text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The fate of the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry of QCD at finite temperature is a fascinating problem  which could also have interesting consequences for the ongoing heavy ion collisions program and, possibly, for cosmology . Even a partial restoration of $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry in the vicinity of the critical temperature of chiral symmetry breaking ($`T_c200`$ MeV) could dramatically change the mass and mixing pattern of the lightest neutral mesons ($`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$), with signals including enhanced strangeness production or the more speculative possibility of forming parity violating disoriented $`\eta ^{}`$ condensates in heavy ion collisions .

Our aim in the present paper is rather modest: we will study the shift of the mass of the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons at low temperatures, in a regime in which the hadronic gas is mostly composed of pions. We will work in the framework of $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$ chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi PT`$), in a simultaneous expansion in momenta, quark masses, number of colours $`N_c`$, and temperature $`T`$.

Our motivation for doing this investigation was threefold. First, the predictions of $`\chi PT`$ in a pion thermal bath, although limited in scope to $`T<\text{few}f_\pi `$, are essentially model independent (see for instance, the review of Smilga  and references therein). Given the phenomenological success of the large $`N_c`$ expansion in vacuum, one might perhaps hope that the predictions of the present work are as robust. Next, we wanted to see to which extent the results derived in Ref.  could be amended. As us, the authors have computed the shift of $`M_\eta `$ and $`M_\eta ^{}`$ at low temperatures using the Di Vecchia-Veneziano-Witten effective lagrangian (DVW) , but only to leading order $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\eta ^{}^2T^2`$. However, it was not clear to us whether the leading order DVW lagrangian was a good approximation for this problem. Although the parameters of the lagrangian can be fitted to the observed mass and mixing pattern of the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons to within $`10\%`$ , the decay rates predicted for $`\eta ^{}\eta \pi \pi `$ are off the experimental values by a factor of about $`40`$. This issue, which is obviously relevant in order to determine the shift of $`M_\eta ^{}`$ in a pion bath, is however easily cured at next-to-leading order in the large $`N_c`$ expansion . As we will show, next-to-leading order corrections are also quite important at finite temperature, but not to the point of dramatically changing the conclusion of Ref. : at low temperatures, $`M_\eta ^{}`$ stays essentially constant. Finally, we wanted to see what the large $`N_c`$ expansion could teach us about the fate of the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry at finite temperature. At zero temperature, in the confined phase of QCD, large $`N_c`$ arguments predict that $`M_\eta ^{}^21/N_c`$. On the other hand, at very high temperatures, in the quark-gluon plasma phase of QCD ($`T\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}200`$ MeV), instanton calculus is reliable and predicts an effective restoration of $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry. Because of screening, instanton effects are suppressed at very large temperatures $`\mathrm{exp}(8\pi ^2/g(T)^2)`$. At large $`N_c`$, the suppression is more important, as $`1/g^2N_c/\lambda `$ with fixed ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda =g^2N_c`$, and the exponential tends to vanish $`\mathrm{exp}(N_c/\lambda )0`$ as $`N_c`$ increases. Because of asymptotic freedom, $`\lambda `$ growths at lower temperatures and the instanton argument breaksdown. However, for $`N_c`$ large enough, a natural assumption is that the exponential suppression holds all the way down to the critical temperature of deconfinement $`T_c\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}`$ . Although we have no proof of this statement, such a behaviour seems natural given the large release of entropy $`N_c^2`$ at $`T_c`$ and is actually known to occur in models in two dimensions . With this assumption, $`M_\eta ^{}`$ can be taken as an order parameter for $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry restoration at $`T_c`$. In Ref. , some information on the behaviour of $`M_\eta ^{}`$ near $`T_c`$ could be extracted assuming that the deconfining phase transition could be of second order at large $`N_c`$ . We will argue here that large $`N_c`$ favours a sharp drop of $`M_\eta ^{}`$ at $`T_c`$, consistent with first order transition to the phase with (approximate) $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry.

Our paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we briefly review $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$ $`\chi PT`$, which extends the framework of the large $`N_c`$ DVW effective lagrangian beyond leading order. For definitiveness, we refer to the recent analysis of Herrera-Siklódy et al. . We then discuss the implications of these corrections at low temperature, in presence of a pion thermal bath. Most formulas are relegated to the appendix. In the last section, we speculate on the effect of higher order corrections in the large $`N_c`$ expansion and draw the conclusions.

## 2 Sketch of $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$ chiral perturbation theory

At low energies and temperatures, the dynamics of QCD is governed by an approximate $`SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ chiral symmetry which is spontaneously broken to the diagonal $`SU(3)`$ in vacuum. If the mass of the up, down and strange quarks were vanishing, the symmetry would become exact and there would be eight massless Goldstone bosons. Phenomenological lagrangians, which treat the mass of the quarks as small perturbations, provide a powerful framework, known as Chiral Perturbation Theory ($`\chi PT`$), to study the properties of the light $`\pi `$, $`K`$, and $`\eta `$ mesons . The $`\eta ^{}`$ meson doesn’t a priori fit in this frame. It is substantially heavier than the other eight light mesons, and, in vacuum, would stay so even in the chiral limit of zero quark masses, because it receives most of its mass from the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly through non-perturbative instanton-like effects . The effect of the axial anomaly can however be conveniently turned off by going to the limit of large number of colours $`N_c`$ . At infinite $`N_c`$ and in the chiral limit, the global symmetry becomes $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$, spontaneously broken in vacuum to $`U(3)`$, with nine massless Goldstone bosons. Like chiral symmetry breaking effects by finite quark masses, $`1/N_c`$ suppressed contributions can be systematically introduced as perturbations in an effective lagrangian, an approach which has been quite fruitful . A systematic analysis of next-to-leading corrections, including $`𝒪(p^4)`$ operators, has been initiated in the recent . We refer to these latter works for more details and follow their conventions for ease of reference. We will work in Euclidean spacetime with metric $`g_{\mu \nu }\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ and use the imaginary time formalism to compute the thermal corrections.

