/\mathrm{})^2(m\beta ^2ms_t^2/(\mathrm{}\omega _0)^4)`$. For $`\mathrm{}\omega _01÷10K`$ the ratio is of the order of $`10^6÷10^2`$ and increases only for larger dots that have smaller $`\omega _0`$. Thus, we conclude that the admixture mechanism dominates.

### C Two-phonon processes.

The calculated rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is small partly because of the small phonon density of the states at the scale of the Zeeman energy. On the other hand, for the case of the spin-flip transitions between the Zeeman levels of usual impurity  the two phonon processes under some conditions may become more important than the single phonon processes. At sufficiently small Zeeman splitting the contribution of the single phonon processes is very small, and with increasing temperature the role of the processes when one phonon is absorbed and the other is emitted is increased. It is also true for the case of a quantum dot and here we give some formulas which describe the contribution of such two phonon processes for GaAs quantum dots in several limiting cases. We also indicate the conditions under which these contributions can be important.

If we treat the interaction with the phonons in the second order, we obtain processes in which a phonon is scattered from state $`𝐩`$ to state $`𝐪`$ while the electron spin flips. The effective matrix element contains transitions to an excited orbital state with the emission or absorption of a phonon and then transitions back to the ground state with the absorption or emission of a phonon. The spin may flip either in the first or second transition. The matrix element is :

$$<V_2>\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{\rho s\sqrt{pq}}\right)(eh_{14})^2[N_p(N_q+1)]^{1/2}\underset{a}{}\left\{\frac{[H_{p,q}^++H_{p,q}^{}]}{\mathrm{\Delta }_a\mathrm{}sq}+\frac{[H_{q,p}^++H_{q,p}^{}]}{\mathrm{\Delta }_a+\mathrm{}sp}\right\},$$
(19)
$$H_{p,q}^\pm =(\mathrm{\Psi }_0^+,\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐩𝐫})\mathrm{\Psi }_a^\pm )(\mathrm{\Psi }_a^\pm ,\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫})\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}),$$

where $`N_p`$ is the Bose distribution function and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a`$ is the energy separation between the ground state whose wave function is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and the excited state whose wave function for spin up, say, is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^+`$. We can neglect the Zeeman energy in the denominators since no Van Vleck cancellation occurs here. We consider again interaction with piezo-phonons since deformation phonons become important at very high temperature (see below). For simplicity we consider here only the case when the magnetic field is perpendicular to the 2D plane and study the relaxation of $`S_z`$ spin component.

As it was shown in Ref., there is a cancellation of the linear in the $`\beta `$ terms in the matrix elements of type $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_0^+,\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐩𝐫})\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{})`$ for the spin-flip transition between different orbital levels. This is a consequence of the fact that spin-orbit terms $`\widehat{}_1`$ are linear in the lateral momentum operators, $`\widehat{p}_{x,y}`$. For that reason, quantities $`H_{p,q}^\pm `$ are proportional to the first power of $`\beta `$ only if one takes into account the Zeeman splitting in the electron spectrum. We consider the temperature in the interval $`g\mu _BBT\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, where $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ is the characteristic energy distance between the levels in the dot. Since $`\mathrm{}sp\mathrm{}sq<T`$, then we can neglect the phonon energies in the denominators while calculating the contribution to $`<V_2>`$ proportional to the first power of $`\beta `$. It is apparent that the spin-flip rate has a different temperature dependence for the temperatures smaller and larger than $`T_0\sqrt{ms^2\mathrm{}\omega _0}`$. At this characteristic temperature the phonon wave length is equal to lateral dot size $`\lambda `$. For GaAs at $`\mathrm{}\omega _010K`$ temperature $`T_01K`$. Let us give the estimate for the spin-flip rate in the case $`TT_0`$, when $`p\lambda ,q\lambda 1`$. Here the estimate for $`H_{p,q}^\pm `$ is $`H_{p,q}^\pm (\beta /\lambda \omega _0)(g\mu _BB/\mathrm{}\omega _0)(\lambda q)^3`$. Then the relaxation rate is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(2)}(T)=(2\pi /\mathrm{})\underset{p,q}{}<V_2>^2\delta [\mathrm{}s(pq)g\mu _BB]\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{s^2}{\beta ^2}\frac{(g\mu _BB)^2(ms^2)^{5/2}}{(\mathrm{}\omega _0)^{7/2}}\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^9$$
(20)
In performing the integral over $`𝐩`$, we have neglected $`g\mu _BB`$ in comparison to $`\mathrm{}sp`$.

In the case $`TT_0`$ the momentum components parallel to the plane are estimated as $`q_{}\lambda 1`$, otherwise the matrix elements are exponentially small. As to the $`q_z`$ values, the contribution of the region $`q_zT/\mathrm{}sq_{}`$ is much smaller than that where $`q_zq_{}T/\mathrm{}s`$. Such is the case even without regard for the fact that for the  orientation of the 2D plane the effective piezo-modulus $`A_{𝐪\alpha }`$ introduced above has a smallness $`q_{}/q_z1`$. Thus, calculating the contribution from $`q_zq_{}T/\mathrm{}s`$ and taking into account that $`N_p=T/\mathrm{}sp1`$, we obtain for the spin-flip rate in the case $`T_0T\mathrm{}\omega _0`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(2)}(T)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{s^2}{\beta ^2}\frac{(g\mu _BB)^2(ms^2)^{5/2}}{(\mathrm{}\omega _0)^{7/2}}\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^2$$
(21)
The contribution from the deformation phonons is much smaller. In the case $`TT_0`$ the characteristic $`q_zT/\mathrm{}sq_{}1/\lambda `$, i.e. the deformation phonons are emitted almost perpendicular to the 2D plane. Then, for the deformation potential contribution to the spin-flip rate we obtain: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d(\mathrm{\Lambda }_d^2/\mathrm{})(\beta ^2/s^2)(g\mu _BB)^2T^3/(\mathrm{}\omega _0)^3ms^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d(1/2\pi )(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2m^2/\rho \mathrm{}^3s)`$ is the dimensionless constant which shows the strength of the electron interaction with deformation phonons. For GaAs $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d10^5`$. Even at $`T\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(2)}(\mathrm{}\omega _0/ms^2)^{5/2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_d\beta ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_ps^2)^2`$ is much smaller than unity for any realistic $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$. For example, at $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=30K`$ this ratio is $`0.03`$.