### 2.1 Leading order

The leading order effective lagrangian is well-known . In the notation of  it is written as

$`_{\mathrm{LO}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4}}\left(v_{02}X^2+_\mu U^{}_\mu UU^{}\chi +\chi ^{}U\right),`$ (1)
where $`U`$ is the $`U(3)`$ matrix

$$Ue^{i\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Phi }/f},$$
(2)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the pseudoscalar meson matrix

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\eta _0}{\sqrt{3}}& \pi ^+& K^+\\ \pi ^{}& \frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\eta _0}{\sqrt{3}}& K^0\\ K^{}& \overline{K}^0& \frac{2\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\eta _0}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
and $`f=f_\pi =92.4`$ MeV at leading order. The mass matrix is

$$\chi =2B\text{diag}(m_u,m_d,m_s),$$
(4)
but we shall neglect isospin breaking effects ($`m_u=m_dm`$). The constant $`B`$ is related to the value of the $`\overline{q}q`$ condensate, $`M_\pi ^2=2mB2m\overline{q}q/f_\pi ^2`$ at leading order. The combination

$$X(x)\mathrm{log}U(x)+i\theta _{\mathrm{QCD}}=i\frac{\sqrt{6}}{f}\eta _0+i\theta _{\mathrm{QCD}},$$
(5)
is invariant under $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$ transformations, $`\mathrm{log}U\mathrm{log}(g_RUg_L^{})+2i\alpha `$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{QCD}}\theta _{\mathrm{QCD}}2\alpha `$. Because of this, any arbitrary function of $`X`$ can a priori enter in the construction of the effective lagrangian, with thus little predictive power. This is where the large $`N_c`$ expansion comes to the rescue by limiting the number of operators that can contribute at each level of approximation. In the chiral limit ($`m,m_s0`$), Eq. (1) gives

$$M_\eta ^{}^2=3v_{02},$$
(6)
which is the celebrated Veneziano-Witten relation for three massless flavours , with $`v_{02}2\tau /f^21/N_c`$, where $`\tau `$ is the topological susceptibility of pure Yang-Mills theory. The rationale of $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$ $`\chi PT`$ is to count powers of $`p^2`$, $`m_q`$, and $`1/N_c`$ on the same level $`𝒪(\delta )`$ :

$$𝒪(\delta )p^2m_q1/N_c.$$
(7)
According to this counting rule, the leading order lagrangian (1) is $`𝒪(\delta ^0)`$ because $`f^2𝒪(N_c)`$ 111Note that the field expansion of $`U`$ brings further powers of $`1/f1/\sqrt{N}_c`$. The $`𝒪(\delta )`$ counting is to be understood to hold at the operator level..

At leading order, there are four unknown parameters in the lagrangian: $`f`$, $`v_{02}`$, and the combinations $`mB`$ and $`m_sB`$ (or $`xm_s/m1`$). On the other hand, we have at our disposal seven observables: $`f_\pi `$, $`f_K`$, the four masses of the light mesons, and the $`\eta `$$`\eta ^{}`$ mixing angle $`\theta `$. Using $`M_\eta ^{}`$ as input and the formulæ given for reference in the appendix, one obtains

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f^2\hfill & =& f_\pi ^2=f_K^2,\hfill \\ 2mB\hfill & =& M_\pi ^2,\hfill \\ x\hfill & & 24.1,\hfill \\ v_{02}\hfill & & 0.22\mathrm{GeV}^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
which predict that $`\theta 20^{}`$ and

$$M_\eta 494.4\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(9)
Remarkably, the latter number is only 10% off the experimental value $`M_\eta =547.3`$ MeV. It is however known that adjusting the parameters cannot improve the prediction because the ratio $`M_\eta ^2/M_\eta ^{}^2`$ has an upper bound222Assuming $`M_\pi =0`$ to simplify, Eq. (1) gives
$$\frac{M_\eta ^2}{M_\eta ^{}^2}=\frac{3y\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}{3y+\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}},$$
(10)  where $`y9v_{02}/2(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)`$. This ratio reaches a maximum at $`y=3`$ (note that $`v_{02}<0`$) corresponding to
$$\frac{M_\eta }{M_\eta ^{}}<0.518,$$
(11)  to be compared with the measured ratio $`M_\eta /M_\eta ^{}0.571`$. Taking into account $`M_\pi 0`$ improves things, but not enough. . One has to take into account next-to-leading order corrections to reach agreement .

At leading order, the only coupling between $`\eta ^{}`$ and the pions is from the quark mass term in the lagrangian (1) and is thus chirally suppressed. The amplitude for $`\eta ^{}\eta \pi \pi `$ is then

$$𝒜=\frac{M_\pi ^2}{6f_\pi }\left(2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\right).$$
(12)
The corresponding decay rates

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta ^{}\eta \pi ^0\pi ^0)& =& 1.0\mathrm{keV},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta ^{}\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{})& =& 1.9\mathrm{keV}2\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta ^{}\eta \pi ^0\pi ^0),\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
are however much smaller than the experimental ones,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}}(\eta ^{}\eta \pi ^0\pi ^0)& =& 42.0\pm 4.2\mathrm{keV},\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}}(\eta ^{}\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{})& =& 88.9\pm 7.6\mathrm{keV}.\end{array}$$
(14)
We will not speculate on the reasons for this well-known discrepancy (see Refs.  for a more recent discussion), but simply note that within the present framework, this issue can also be resolved at next-to-leading order 333Note that the amplitude (12) is constant and vanishes in the limit $`m_u=m_d=0`$, for any $`m_s`$. However, general arguments  (and a fit to experimental data) indicate that for $`m_u=m_d=0`$, the amplitude should behave like $`𝒜=\text{const}\times p_\pi ^{(1)}p_\pi ^{(2)}`$, where $`p_\pi ^{(1,2)}`$ are the momenta of the outgoing pions, and where the constant is vanishing as the strange quark mass goes to zero. As shown in Ref. , this behaviour can be easily accommodated by introducing higher-order terms, an approach that is systematized by the $`\delta `$ expansion . The smallness of the leading order contribution is then considered as a mere accident, related to the smallness of the ratio $`M_\pi ^2/M_K^2`$..