Let us compare the two-phonon contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(2)}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1T/g\mu _BB`$. We see that the two-phonon contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(2)}`$ prevails at sufficiently small Zeeman splittings: $`g\mu _BB<ms^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_ps^2/\beta ^2)^{1/2}(T/T_0)^{1/2}`$. Taking the maximal temperature $`T\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, we obtain $`g\mu _BB<[(\mathrm{\Lambda }_ps^2/\beta ^2)\sqrt{ms^2/\mathrm{}\omega _0}]^{1/2}T_0`$. For $`\mathrm{}\omega _010K`$ we see that this contribution is more important for magnetic fields smaller than approximately 0.4 T (where the estimate for the spin-flip time is of the order of ms). On the other hand, at $`TT_0`$ we obtain for the same $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ that $`g\mu _BB<0.03K`$ (i.e. the two-phonon contribution is more important for magnetic fields smaller than $`1kG`$). For these fields the characteristic spin-flip time is of the order of 1s, i.e. it is still long.

The general conclusion is that at sufficiently low temperatures (much smaller than $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$) the characteristic Zeeman splittings below which the two-phonon contribution to the spin-flip rate dominates are small and corresponding spin-flip times are unusually long (see the estimates above).

## III Other mechanisms of the spin flip.

Let us discuss briefly other mechanisms of the spin flip. The spin transitions between the Zeeman sublevels of the impurity state in semiconductors ( mostly Si) were extensively studied quite a long time ago.  Except spin-orbit coupling, several other mechanisms were proposed, such as: 1) modulation of the hyperfine coupling with nuclei by lattice vibrations, 2) the spin-spin interaction between the bound electron and the conduction electron in the leads, 3) the spin-current interaction, when the bound electron spin flip is caused by the fluctuating magnetic field of the conduction electrons, 4) an exchange scattering process which flips the spins of both the conduction electron and the bound donor electron. Whereas the spin-orbit interaction strongly depends on the crystal symmetry and is different for Si and GaAs, the other mechanisms are quite general in nature and we can profit from the discussion in .

Mechanism (4) requires an overlap of the wave functions of the electrons in the leads and in the dot. In the context of QD it is considered in Ref. . The corresponding rates are not intrinsic to the dot since they are proportional to the barrier transparencies. They can be tuned to arbitrary low values. Refs.() have demonstrated that the spin-flip rates associated with mechanisms (2,3) are very small. As an example, we give the rate estimation for mechanism (3). The Bio-Savar formula relates the magnetic field and current fluctuations in the leads so that $`<H^2>_\omega (1/c^2a^2)<I^2>_\omega `$, $`a`$ being the characteristic distance between the electron in the dot and the electrons in the leads. Using the Nyquist formula for the correlator of the currents we estimate $`<H^2>_\omega (1/c^2a^2)\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{}\omega /2T)(1/R)`$, $`R`$ being the typical resistance of the leads or the dot environment. Thus, the corresponding spin-flip relaxation rate is estimated as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_4\mu _B^2<H^2>_\omega /\mathrm{}^2\omega \left(\frac{\lambda _c}{a}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{}}{e^2R}$$
(22)
where $`\lambda _c=e^2/m_0c^22.810^{13}`$ cm is the classical electron radius, $`\mathrm{}\omega =g\mu _BB`$. Rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$ is proportional to the first power of Zeeman splitting so that it may formally compete with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ at sufficiently small splittings. However, this occurs at splittings that are so small that the corresponding rates are not observable. To give an example, we choose $`R=1Ohm`$ and $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=1K`$, which corresponds to $`a1.1510^5cm`$. Then rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$ would dominate if splitting $`\mathrm{}\omega 2.510^3K`$. This corresponds to the rates lower than $`810^4s^1`$!

As to mechanism (1), i.e. modulation of the hyperfine coupling with nuclei by lattice vibrations, the relative strength of this mechanism and the spin-orbit interaction can be different for different materials. For example, in the case of Si where the spin-orbit interaction is much weaker than in GaAs, the dominant mechanism of the spin-flip for the case of the phonon assisted transitions between the Zeeman levels of usual impurity (the situation studied in Ref. ) was found to be the modulation of the hyperfine coupling with nuclei by lattice vibrations. In the case of GaAs, however, our conclusion is that the dominant mechanism is the admixture mechanism of the spin-orbit interaction. This conclusion was reached for the first time in Ref., where the calculations used essentially followed those in Ref.. Here we give the result obtained in Ref. for the rate due to the modulation of the hyperfine coupling with nuclei by lattice vibrations

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_h(g\mu _BB)^3\gamma ^2\omega _N^2/\mathrm{}^2s^5\rho ,$$
(23)
where $`\omega _N(v_0A^2/a^2z_0)^{1/2}/\mathrm{}`$ is the electron spin precession frequency in the random field of unpolarized nuclei, $`v_0`$ is the unit cell volume, $`A`$ the hyperfine interaction constant, $`a`$ the dot lateral size and $`z_0`$ the electron wave function extension in the z-direction. Finally, $`\gamma (1/m)(dm/d\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the change in effective mass $`m`$ with dilation, see also Ref. . For GaAs QD with $`a10^3\AA `$ and $`z_010^2\AA `$, $`\omega _N`$ can reach $`10^8s^1`$. Let us compare spin-flip rate Eq.(23) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ (this comparison was done earlier in Ref.). Even taken for $`\gamma 50`$ (see also ) we can easily see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ will compete with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ at the Zeeman splitting $`\gamma \omega _N(\mathrm{}\omega _0)^2/\beta eh_{14}`$ which is so small that the corresponding rate is not observable. For example, for $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=10K`$ the splitting is of the order of $`10^5`$ K. Therefore, the admixture mechanism of the spin-orbit interaction is the dominant one.

It should be noted, that in this work we have not considered the electron spin relaxation mechanism which is through the hyperfine interaction related to the internal nuclear dynamics. The latter is due to the dipole-dipole interaction between the nuclei which does not conserve the total nuclear spin . This mechanism might be important at low magnetic fields. However, this problem is not simple and needs a seperate investigation.