### 2.2 Next-to-leading order

In our case, at next-to-leading order, $`𝒪(\delta )`$, only a few more terms can be added to the lagrangian (1:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _{NLO}& =& _{LO}\hfill \\ & +& \frac{f^2}{4}(v_{31}XU^{}\chi \chi ^{}U+v_{40}U^{}_\mu UU^{}_\mu U\hfill \\ & +& iv_{50}U^{}_\mu U_\mu \theta _{\mathrm{QCD}}+v_{60}_\mu \theta _{\mathrm{QCD}}_\mu \theta _{\mathrm{QCD}})\hfill \\ & & M_0O_0M_3O_3+L_5O_5L_8O_8,\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where the $`O_{0,3,5,8}`$ are $`𝒪(p^4)`$ operators whose coupling constants are $`𝒪(N_c)`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill O_0& =& _\mu U_\nu U^{}_\mu U_\nu U^{},\hfill \\ \hfill O_3& =& _\mu U^{}_\mu U_\nu U^{}_\nu U,\hfill \\ \hfill O_5& =& _\mu U^{}_\mu U(U^{}\chi +\chi ^{}U),\hfill \\ \hfill O_8& =& \chi ^{}U\chi ^{}U+U^{}\chi U^{}\chi .\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
The couplings $`v_{40}`$, $`v_{50}`$, and $`v_{60}`$ are not independent and either one of them can be set to zero by an appropriate change of variables, $`\eta _0/f\eta _0/f+\kappa \theta _{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. We shall choose $`v_{40}=0`$. Moreover, $`v_{50}`$ and $`v_{60}`$ will not appear in our calculations and can be discarded. At $`𝒪(\delta )`$, the only coupling related to the breaking of $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is thus $`v_{31}𝒪(1/N_c)`$. Note that the corresponding operator is also chirally suppressed $`m_q`$.

At next-to-leading order, seven unknown parameters enter in the definition of the meson mass matrix: $`f`$, $`v_{02}`$, $`v_{31}`$, $`L_{5,8}`$, together with the quark masses $`m`$ and $`m_s`$ (see appendix for details). These can be expressed in terms of seven independent observables: $`f_\pi `$, $`f_K`$, $`M_\pi `$, $`M_K`$, $`M_\eta `$, $`M_\eta ^{}`$, and the $`\eta `$$`\eta ^{}`$ mixing angle $`\theta `$ . At this level, large $`N_c`$ $`\chi PT`$ is thus not predictive. The strategy adopted in Ref.  was to impose that $`𝒪(\delta )`$ corrections are not too large so that the large $`N_c`$ expansion makes sense. For mixing angle in the range $`20^{}<\theta <24^{}`$, the fit gives

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0.980& 2mB/M_\pi ^2& 0.988,\hfill \\ \hfill 18.3& x& 20.9,\hfill \\ \hfill 0.214\mathrm{GeV}^2& |v_{02}|& 0.239\mathrm{GeV}^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{1.35\; 10}^3& L_8& \mathrm{1.57\; 10}^3,\hfill \\ \hfill 0.164& v_{31}& 0.161.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
together with $`f=90.8`$ MeV and $`L_5=\mathrm{2.0\; 10}^3`$ which are fixed by $`f_\pi `$ and $`f_K`$. Note that if $`v_{02}`$ does only change by about 10%, the shift in $`m_s`$ is quite large, $``$ 20–25.

Because they have four derivatives, the operators $`O_0`$ and $`O_3`$ do not contribute to the meson mass matrix in vacuum. However, they give the dominant contributions to the decay $`\eta ^{}\eta \pi \pi `$ . This is essentially because the extra derivatives introduce large amplification factors, $`(M_\eta ^{}/M_\pi )^2`$, with respect to the leading order amplitude444This may actually casts some doubts on the validity of $`\chi PT`$ for such processes as one could expect higher-order effects to give non-negligible contributions to the decay $`\eta ^{}\eta \pi \pi `$. One may nevertheless hope that the large $`N_c`$ expansion is still reliable and that these corrections are $`1/N_c`$ suppressed. Whether this is true is unfortunately hard to check as we would evidently have too few hadronic data to completely fit the parameters of the effective lagrangian at higher orders in the $`\delta `$ expansion. Of course, this is precisely why the large $`N_c`$ expansion is invoked in the first place.. The observed decay rates are well reproduced with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill M_0& & \mathrm{1.2\; 10}^3,\hfill \\ \hfill M_3& & \mathrm{0.4\; 10}^3,\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
values which can be independently inferred from the known $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$, and $`L_3`$ of $`SU(3)\times SU(3)`$ $`\chi PT`$ (in the nomenclature of Gasser and Leutwyler )555According to Ref. , $`M_0=\frac{2}{3}(L_1+L_2)+𝒪(N_c^0)`$ and $`M_3=L_3+2M_0`$..

Thus all the parameters of the next-to-leading order effective lagrangian are fixed by low-energy phenomenology.