Finally, we mention the experimental studies of spin relaxation in n-type GaAs quantum dots. Such an experiment has been recently carried out . The non-equilibrium tunneling current through excited states in an AlGaAs/GaAs quantum dot was studied using a pulse-excitation technique which measures the energy relaxation time from the excited state to the ground state. Some excited states showed a relaxation time which was much longer than a few $`\mu s`$, while the other showed time much shorter than a few ns. This great difference in relaxation times was ascribed to the fact that some inelastic transitions are accompanied by the spin flip. For these transitions the relaxation time was so long that the method used in the above mentioned paper only allowed to give some estimation (much longer than a few $`\mu s`$). Though the transitions studied by T.Fujisawa et al. could in general involve the spin flip transitions between the states with different  orbital structures (this situation was considered in our previous paper ), the experimental data confirm the general statement that the spin-flip processes in n-type quantum dots can be really slow.

In conclusion, we have calculated the rates for the phonon-assisted spin-flip transitions between the Zeeman sublevels in a quantum dot for all possible mechanisms and shown that the admixture mechanism of the spin-orbit interaction is a dominant one. The corresponding spin-flip rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ (see Eqs.(10,11)) exhibits a strong dependence on Zeeman energy and at small magnetic fields takes very low values (up to seconds).

This work is part of the research program of the ”Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM)”. We acknowledge the support of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) in the framework of Dutch-Russian collaboration and the NEDO project NTDP-98. We are grateful to L.P. Kouwenhoven, T.H. Oosterkamp, G.E.W. Bauer, T. Fujisawa, Y. Tokura, Y. Hirayama and D. Loss for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Lepton polarization and CP–violating effects in 𝐵→𝐾^∗𝜏⁺𝜏⁻ decay in standard and two Higgs doublet models

## 1 Introduction

Rare $`B`$ meson decays, induced by flavor–changing neutral current (FCNC) $`bs`$ transitions, is one of the most promising research area in high energy physics. Theoretical interest to the rare $`B`$ decays lies in their role as a potential precision testing ground for the standard model (SM) at loop level and experimentally these decays will provide quantitative information about the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements $`V_{td},V_{ts}`$ and $`V_{tb}`$. Besides, these rare decays have the potential of establishing new physics beyond SM, such as two Higgs doublet model (2HDM), minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM (MSSM), left–right models, etc.

At present, the main interest is focused on the rare $`B`$ meson decays, for which the SM predicts ”large” branching ratios and that can be potentially measurable at working $`B`$ factories and LHC. The rare $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ $`(\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau )`$ decays are such ones. At the same time this decay constitutes a suitable tool in looking for new physics beyond the SM. At quark level the process is described by the $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ transition. This transition in framework of the SM and its various extensions have been extensively investigated .

One efficient way in establishing new physics is the measurement of lepton polarization. This problem is widely discussed in literature for the $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay . Note that all previous studies for the lepton polarization, except the work , have been limited to SM and its minimal extensions. In  the analysis of the $`\tau `$ lepton polarization for the $`bs\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay was performed in a model independent way. In this work twelve (ten local and two nonlocal) four–Fermi operator interactions were introduced in a model independent way instead of three independent structures which are present in SM.

It is well known that the theoretical analysis of the inclusive decays is rather easy but their experimental detection is quite difficult. However for exclusive decays the situation is contrary to this case, i.e., their experimental study is easy but theoretical investigation is difficult. This is due to the fact that the description of the exclusive decays requires form factors, i.e., the matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian between initial $`B`$ and final meson states. This problem is related to to the nonperturbative sector of the QCD and it can be solved only by means of a nonperturbative approach.

These matrix elements have been investigated in framework of different approaches such as chiral theory , three point QCD sum rules method , relativistic quark model by the light–front formalism , effective heavy quark theory  and light cone QCD sum rules .

The aim of the present paper is to perform a comprehensive study the lepton polarizations and CP–violating asymmetry in the exclusive $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ $`(\mathrm{}=\mu ,\tau )`$ decay in the SM and three versions of the 2HDM. Note that this decay in framework of 2HDM (model I and model II) were investigated in  (second reference), where $`P_L`$ and $`P_T`$ and $`A_{FB}`$ were studied. Here in this work we extend these considerations by studying in model III, including normal polarization of $`\tau `$ lepton and CP–violating asymmetry, using the current limits for the parameters of 2HDM coming from low energy experiments like $`B^0`$$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixing, $`\rho `$–parameter analysis and $`bs\gamma `$ decay.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, starting from a general form of four–Fermi interactions we derive model independent expressions for the longitudinal, transversal and normal polarizations. In section 3, we apply the above–mentioned general results of the lepton polarizations to SM and to three types of 2HDM (so called models I, II and III). A brief summary of our results is presented in this section.

## 2 Lepton polarizations

In this section we present the expressions for the longitudinal, transversal and normal polarizations of the $`\tau `$ lepton in a model independent way. For this aim we follow  where the matrix element for $`bs\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ transition is given in terms of twelve most general independent four–Fermi interactions:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G\alpha }{\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\{C_{SL}\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\nu }{q^2}}(m_sL)b\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{}+C_{BR}\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\nu }{q^2}}(m_bR)b\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`C_{LL}\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_L+C_{LR}\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_R+C_{RL}\overline{s}_R\gamma _\mu b_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_L`$
$`+`$ $`C_{RR}\overline{s}_R\gamma _\mu b_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_R+C_{LRLR}\overline{s}_Lb_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\mathrm{}_R+C_{RLLR}\overline{s}_Rb_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\mathrm{}_R`$
$`+`$ $`C_{LRRL}\overline{s}_Lb_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}_L+C_{RLRL}\overline{s}_Rb_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}_L+C_T\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`iC_{TE}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}\},`$
where $`C_{XX}`$ are the coefficient of the four–Fermi interactions. Among them, there are two non–local Fermi interactions denoted by $`C_{SL}`$ and $`C_{BR}`$, which correspond to $`2C_7^{eff}`$ in the SM. Two ($`C_{LL}`$$`C_{LR}`$) of the four vector type interactions ($`C_{LL}`$, $`C_{LR}`$, $`C_{RL}`$ and $`C_{RR}`$) are also present in the SM (in the forms of $`C_{LL}=C_9^{eff}C_{10}`$ and $`C_{LR}=C_9^{eff}+C_{10}`$). $`C_{LRLR}`$, $`C_{RLLR}`$, $`C_{LRRL}`$ and $`C_{RLRL}`$ are the scalar type interactions and the last two terms with coefficients $`C_T`$ and $`C_{TE}`$ are the tensor type interactions.

For simplicity we will take the mass of the strange quark to be zero and neglect tensor type interactions, since it was indicated in  that the physical observables are not sensitive to the presence of the tensor type interactions. Having established the matrix element for the $`bs\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ transition, our next problem is calculation of the matrix elements, $`K^{}\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B`$, $`K^{}\left|\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu (1+\gamma _5)b\right|B`$ and $`K^{}\left|\overline{s}(1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B`$, in order to be able to calculate the physically measurable quantities at hadronic level. These matrix elements can be written in terms of the form factors in the following way:

$`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)=`$
$`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p_K^{}^\rho q^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{2V(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}\pm i\epsilon _\mu ^{}(m_B+m_K^{})A_1(q^2)i(p_B+p_K^{})_\mu (\epsilon ^{}q){\displaystyle \frac{A_2(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}`$
$`iq_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2m_K^{}}{q^2}}(\epsilon ^{}q)\left[A_3(q^2)A_0(q^2)\right],`$
$`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu (1+\gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)=`$ (3)
$`4ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p_K^{}^\rho q^\sigma T_1(q^2)+2i\left[\epsilon _\mu ^{}(m_B^2m_K^{}^2)(p_B+p_K^{})_\mu (\epsilon ^{}q)\right]T_2(q^2)`$
$`+2i(\epsilon ^{}q)\left[q_\mu (p_B+p_K^{})_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2m_K^{}^2}}\right]T_3(q^2),`$
where $`\epsilon `$ is the polarization vector of $`K^{}`$ meson and $`q=p_Bp_K^{}`$ is the momentum transfer. In order to ensure finiteness of (2) at $`q^2=0`$, we assume that $`A_3(q^2=0)=A_0(q^2=0)`$. To calculate the matrix element $`K^{}\left|\overline{s}(1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B`$, we multiply both sides of Eq. (2) by $`q_\mu `$ and use the equation of motion. Neglecting the mass of the strange quark, we get

$`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}(1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b}}\{i(\epsilon ^{}q)(m_B+m_K^{})A_1(q^2)`$ (4)
$`\pm i(m_Bm_K^{})(\epsilon ^{}q)A_2(q^2)\pm 2im_K^{}(\epsilon ^{}q)[A_3(q^2)A_0(q^2)]\}.`$
Using the equation of motion, the form factor $`A_3`$ can be expressed as a linear combination of the form factors $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ (see )

$`A_3(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{m_B+m_K^{}}{2m_K^{}}}A_1(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{m_Bm_K^{}}{2m_K^{}}}A_2(q^2).`$ (5)
Using this relation we obtain

$`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}(1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b}}\left\{2im_K^{}(\epsilon ^{}q)A_0(q^2)\right\}.`$ (6)
From Eqs. (1), (2), (3) and (6) we get the following expression for the matrix element of the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay

$`={\displaystyle \frac{G\alpha }{4\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$ (7)
$`\times \{\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)\mathrm{}[ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p_K^{}^\rho q^\sigma (2A_1)i\epsilon _\mu ^{}B_1+i(\epsilon ^{}q)(p_B+p_K^{})_\mu B_2+iq_\mu (\epsilon ^{}q)B_3]`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _\mu (1+\gamma _5)\mathrm{}\left[ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p_K^{}^\rho q^\sigma (2C_1)i\epsilon _\mu ^{}D_1+i(\epsilon ^{}q)(p_B+p_K^{})_\mu D_2+iq_\mu (\epsilon ^{}q)D_3\right]`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{}}(1\gamma _5)\mathrm{}i(\epsilon ^{}q)B_4+\overline{\mathrm{}}(1+\gamma _5)\mathrm{}i(\epsilon ^{}q)B_5\},`$
where

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}+C_{RL}){\displaystyle \frac{V(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}2C_{BR}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{q^2}}T_1,`$
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}C_{RL})(m_B+m_K^{})A_12C_{BR}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{q^2}}(m_B^2m_K^{}^2)T_2,`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{LL}C_{RL}}{m_B+m_K^{}}}A_22C_{BR}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{q^2}}\left[T_2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2m_K^{}^2}}T_3\right],`$
$`B_3`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}C_{RL}){\displaystyle \frac{2m_K^{}}{q^2}}(A_3A_0)2C_{BR}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{q^2}}T_3,`$
$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(C_{LL}C_{LR},C_{RL}C_{RR}),`$
$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`B_1(C_{LL}C_{LR},C_{RL}C_{RR}),`$
$`D_2`$ $`=`$ $`B_2(C_{LL}C_{LR},C_{RL}C_{RR}),`$
$`D_3`$ $`=`$ $`B_3(C_{LL}C_{LR},C_{RL}C_{RR}),`$
$`B_4`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LRRL}C_{RLRL})\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m_K^{}}{m_b}}A_0\right),`$
$`B_4`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LRLR}C_{RLLR})\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m_K^{}}{m_b}}A_0\right),`$
At this point we would like to make the following comment. The main difference from the SM case is, we have six different structures (after setting $`m_s=0`$ and neglecting tensor interactions) in the inclusive channel, while under the same conditions we have only two new structures, namely scalar type interactions proportional to $`B_4`$ and $`B_5`$. On the other hand there appears no any new structure in the 2HDM.