## 3 $`M_\eta ^{}`$ in a pion thermal bath

In Ref. , the leading order lagrangian (1) has been used to study the shift of $`M_\eta `$ and $`M_\eta ^{}`$ at one-loop in a pion thermal bath. The effect they found is very tiny, as at $`T200`$ MeV the relative mass shifts are only $`𝒪(0.1\%)`$. The reason for this is easy to understand. The $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons receive most of their mass from the topological susceptibility term $`v_{02}`$ and/or from the strange quark mass, while the pion thermal corrections only modifies the tiny contribution from the pion mass term $`M_\pi ^2`$. Thermal kaons could give a larger effect, $`M_K^2`$, but the density of these is exponentially suppressed at low temperatures, $`\mathrm{exp}(M_K/T)`$. One might wonder whether next-to-leading order corrections could directly affect the contribution of the leading order $`U(1)_A`$ breaking term $`v_{02}`$. As we have seen in the previous section, five extra operators appear at next-to-leading order in the large $`N_c`$ expansion and, of these, only the one with coupling $`v_{31}`$ is related to $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry breaking. Unfortunately, this term is also chirally suppressed, $`m`$, and its contribution is only $`𝒪(v_{31}M_\pi ^2T^2/f_\pi ^2)`$. At temperatures of interest, this is small compared to $`v_{02}`$, but of the same magnitude as the leading order thermal correction. The other four operators will also contribute, but in a less interesting way, as they are invariant under $`U(1)_A`$. Furthermore, their effects are also $`M_\pi ^2`$.

We have computed the shift of the mass of $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ at one-loop, at next-to-leading order in the expansion in $`\delta `$. We have not taken into account two-loop corrections from the leading order lagrangian. Although it is not clear whether this is legitimate numerically speaking, neglecting these is however consistent with the rules of large $`N_c`$ chiral perturbation theory. Indeed, the natural extension of $`\delta `$ power-counting to finite temperature is

$$𝒪(\delta )p^2m_q1/N_cT^2.$$
(19)
At leading order, $`M_\eta ^{}^2=𝒪(\delta )1/N_c`$ and the one-loop thermal correction is $`M_\pi ^2T^2/f^2\delta ^3`$. At two-loop, using the leading order lagrangian, the shift is $`M_\pi ^2T^4/f^4\delta ^5`$, while at one-loop using the next-to-leading order lagrangian, the shift is typically $`v_{31}M_\pi ^2T^2/f^2\delta ^4`$ (using $`v_{31}1/N_c`$) and thus dominant. Consistency thus requires to neglect the two-loop contributions. This greatly simplifies the calculations which are a bit cumbersome, but otherwise straightforward.

The relevant diagrams are those of Fig. 1, where the loops contain only pions. At next-to-leading order there are two related thermal loops:

$$I_1(T)=T\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{K^2+M_\pi ^2},$$
(20)
with $`K^2=k_0^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2`$, where $`k_0=2\pi nT`$, with $`n`$ integer, are the Matsubara frequencies and

$$I_2(T)=T\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{K^2}{K^2+M_\pi ^2},$$
(21)
with $`I_2(T)=M_\pi ^2I_1(T)`$. As usual, we drop the ultraviolet divergent part of the pion loops as these can in principle be reabsorbed in vacuum parameters, including next-to-next-to-leading order counter-terms. The sum over $`n`$ can then be readily evaluated using standard techniques ,

$$I_1(T)=\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{\omega }\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\omega /T)1}=\frac{M_\pi T}{2\pi ^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}K_1\left(\frac{nM_\pi }{T}\right),$$
(22)
where $`\omega ^2=\stackrel{}{k}^2+M_\pi ^2`$. For instance, for $`T>M_\pi `$

$$I_1(T)\frac{T^2}{12}.$$
(23)
In the sequel we simply compute (22) numerically. As the relevant formula are not particularly transparent, we have relegated them to the appendix. Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show the shift of $`M_\eta ^{}`$ and $`M_\eta `$ at low temperature both at leading and next-to-leading order. To be definite we have chosen the set of parameters corresponding to $`\theta 20^{}`$. The net thermal effects are not dramatic: both masses decrease, but only slightly. As expected, the shift of the mass $`M_\eta ^{}`$ is more pronounced at next-to-leading order, but the effect is not very significant. Again, this is because, both at leading and next-to-leading orders, the thermal corrections are chirally suppressed, $`M_\pi ^2T^2/f_\pi ^2`$. For completeness, we have also plotted in Fig. 4 the shift of the mixing angle at low temperature. As both the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ masses diminish, the angle is not very much affected. It decreases a bit (toward ideal mixing?), consistent with the relatively larger shift of $`M_\eta ^{}`$.

## 4 Lessons from large $`N_c`$?

As we have seen in the previous section, the mass of $`\eta ^{}`$ is almost not affected at low temperatures in a pion bath. This is because, at this order, the pion thermal corrections are chirally suppressed, smaller than $`M_\pi ^20.02`$ GeV2, and thus essentially negligible compared to the contribution from the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry breaking term $`v_{02}0.22`$ GeV2. In particular, in the chiral limit, $`M_\pi =0`$, all the corrections vanish and $`M_\eta ^{}`$ is temperature independent up to next-to-leading order in $`\chi PT`$. In the chiral limit, the leading contribution from pions to the shift of $`M_\eta ^{}`$ presumably arise from $`𝒪(p^4)`$ operators like666The $`O(p^2)`$ operator
$$f^2\frac{X^2}{N_c^2}_\mu U^{}_\mu U,$$
(24)  can contribute at one-loop if and only if $`M_\pi ^20`$. It could contribute at two-loop order in the chiral limit $`T^4`$, but doesn’t because pion interactions are too soft. This is a well-known feature of pion thermal corrections which is for instance manifest in the absence of $`T^6`$ terms in the free energy of a pion gas in the chiral limit , or in the fact that massless thermal pions move at the speed of light to order $`T^2`$ .