Having established this matrix element, let us now consider the final lepton polarization. We define the following three orthogonal unit vectors:

$`\stackrel{}{e}_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_1}{|\stackrel{}{p}_1|}},`$
$`\stackrel{}{e}_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_K^{}\times \stackrel{}{p}_1}{|\stackrel{}{p}_K^{}\times \stackrel{}{p}_1|}},`$
$`\stackrel{}{e}_T`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{e}_L\times \stackrel{}{e}_N,`$ (9)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_K^{}`$ are the three–momenta of the lepton $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ meson, respectively, in the center of mass of final leptons. The differential decay rate for any spin direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ of the $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ lepton, where $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is a unit vector in the $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ rest frame, can be expressed in the following form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{n})}{dq^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}\right)_0\left[1+\left(P_L\stackrel{}{e}_L+P_N\stackrel{}{e}_N+P_T\stackrel{}{e}_T\right)\stackrel{}{n}\right],`$ (10)
where the subscript ”0” corresponds to the unpolarized differential decay rate whose explicit form will be presented below. $`P_L`$, $`P_N`$ and $`P_T`$ are recognized as the longitudinal, normal and transversal polarizations, respectively. It follows from the definition of unit vectors $`\stackrel{}{e}_i`$ that $`P_T`$ obviously lies in the decay plane whose orientation is determined by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{p}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_K^{}`$ and $`P_N`$ is perpendicular to this plane.

The expression for the unpolarized differential decay rate in Eq. (10) can be written as:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}\right)_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G^2\alpha ^2}{2^{14}\pi ^5m_B}}\left|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right|^2\lambda ^{1/2}v`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`\{32\lambda m_B^4[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(m_B^2sm_{\mathrm{}}^2)(|A_1|^2+|C_1|^2)+2m_{\mathrm{}}^2\text{Re}(A_1C_1^{})]`$
$`+`$ $`96m_{\mathrm{}}^2\text{Re}(B_1D_1^{}){\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}\lambda \text{Re}[(B_1D_1)(B_4^{}B_5^{})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{r}}m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}^2\lambda \{\text{Re}[(B_3^{}+D_2^{}D_3^{})B_1]+\text{Re}[(B_2^{}B_3^{}+D_3^{})D_1]\text{Re}(B_4B_5^{})]\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}m_B^4m_{\mathrm{}}(1r)\lambda \left\{\text{Re}[(B_2D_2)(B_4^{}B_5^{})]\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{r}}m_B^4m_{\mathrm{}}^2(1r)\lambda \left\{\text{Re}[(B_2D_2)(B_3^{}D_3^{})]\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{r}}m_B^4m_{\mathrm{}}^2\lambda (2+2rs)\text{Re}(B_2D_2^{}){\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}m_B^4m_{\mathrm{}}s\lambda \text{Re}[(B_3D_3)(B_4^{}B_5^{})]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}m_B^4m_{\mathrm{}}^2s\lambda \left[\left|B_3\right|^2+\left|D_3\right|^22\text{Re}(B_3D_3^{})\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}m_B^2(m_B^22m_{\mathrm{}}^2)\lambda \left[\left|B_4\right|^2+\left|B_5\right|^2\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3rs}}m_B^2\lambda \left[m_{\mathrm{}}^2(22r+s)+m_B^2s(1rs)\right]\left[\text{Re}(B_1B_2^{})+\text{Re}(D_1D_2^{})\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{rs}}\left[2m_{\mathrm{}}^2(\lambda 6rs)+m_B^2s(\lambda +12rs)\right]\left[\left|B_1\right|^2+\left|D_1\right|^2\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3rs}}m_B^4\lambda \{m_B^2s\lambda +m_{\mathrm{}}^2[2\lambda +3s(2+2rs)]\}\left[\right|B_2|^2+\left|D_2|^2\right]\}.`$
The polarizations $`P_L`$, $`P_N`$ and $`P_T`$ are defined as:

$`P_i(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}(\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{e}_i){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}(\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{e}_i)}{{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}(\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{e}_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}(\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{e}_i)}}.`$ (12)
After lengthy calculations we get the following general expressions for the longitudinal, transversal and normal polarizations of the $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ lepton (for $`m_s=0`$ and neglecting the tensor interaction)

$`P_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}v\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3r}}\lambda ^2m_B^6\left[\right|B_2|^2\left|D_2|^2\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}\lambda m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}[(B_1D_1)(B_4^{}+B_5^{})]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}\lambda m_B^4m_{\mathrm{}}(1r)\text{Re}[(B_2D_2)(B_4^{}+B_5^{})]+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}\lambda m_B^6s\left[\left|A_1\right|^2\left|C_1\right|^2\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\lambda m_B^4s\left[\left|B_4\right|^2\left|B_5\right|^2\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}\lambda m_B^4m_{\mathrm{}}s\text{Re}[(B_3D_3)(B_4^{}+B_5^{})]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3r}}\lambda m_B^4(1rs)[\text{Re}(B_1B_2^{})\text{Re}(D_1D_2^{})]+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3r}}\lambda m_B^2(\lambda +12rs)\left[\right|B_1|^2\left|D_1|^2\right]\},`$
$`P_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\sqrt{\lambda }\pi \{8m_B^3m_{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{s}\text{Re}[(A_1+C_1)(B_1^{}+D_1^{})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}m_B^3m_{\mathrm{}}(1+3r+s)\sqrt{s}\left[2\text{Re}(B_1D_2^{})2\text{Re}(B_2D_1^{})\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\sqrt{s}}}m_Bm_{\mathrm{}}(1rs)\left[\left|B_1\right|^2\left|D_1\right|^2\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\sqrt{s}}}m_Bm_{\mathrm{}}^2(1rs)\left[2\text{Re}(B_1B_5^{})2\text{Re}(D_1B_4^{})\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}m_B^3m_{\mathrm{}}(1rs)\sqrt{s}\text{Re}[2(B_1+D_1)(B_3^{}D_3^{})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\sqrt{s}}}m_B^3m_{\mathrm{}}^2\lambda \left[2\text{Re}(B_2B_5^{})+2\text{Re}(D_2B_4^{})\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\sqrt{s}}}m_B^5m_{\mathrm{}}(1r)\lambda \left[\left|B_2\right|^2\left|D_2\right|^2\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}m_B^5m_{\mathrm{}}\lambda \sqrt{s}\text{Re}[2(B_2+D_2)(B_3^{}D_3^{})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r\sqrt{s}}}m_B^3m_{\mathrm{}}[(1rs)(1r)+\lambda ]\left[2\text{Re}(B_1B_2^{})+2\text{Re}(D_1D_2^{})\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r\sqrt{s}}}m_B(1rs)(2m_{\mathrm{}}^2+m_B^2s)\left[2\text{Re}(D_1B_5^{})2\text{Re}(B_1B_4^{})\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r\sqrt{s}}}m_B^3\lambda (2m_{\mathrm{}}^2+m_B^2s)[2\text{Re}(D_2B_5^{})+2\text{Re}(B_2B_4^{})]\},`$
$`P_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\pi vm_B^3\sqrt{\lambda }\sqrt{s}\{8m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Im}(B_1^{}C_1+A_1^{}D_1)`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}m_B^2\lambda \left[\text{Im}(m_{\mathrm{}}B_3m_{\mathrm{}}D_3B_4)B_2^{}+\text{Im}(B_5B_3+D_3)D_2^{}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}m_{\mathrm{}}(1+3rs)\text{Im}[(D_1+B_1)(B_2^{}D_2^{})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(1rs)[\text{Im}(B_4m_{\mathrm{}}B_3+m_{\mathrm{}}D_3)B_1^{}+\text{Im}(m_{\mathrm{}}B_3B_5m_{\mathrm{}}D_3)D_1^{}]\},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the expression within the curly parenthesis of the unpolarized differential decay rate in Eq. (11). These expressions for the longitudinal, transversal and normal polarizations are general and model independent (if the tensor interaction is neglected). It follows from the expressions of $`P_T`$ and $`P_N`$ that they are proportional to the lepton mass and therefore they are nonvanishing only for the $`\tau `$ lepton. In this work we also analyze the CP–violating asymmetry, which is defined as

$`A_{CP}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}\right)_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{dq^2}}\right)_0}{\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}}\right)_0+\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{dq^2}}\right)_0}},`$
where $`(d\mathrm{\Gamma }/dq^2)_0`$ is the unpolarized differential decay rate given by Eq. (11) and $`(d\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}/dq^2)_0`$ is the unpolarized differential decay rate for the antiparticle channel. Note that in SM , CP–violating asymmetry is equal to zero (or suppressed very strongly), since all form factors are real (see below), Wilson coefficients $`C_7^{eff}`$ and $`C_{10}`$ are real and only $`C_9^{eff}`$ contains a strong phase. But this strong phase can not lead to CP–violation itself. Using these general expressions we can study the sensitivity of the $`\tau `$–lepton polarizations on the new Wilson coefficients. Furthermore one can investigate how strongly these polarizations deviate from the SM predictions and for which Wilson coefficient this departure is more essential. But in the present work we will apply these general results to concrete models, namely to the SM and three type of 2HDM, i.e., models I, II (about models I and II, see for example  and III. Note that in models I and II, the flavor changing neutral currents which appear at tree level are avoided by imposing ad hoc symmetry . The phenomenological consequence of the 2HDM without this discrete symmetry has been investigated in  (see also ). One novel feature of model III is existence of new weak phase which appears in Yukawa interaction of fermions with Higgs fields (see below). Existence of this new weak phase can lead to sizeable CP violation in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay. Therefore if in future experiments sizeable CP violation in the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay is discovered, it is an unambiguous indication of the existence of new physics beyond SM, since in the SM the CP asymmetry suppressed very strongly.

Making the following replacements in the expressions given in Eq. (8), the explicit forms of $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$, $`C_i`$ and $`D_i`$ can be obtained in SM and 2HDM easily.

1. SM

$`C_{LL}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}(m_b)C_{10}(m_b),`$
$`C_{RL}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`C_{BR}`$ $`=`$ $`2C_7^{eff}(m_b),`$
$`C_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}(m_b)+C_{10}(m_b),`$
$`C_{RR}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`C_{LRRL}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{RLLR}=C_{LRLR}=C_{RLRL}=0.`$ (14)
2. 2HDM

$`C_{LL}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}HDM}(m_b)C_{10}^{2HDM}(m_b),`$
$`C_{RL}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`C_{BR}`$ $`=`$ $`2C_7^{eff\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}HDM}(m_b),`$
$`C_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}HDM}(m_b)+C_{10}^{2HDM}(m_b),`$
$`C_{RR}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`C_{LRRL}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{Q_1},`$
$`C_{RLRL}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{Q_2},`$
$`C_{LRLR}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{Q_1},`$
$`C_{RLLR}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{Q_2}.`$ (15)
The coefficients $`C_i^{2HDM}(m_W)`$ ($`i=7,9`$ and $`10`$) to the leading order are given by (see for example )

$`C_7^{2HDM}(m_W)`$ $`=`$ $`x{\displaystyle \frac{(75x8x^2)}{24(x1)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2(3x2)}{4(x1)^4}}\mathrm{ln}x`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`\left|\lambda _{tt}\right|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{y(75y8y^2)}{72(y1)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y^2(3y2)}{12(y1)^4}}\mathrm{ln}y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\lambda _{tt}\lambda _{bb}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y(35y)}{12(y1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y(3y2)}{6(y1)^3}}\mathrm{ln}y\right),`$
$`C_9^{2HDM}(m_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sin^2\theta _W}}B(m_W)+{\displaystyle \frac{14sin^2\theta _W}{sin^2\theta _W}}C(m_W)`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^2(2519x)}{36(x1)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x^4+30x^354x^2+32x8}{18(x1)^4}}\mathrm{ln}x+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}`$
$`+`$ $`|\lambda _{tt}|^2[{\displaystyle \frac{14sin^2\theta _W}{sin^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{xy}{8}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{y1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(y1)^2}}\mathrm{ln}y)`$
$``$ $`y({\displaystyle \frac{47y^279y+38}{108(y1)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3y^36y^3+4}{18(y1)^4}}\mathrm{ln}y)],`$
$`C_{10}^{2HDM}(m_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sin^2\theta _W}}\left(B(m_W)C(m_W)\right)`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`\left|\lambda _{tt}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sin^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{xy}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{y1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(y1)^2}}\mathrm{ln}y\right),`$
$`C_{Q_1}(m_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_{\mathrm{}}}{m_{h^0}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|\lambda _{tt}\right|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sin^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{4}}\{(sin^2\alpha +hcos^2\alpha )f_1(x,y)+`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_{h^0}^2}{m_W^2}}+\left(sin^2\alpha +hcos^2\alpha \right)(1z)\right]f_2(x,y)+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{sin^22\alpha }{2m_{H^\pm }^2}}[m_{h^0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{h^0}^2+m_{H^0}^2)^2}{2m_{H^0}^2}}]f_3(y)\},`$
$`C_{Q_2}(m_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_{\mathrm{}}}{m_{H^\pm }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|\lambda _{tt}\right|^2}}\left\{f_1(x,y)+\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{H^\pm }^2m_{A^0}^2}{m_W^2}}\right]f_2(x,y)\right\},`$ (20)
where