$$\frac{1}{N_c}X^2_\mu U_\nu U^{}_\mu U_\nu U^{}.$$
(25)
The coupling is $`𝒪(1/N_c)`$ because there is a factor of $`1/N_c^2`$ coming with $`X^2`$ and one of $`N_c`$ from the coupling of the $`𝒪(p^4)`$ operator. The best way to see this is to replace the coupling $`M_0N_c`$ (or $`M_3`$) from the next-to-leading order lagrangian by a function of $`X`$, $`M_0M_0(X)`$ and expand to second order in $`X`$, which brings down a factor of $`1/N_c^2`$. Because there are at least four pions in the expansion of the operator (25), the leading pion thermal correction to $`M_\eta ^{}`$ in the chiral limit is a two-loop effect,

$$\delta M_\eta ^{}^2(T)\frac{1}{N_c}\frac{T^8}{f^6}\frac{1}{N_c^4}\frac{T^8}{\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^6}.$$
(26)
We have made the large $`N_c`$ dependence of the pion decay constant $`f^2`$ manifest by defining $`f^2N_c\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}`$. Of course, the sign of the correction is not known and $`M_\eta ^{}`$ could go up or down. Also, if we compare with $`M_\eta ^{}^2(0)\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^2/N_c`$, we infer that $`M_\eta ^{}`$ is quasi-constant for temperatures

$$TT_{}N_c^{3/8}\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}.$$
(27)
In the large $`N_c`$ framework, the natural scale for deconfinement is $`T_c\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}`$, which is also the temperature at which the pions from the hadronic gas overlap. It is natural to assume that chiral symmetry restoration takes place at the same temperature, driven by the release of $`𝒪(N_c^2)`$ gluon degrees of freedom . The estimate in Eq. (27) then seems to imply that $`M_\eta ^{}`$ is essentially constant up to the temperature of deconfinement, since $`T_{}T_c\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}`$ for $`N_c`$ large. This conclusion is however premature because the low momentum expansion breaks down near $`T_c`$ and we must take into account the contribution of operators with arbitrary number of derivatives. We claim that the dominant operators at large $`N_c`$ are of the form

$$\frac{1}{N_c\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^{2k4}}X^2_{\mu _1}U_{\mu _2}U^{}\mathrm{}_{\mu _k}U_{\mu _1}U^{}_{\mu _2}U\mathrm{}_{\mu _k}U^{}.$$
(28)
These operators are irrelevant at low energies but become marginal for $`T_c`$. A six-derivative operator, for instance, first contribute at three loops $`\delta M_\eta ^{}^2T^{12}/(N_c^5\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^{10})`$. For comparison, the contribution of a three-loop diagram with a four-derivatives (NLO) and a two-derivatives vertices (LO) is $`1/N_cT^{10}/f^81/N_c^5T^{10}/\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^8`$ and is subdominant at large $`N_c`$. For generic $`k`$, the operators of Eq. (28) give $`\delta M_\eta ^{}^2T^{4k}/(N_c^{k+2}\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^{4k2})`$. The ratio of two consecutive terms $`k`$ and $`k+1`$ becomes $`𝒪(1)`$ at $`T^{}N_c^{1/4}\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}`$, independent of $`k`$. At large $`N_c`$, $`T_cT^{}T^{}`$ and the perturbative expansion still breaks down above the temperature of deconfinement.

Another set of operators could be relevant at large $`N_c`$ because the $`\eta ^{}`$ is then rather light, $`M_\eta ^{}\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}/N_c^{1/2}<T_c`$. Thus one should include operators that involve arbitrary powers of the $`\eta ^{}`$ field, like

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill & & f^2F\left(\frac{X}{N_c}\right)_\mu U^{}_\mu U\hfill \\ & =& \left(\frac{\eta _0^2}{\mu ^2N_c^2}+\frac{\eta _0^4}{\mu ^4N_c^5}+\mathrm{}\right)(_\mu \eta ^0)^2+\text{pion terms},\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
which contributes to the wave-function renormalization of $`\eta ^{}`$,

$$\delta Z_\eta ^{}T^2/(N_c^2\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^2)+T^4/(N_c^5\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^4)+\mathrm{},$$
(30)
or terms of the form

$$N_c^2\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^4G\left(\frac{X}{N_c}\right)\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^2}{N_c}\eta _0^2+\mathrm{\#}_1\frac{1}{N_c^4}\eta _0^4+\mathrm{\#}_2\frac{1}{\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^2N_c^7}\eta _0^6+\mathrm{}.$$
(31)
However, a common feature of these operators is that they are very suppressed at large $`N_c`$. They become important only for $`TN_c^{3/2}\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}`$, much higher than $`T^{}`$ so that their contribution is subleading compared to operators like in Eq. (28).

Can we conclude anything from these considerations? In all the cases discussed above, the leading thermal corrections to $`M_\eta ^{}`$, in the chiral limit and for $`N_c`$ large, become important for temperature which are higher than the critical temperature of deconfinement $`T_c\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}`$ by a factor of $`N_c^\gamma `$. Although the value of $`\gamma `$ is hard to guess, as various corrections can get mixed up, we believe it is reasonable to conjecture that $`\gamma `$ is strictly positive. This implies that just below $`T_c`$, $`M_\eta ^{}(T)=M_\eta ^{}(0)`$ to a very good approximation. The standard lore is that the deconfining phase transition at $`T_c`$ is of first order for $`N_c`$ large 777Various arguments, including recent developments in string theory (see Sect. 6.2.2 in Ref ) and lattice simulations of $`N_c=4`$ pure Yang-Mills theory , favour a first order deconfining phase transition. A case for a second order phase transition has been made in Ref. , in light of the structure of the Columbia diagram.. Because the temperature at which hadronic interactions can affect $`M_\eta ^{}`$ is (very much) larger than the temperature of deconfinement, we expect that changes in $`M_\eta ^{}`$ will be instead triggered by the release of the large number of gluons and will thus drop discontinuously at $`T_c`$, i.e. that there is a first order transition to a phase with (approximate) $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry.

This behaviour is not inconsistent with various other expectations. For three light quark flavours, $`N_f3`$, the transition to the chirally symmetric phase is probably first order while for $`N_f=2`$, the phase transition is supposed to be of second order, in the universality class of $`O(4)`$ . It has been argued by Smilga that the latter behaviour is not inconsistent with a first order deconfining phase transition at large $`N_c`$ . The reason is that, unlike for $`M_\eta ^{}`$, there is an infinite subset of thermal corrections that contribute to the same order in $`N_c`$ to the shift of the quark condensate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{q}q`$,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(T)=\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(1\mathrm{\#}\frac{T^2}{N_c^2\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^2}F\left(\frac{T}{\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}}\right)\right).$$
(32)
Even though thermal corrections are suppressed like $`1/N_c^2`$, the (unknown) function $`F(x)`$ may be singular near, but below $`T_c\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}`$. If, for instance, $`F`$ has a simple pole at $`T=T_0<T_c`$, $`F\mu _{\mathrm{hadr}}^2/(T^2T_0^2)`$ and the chiral phase transition is second order with a critical region near $`T_c`$, that is of order

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T_c}\frac{1}{N_c^2}.$$
(33)
Alternatively, if $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is effectively restored at $`T_c`$, the large $`N_c`$ behaviour (32) is also consistent with a fluctuation induced first order phase transition. For $`N_f=1`$ finally, chiral symmetry is broken by the anomaly at all temperature and there is no chiral phase transition. However, if instanton transitions are strongly suppressed just above $`T_c`$, chiral symmetry can be effectively restored and the phase transition is presumably first order.

## 5 Conclusions

We have studied the behaviour of the mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ pseudoscalar meson at finite temperature using constraints from chiral symmetry and large $`N_c`$ power counting. The main conclusion to be drawn from this work is that $`M_\eta ^{}`$ is essentially unchanged at low temperatures. A tentative analysis of the effect of leading higher order corrections at large $`N_c`$ suggests that $`M_\eta ^{}`$ changes discontinuously at the temperature of deconfinement. The implications of these considerations for the real world, i.e. $`N_c=3`$, are not quite clear as we would expect the suppression of instanton effects only at asymptotically high temperatures. It is however striking that recent lattice simulations, with $`N_f=2`$ staggered  and domain wall  fermions, both show a strong suppression of $`U(1)_A`$ breaking effects at low temperatures $`T1.2T_c`$. Because this temperature is outside the critical region, the order of the chiral phase transition is probably not affected. It could be of interest to consider doing simulations with $`N_c>3`$, although this would probably be time consuming, or maybe with one flavour and various $`N_c`$. Consider for example a plot of the $`\pi `$ and $`\delta `$ susceptibilities near the critical temperature as computed on the lattice . Large $`N_c`$ arguments suggest that the curves of the susceptibilities would be flatter below $`T_c`$ —because the confined phase is colder— and that splitting between $`\pi `$ and $`\delta `$ (a.k.a. $`a_0`$) should be narrower above $`T_c`$ —because $`U(1)_A`$ breaking is more suppressed, maybe like in Fig. 5—. The Columbia diagram could change accordingly: the critical line around the region of small $`M_u=M_d`$ masses would move as in Fig. 6.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank P. Herrera-Siklódy and F. Karsch for useful discussions and S. Peris and J. Taron for a careful reading of the manuscript. Work partly supported by the EEC, TMR-CT98-0169, EURODAPHNE network.

## Appendix

### 5.1 Useful formulæ

#### 5.1.1 Leading order

$`2mB`$ $`=`$ $`M_\pi ^2,`$ (34)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2}{M_\pi ^2}}2,`$ (35)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`f_\pi ,`$ (36)
$`3v_{02}`$ $`=`$ $`M_\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{tan}\theta .`$ (37)
#### 5.1.2 Next-to-leading order

##### Some definitions:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ are defined as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{f^2}}(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)(2L_8L_5),`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ $``$ $`3v_{31}12{\displaystyle \frac{L_5}{f^2}}v_{02}.`$ (39)
##### Next-to-leading order parameters:

The next-to-leading order parameters can be expressed in terms of observables through

$`2mB`$ $`=`$ $`M_\pi ^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_M\right),`$ (40)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2}{M_\pi ^2}}(1\mathrm{\Delta }_M)2,`$ (41)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`f_\pi \left(14{\displaystyle \frac{L_5}{f^2}}M_\pi ^2\right),`$ (42)
$`3v_{02}`$ $`=`$ $`M_\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2}{3}}`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_M\mathrm{\Delta }_N)\mathrm{tan}\theta `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left[(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_M(2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_N\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{L_5}{f^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)}}\mathrm{\Delta }_P,`$ (44)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2+3M_\eta ^24M_K^2+3(M_\eta ^2M_\eta ^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{4(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)}},`$ (45)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_\eta ^2M_\eta ^2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_M,`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_K}{f_\pi }}1.`$ (47)
### 5.2 Results at $`T=0`$

#### 5.2.1 Leading order

##### Mass matrix:

$`m_{88}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(4M_K^2M_\pi ^2),`$ (48)
$`m_{80}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}(M_K^2M_\pi ^2),`$ (49)
$`m_{00}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2)3v_{02}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}y(M_K^2M_\pi ^2),`$
where

$$y\frac{9v_{02}}{2(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)}.$$
(51)
##### Mixing angle:

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta \frac{2m_{80}^2}{m_{00}^2m_{88}^2}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{1+y}.$$
(52)
##### Physical masses:

$`M_\eta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_K^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}{3}}(y+\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}),`$ (53)
$`M_\eta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_K^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}{3}}(y\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}),`$ (54)
with

$$M_\eta ^2+M_\eta ^2m_{88}^2+m_{00}^2=2M_K^2\frac{2}{3}y(M_K^2M_\pi ^2).$$
(55)
#### 5.2.2 Next-to-leading order