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_W^2}},y={\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_{H^\pm }^2}},z={\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}},h={\displaystyle \frac{m_{h^0}^2}{m_{H^0}^2}},`$
$`B(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{4(x1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{4(x1)^2}}\mathrm{ln}x,`$
$`C(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x6}{2(x1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x+2}{2(x1)^2}}\mathrm{ln}x\right),`$
$`f_1(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{ln}x}{x1}}{\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{ln}y}{y1}},`$
$`f_2(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{ln}y}{(zx)(x1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}z}{(z1)(x1)}},`$
$`f_3(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1y+y\mathrm{ln}y}{(y1)^2}},`$ (21)
$`sin^2\theta _W=0.23`$ is the Weinberg angle, $`h^0,H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ are two scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs fields, respectively. The coefficients $`\lambda _{tt}`$ and $`\lambda _{bb}`$ for model I and model II of the 2HDM are:

$`\lambda _{tt}=\mathrm{cot}\beta ,\lambda _{bb}=\mathrm{cot}\beta ,\text{for model I},`$
$`\lambda _{tt}=\mathrm{cot}\beta ,\lambda _{bb}=+\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\text{for model II},`$ (22)
while in model III $`\lambda _{tt}`$ or $`\lambda _{bb}`$ is complex, i.e.,

$`\lambda _{tt}\lambda _{bb}\left|\lambda _{tt}\lambda _{bb}\right|e^{i\varphi }.`$
From Eqs. (16)–(20) we observe that the SM results for the Wilson coefficients $`C_7^{SM}(m_W)`$, $`C_9^{SM}(m_W)`$ amd $`C_{10}^{SM}(m_W)`$ (and correspondingly at $`\mu =m_b`$ scale) can all be obtained from 2HDM results by making the following replacements

$`C_{Q_1}0`$ , $`C_{Q_2}0,`$
$`C_7^{SM}(m_W)`$ $`=`$ $`C_7^{2HDM}(y0),`$
$`C_9^{SM}(m_W)`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{2HDM}(y0),`$
$`C_{10}^{SM}(m_W)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10}^{2HDM}(y0),`$
The evolution of the Wilson coefficients from the higher scale $`\mu =m_W`$ down to the low energy scale $`\mu =m_b`$ is described by the renormalization group equation. The coefficients $`C_7^{eff}(\mu ),C_9^{eff}(\mu ),C_{10}(\mu )`$ at the scale $`𝒪(\mu =m_b)`$ are calculated in  and $`C_{Q_1}`$ and $`C_{Q_2}`$ at the same scale to leading order are calculated in . The Wilson coefficient $`C_{10}`$ is not modified as we move from $`\mu =m_W`$ to $`\mu =m_b`$ scale, i.e., $`C_{10}(m_b)C_{10}^{2HDM}(m_W)`$. In order to calculate $`C_9^{2HDM}`$ at $`m_b`$ scale, it is enough to make the replacement $`C_9^{SM}(m_W)C_9^{2HDM}(m_W)`$ and then solve the corresponding renormalization group equation. Hence, including the NLO QCD corrections, $`C_9^{eff}(m_b)`$ can be written as:

$`C_9^{eff}(\mu )=C_9^{2HDM}(\mu )\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\pi }}\omega (\widehat{s})\right]`$ (23)
$`+g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s})\left[3C_1(\mu )+C_2(\mu )+3C_3(\mu )+C_4(\mu )+3C_5(\mu )+C_6(\mu )\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(0,\widehat{s})\left(C_3(\mu )+3C_4(\mu )\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(1,\widehat{s})\left(4C_3+4C_4+3C_5+C_6\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(0,\widehat{s})\left(C_3+3C_4\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\left(3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6\right),`$
where $`\widehat{m}_c=m_c/m_b,\widehat{s}=p^2/m_b^2`$, and

$`\omega \left(\widehat{s}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}Li_2\left(\widehat{s}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\widehat{s}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1\widehat{s}\right)`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5+4\widehat{s}}{3\left(1+2\widehat{s}\right)}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1\widehat{s}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{s}\left(1+\widehat{s}\right)\left(12\widehat{s}\right)}{3\left(1\widehat{s}\right)^2\left(1+2\widehat{s}\right)}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\widehat{s}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{5+9\widehat{s}6\widehat{s}^2}{3\left(1\widehat{s}\right)\left(1+2\widehat{s}\right)}}`$
represents the $`𝒪\left(\alpha _s\right)`$ correction from the one gluon exchange in the matrix element of $`O_9`$, while the function $`g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s})`$ arises from one loop contributions of the four–quark operators $`O_1`$$`O_6`$, whose form is

$`g(y_i,\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\widehat{m}_i\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{27}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}y_i`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(2+y_i)\sqrt{\left|1y_i\right|}\{\mathrm{\Theta }(1y_i)(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{\left|1y_i\right|}}{1\sqrt{\left|1y_i\right|}}}i\pi )`$
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }(y_i1)2\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{y_i1}}}\},`$
where $`y_i=4\widehat{m}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/\widehat{p}^2`$. The Wilson coefficient $`C_9^{eff}`$ receives also long distance contributions, which have their origin in the real $`c\overline{c}`$ intermediate states, i.e., $`J/\psi `$, $`\psi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$. The $`J/\psi `$ family is introduced by the Breit–Wigner distribution for the resonances through the replacement

$`g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s})g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s}){\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{\alpha _{em}^2}}\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{V_i=J/\psi _i,\psi ^{},\mathrm{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{V_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }(V_i\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{(p^2m_{V_i}^2)+im_{V_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V_i}}},`$ (26)
where the phenomenological parameter $`\kappa =2.3`$ is chosen in order to reproduce correctly the experimental value of the branching ratio (see for example )

## 3 Numerical analysis

In this section we would like to present our numerical results. The main free parameters $`\lambda _{tt},\lambda _{bb}`$ of the 2HDM are restricted from $`BX_s\gamma `$ decay, $`B^0`$$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixing, $`\rho `$ parameter and neutron electric–dipole moment , that yields $`\left|\lambda _{bb}\right|=50`$, $`\left|\lambda _{tt}\right|0.03`$. Throughout the numerical analysis for the mass of the Higgs bosons we have used $`m_{h^0}=80GeV,m_{H^\pm }=250GeV,m_{A^0}=250GeV`$ and $`m_{H^0}=150GeV`$.

For the values of the form factors, we have used the results of , where the radiative corrections to the leading twist contribution and $`SU(3)`$ breaking effects are also taken into account. The $`q^2`$ dependence of the form factors can be represented in terms of three parameters as

$`F(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{F(0)}{1a_F\frac{q^2}{m_B^2}+b_F\left(\frac{q^2}{m_B^2}\right)^2}},`$
where, the values of parameters $`F(0)`$, $`a_F`$ and $`b_F`$ for the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay are listed in Table 1.

In Fig. (1) we present the dependence of the CP–violating asymmetry on $`q^2`$ and on the weak phase $`\varphi `$ for the $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay in model III, since we have already noted that in SM and in models I and II the CP–violating asymmetry is practically zero. We observe that CP asymmetry differs from zero in the region $`0<\varphi <2\pi `$, except at $`\varphi =0,\pi `$ and $`2\pi `$, and its value in the region $`0<\varphi <\pi `$ ($`\pi <\varphi <2\pi `$) is negative (positive).

Fig .(2) depicts the dependence of the averaged CP asymmetry $`A_{CP}`$ (here and in all of the following discussions, by the averaged values of the physical quantities we mean integration over $`q^2`$ in the region $`14GeV^2q^2(m_Bm_K^{})^2`$) on the weak phase angle $`\varphi `$ in model III, taking into account short and long distance contributions. It follows from this figure that $`A_{CP}`$ varies in the range (-0.04, 0.04) which is different from zero and it definitely is an indication of the existence of new physics beyond SM, since $`A_{CP}`$ is practically equal to zero in the SM.

In Fig. (3), the dependence of $`P_L`$ on $`q^2`$ and the weak phase angle $`\varphi `$ without long distance effects in model III is presented. From this figure one can see that, for $`q^2>14GeV^2`$, $`P_L`$ varies in the range (-0.65, -0.8) which is larger than the SM prediction. This is due to the fact that the ”new” contribution which comes from the charged Higgs boson gives constructive interference to the SM results.

In Fig. (4) we present the averaged longitudinal polarization $`P_L`$ on the weak phase angle $`\varphi `$, taking into account short and long distance contributions. For completeness the predictions of SM, model I and model II on $`P_L`$ are also presented. It is observed from this figure that $`P_L`$ in model III as modulo, is larger than the ones predicted by SM, model I and model II. Therefore an observation of $`\left|P_L\right|0.65`$ is another conclusive confirmation of the existence of new physics beyond SM.

In Figs. (5) and (6) we present the dependence of the transversal and normal polarizations of the $`\tau `$ lepton on $`q^2`$ and on the weak phase angle $`\varphi `$, respectively, without long distance effects in model III. The dependence of the averaged transversal and normal polarizations on the weak phase angle, taking into account short and long distance contributions, are depicted in Figs. (7) and (8), respectively. For sake of completeness we presented also the predictions of SM, model I and model II of the same physical quantity in both figures. Fig. (7) clearly depicts that, the prediction of model III on $`P_T`$ as modulo, is approximately five times smaller than the ones predicted by SM, model I and model II. However the situation is totally different for $`P_N`$, having a range of values in the region (0.10, 0.15) in model III, it is approximately two or three times larger than the ones predicted by SM, model I and model II.

Here we would like to make the following remark. It follows from Eq. (13) that $`P_N`$ is defined as the imaginary part of the form factors and of the corresponding Wilson coefficients $`C_7^{eff},C_9^{eff}`$, $`C_{10}`$, $`C_{Q_1}`$ and $`C_{Q_2}`$. In SM $`C_7^{eff}`$ and $`C_{10}`$ are real and only $`C_9^{eff}`$ has imaginary part. On the other side all theoretical methods predict these form factors to be real quantities. For this reason, if in future experiments a different value for $`P_N`$ were observed compared to the SM prediction, it is an indication of unambiguous information about the existence of the above–mentioned CP–violating phase in theory.

In conclusion, we have investigated the exclusive $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay in the SM and in three different versions of the 2HDM. From the results we have obtained we conclude that the combined analysis of the CP–violating asymmetry and $`\tau `$ lepton polarization effects are very useful tools in looking for new physics beyond SM.

## Figure captions

Fig. 1 The dependence of the CP–violating asymmetry $`A_{CP}`$ of the $`\tau `$ lepton on $`q^2`$ and on the weak phase $`\varphi `$ in model III.
Fig. 2 The dependence of the averaged CP asymmetry $`A_{CP}`$ of the $`\tau `$ lepton on the weak phase $`\varphi `$ in model III, taking into account short and long distance contributions.
Fig. 3 The dependence of the longitudinal polarization $`P_L`$ of the $`\tau `$ lepton on $`q^2`$ and on the weak phase $`\varphi `$ in model III, taking into account only the short distance contribution in $`C_9^{eff}`$.
Fig. 4 The dependence of the averaged longitudinal polarization $`P_L`$ of $`\tau `$ lepton on the weak phase $`\varphi `$, taking into account short and long distance contributions.
Fig. 5 The dependence of the transversal polarization $`P_T`$ of the $`\tau `$ lepton on $`q^2`$ and on the weak phase $`\varphi `$ in model III, taking into account only the short distance contribution in $`C_9^{eff}`$.
Fig. 6 The dependence of the normal polarization $`P_N`$ of the $`\tau `$ lepton on $`q^2`$ and on the weak phase $`\varphi `$ in model III, taking into account only the short distance contribution in $`C_9^{eff}`$.
Fig. 7 The dependence of the averaged transversal polarization $`P_T`$ of the $`\tau `$ lepton on the weak phase $`\varphi `$, taking into account short and long distance contributions.
Fig. 8 The dependence of the averaged normal polarization $`P_N`$ of the $`\tau `$ lepton on the weak phase $`\varphi `$, taking into account short and long distance contributions.