##### Mass matrix:

$`m_{88}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(4M_K^2M_\pi ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_M,`$ (56)
$`m_{80}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_M\mathrm{\Delta }_N),`$ (57)
$`m_{00}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2)3v_{02}`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_M{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2)(12\mathrm{\Delta }_N)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}y(M_K^2M_\pi ^2).`$
##### Mixing angle:

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta =\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{1+y}\left(1+\frac{y}{1+y}\mathrm{\Delta }_M\left(1+\frac{1}{1+y}\frac{2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_N\right).$$
(59)
##### Physical masses:

$`M_\eta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_K^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}{3}}(y+\sqrt{9+2y+y^2})`$ (60)
$`+`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{9+y}{3\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}\right)(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{3(2M_K^23M_\pi ^2)y(2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2)}{\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_N,`$
$`M_\eta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_K^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}{3}}(y\sqrt{9+2y+y^2})`$ (61)
$`+`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{9+y}{3\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}\right)(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3(2M_K^23M_\pi ^2)y(2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2)}{\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_N,`$
with

$`M_\eta ^2+M_\eta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`2M_K^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}y(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)`$ (62)
$`+`$ $`2(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_M{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(2M_K^2+M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_N.`$
### 5.3 Results at $`T0`$

#### 5.3.1 Leading order

##### Mass matrix:

$`m_{88}^2(T)`$ $`=`$ $`m_{88}^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}I(T),`$ (63)
$`m_{80}^2(T)`$ $`=`$ $`m_{80}^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{\sqrt{2}f_\pi ^2}}I(T),`$ (64)
$`m_{00}^2(T)`$ $`=`$ $`m_{00}^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}I(T),`$ (65)
where

$`I(T)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{\omega }\frac{1}{e^{\beta \omega }1}};\omega =\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+M_\pi ^2},\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi T}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}K_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{nM_\pi }{T}}\right)\stackrel{M_\pi 0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{12}}.`$
##### Mixing angle:

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta (T)=\mathrm{tan}2\theta (0)+\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{1+y}\frac{y}{1+y}\frac{3}{4}\frac{M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}\frac{1}{f_\pi ^2}I(T).$$
(67)
##### Physical masses:

$`M_\eta ^2(T)`$ $`=`$ $`M_\eta ^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}I(T)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{9+y}{3\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}\right),`$ (68)
$`M_\eta ^2(T)`$ $`=`$ $`M_\eta ^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}I(T)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{9+y}{3\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}\right),`$ (69)
with

$$M_\eta ^2(T)+M_\eta ^2(T)=M_\eta ^2(0)+M_\eta ^2(0)\frac{3}{2}\frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}I(T).$$
(70)
#### 5.3.2 Next-to-leading order

##### Mass matrix:

$`m_{88}^2(T)`$ $`=`$ $`m_{88}^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{2f_\pi ^2}}I(T)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_P+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_M)`$ (71)
$`+`$ $`24{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}(M_0+M_3)),`$
$`m_{80}^2(T)`$ $`=`$ $`m_{80}^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{\sqrt{2}f_\pi ^2}}I(T)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_P+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_M)`$ (72)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N+24{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}(M_0+M_3)(1{\displaystyle \frac{y}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}{M_\pi ^2}})),`$
$`m_{00}^2(T)`$ $`=`$ $`m_{00}^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}I(T)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_P+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_M)`$ (73)
$``$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_N+24{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}(M_0+M_3)(1{\displaystyle \frac{2y}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}{M_\pi ^2}})).`$
##### Mixing angle:

$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta (T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}2\theta (0)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{1+y}}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{1+y}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_\pi ^2}}I(T)\times `$
$`(1`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_P+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_M\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+y}}\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ (74)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1y}{1+y}}\mathrm{\Delta }_N+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(1+y)y}}{\displaystyle \frac{2M_K^2(1+y)M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$
$`+`$ $`24{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}(M_0+M_3)\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2\frac{y}{3}(M_K^2M_\pi ^2)}{M_\pi ^2}}\right)).`$
##### Physical masses:

$`M_\eta ^2(T)`$ $`=`$ $`M_\eta ^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}I(T)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{9+y}{3\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}`$ (75)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}}((1+{\displaystyle \frac{9+y}{3\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}})\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{27(3+y)+(9+y)y^2}{3(9+2y+y^2)^{3/2}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2}{3}y^2}{3(9+2y+y^2)^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4M_K^2M_\pi ^2}{M_\pi ^2}})\mathrm{\Delta }_M)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(3+y)((9+y)+(3+y)y)}{(9+2y+y^2)^{3/2}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{6y}{(9+2y+y^2)^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}})\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$
$`+`$ $`24{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}(M_0+M_3)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{9+y}{3\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}y(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3+y}{\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}){\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}{M_\pi ^2}})),`$
$`M_\eta ^2(T)`$ $`=`$ $`M_\eta ^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}I(T)(1{\displaystyle \frac{9+y}{3\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}`$ (76)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}}((1{\displaystyle \frac{9+y}{3\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}})\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{27(3+y)+(9+y)y^2}{3(9+2y+y^2)^{3/2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2}{3}y^2}{3(9+2y+y^2)^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4M_K^2M_\pi ^2}{M_\pi ^2}})\mathrm{\Delta }_M)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{(3+y)((9+y)+(3+y)y)}{(9+2y+y^2)^{3/2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{6y}{(9+2y+y^2)^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}})\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$
$`+`$ $`24{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}(M_0+M_3)(1{\displaystyle \frac{9+y}{3\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}y(1{\displaystyle \frac{3+y}{\sqrt{9+2y+y^2}}}){\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}{M_\pi ^2}})),`$
with

$`M_\eta ^2(T)+M_\eta ^2(T)`$ $`=`$ $`M_\eta ^2(0)+M_\eta ^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}I(T)\times `$
$`(1`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\pi ^2}{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_P+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_M\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ (77)
$`+`$ $`24{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}(M_0+M_3)(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}y{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^2M_\pi ^2}{M_\pi ^2}})).`$


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Heavy quark decays are central to the international effort to test the Standard Model, and the $`b`$ quark has emerged as the focus of this program. These studies include detailed investigations of semileptonic and hadronic decays, as well as increasingly sensitive measurements of rare decays. With major new $`b`$-physics initiatives getting under way at nearly all high energy physics labs, the prospects for definitive tests of the Standard Model, or the discovery of physics beyond it, are excellent.

Flavor physics is interesting because the weak eigenstates of the quarks are mixtures of the mass eigenstates. With three generations the mixing is described by the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix  (Fig. 1).

Unitarity and the arbitrariness of phases allows the nine complex elements to be reduced to four parameters, as most familiarly parameterized by Wolfenstein . These parameters cannot be predicted, and their determination is one of our most practical needs. Furthermore, redundant measurements provide powerful tests of the validity of the Standard Model.

Specific measurements include direct determinations of the magnitudes of the CKM parameters in a variety of processes, and detailed studies of CP violation, principally in $`s`$ and $`b`$ decays. “Overconstraining” the matrix thus is a matter of measuring the lengths of the sides of the unitarity triangle, as well as its angles, $`\alpha =arg[V_{td}V_{tb}^{}/V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}]`$, $`\beta =arg[V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}/V_{td}V_{tb}^{}]`$ and $`\gamma =arg[V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}/V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}]`$. We already know quite a bit: $`\lambda 0.22`$, $`A0.8`$, and bounds on $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ from past measurements. We urgently need precise determinations.

Another powerful probe of the limits of the Standard Model is provided by rare decays, especially rare $`b`$ decays. There are many observables and many challenging measurements. They require very large data samples and mastery of strong-interaction effects that obscure our view of the underlying electroweak physics.

The objective of this review is to report some of the recent developments in heavy-quark decays, hopefully painting a picture of our overall state of knowledge and the pressing open questions. Not included are the crucial topics of lifetimes and mixing, covered elsewhere in these proceedings . In Section 2 I describe the current status of semileptonic $`B`$ decays and the determination of the CKM parameters $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{ub}|`$. The focus of Section 3 is rare charmless decays, both two-body hadronic decays and $`bs\gamma `$. Section 4 addresses the interpretation of the various results and implications for the CKM matrix. In Section 5 I mention a few results and near-term prospects in charm physics. This review ends in Section 6 with a brief summary and a survey of the outlook for the not-too-distant future in.

The roster of experimental players in this business is growing with the first operation of several new facilities: KEK-B/BELLE, PEP-II/BaBar, CESR/CLEO III, and HERA-B. Many recent advances in $`b`$ physics have been made by the CLEO experiment working with $`B`$ mesons just above threshold at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. CLEO has two distinct data samples: 3.3 million $`B\overline{B}`$ events in the original CLEO II detector and 6.4 million events obtained since 1996 with CLEO II.V, upgraded to include a silicon vertex detector and other improvements. The data sample for CLEO II.V exceeded the project goal as a result of the excellent performance of the CESR storage ring, which reached a luminosity of $`0.8\times 10^{33}`$ cm-2s-1 by the end of the run. The ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL experiments at LEP and the SLD experiment at the SLC, have investigated faster-moving $`B`$’s produced in $`Z^0`$ decays. Each LEP experiment collected roughly 0.9 million $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs. With dramatically improved SLC performance toward the end of its run, SLD was able to obtain about 100 thousand $`b\overline{b}`$’s, with the extra advantages of polarized beams and outstanding vertexing. During Run I the Tevatron experiments D0 and, especially, CDF demonstrated that forefront $`b`$ physics can be done in a $`p\overline{p}`$ environment. CDF’s 100 pb-1 sample, clean lepton triggers and ability to tag displaced $`B`$ vertices produced competitive measurements not just of lifetimes and mixing, but also of some rare $`B`$ decays. There are also a number of current experiments specializing in charm physics, both in $`e^+e^{}`$ (BES) and in fixed-target mode (FOCUS, SELEX, E789, E791). Results from these are beginning to emerge, and the next few years should see many interesting developments.

## 2 $`B`$ Semileptonic Decays

$`B`$ physics is all about Standard Model tests and the determination of CKM parameters, and semileptonic decays are the core of this program. Precise measurements of $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{ub}|`$ are the main goals. Since semileptonic decays are our main tool, it is essential that we understand this tool very well. The last few years have seen important developments in both theory and experiment. We have benefited greatly from the increasingly sophisticated application of new theoretical techniques, including Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) and lattice gauge calculations. There has been enhanced coordination between experimentalists and theorists, and the more recent formation of inter-experiment working groups is also proving fruitful. The challenge has been recognized as having two essential components: the extraction of all possible information from the package of measurements, and consistent and realistic assessment of theoretical uncertainties. In this section I address three main topics in $`B`$ semileptonic decays. First I review some long-standing puzzles in the measurements. Following that I assess the state of knowledge of $`|V_{cb}|`$ and of $`|V_{ub}|`$.

### 2.1 Puzzles in Semileptonic $`B`$ Decays

Inclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decay is a beautifully simple process. Inclusive $`bc\mathrm{}\nu `$ provides the most straightforward way to determine $`|V_{cb}|`$, one which is again acknowledged as competitive with exclusive determinations. Inclusive $`bu\mathrm{}\nu `$ gave us the first demonstration that $`V_{ub}`$ is nonzero , and while its interpretation is fraught with model uncertainties, it remains an important measurement. Figure 2 is CLEO’s snapshot of the entire picture of

semileptonic $`B`$ decay in the near-threshold environment of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$. The semileptonic branching fraction and the shape of the lepton momentum spectrum are determined using a lepton-tagged procedure in which charge and angular correlations allow separation of the primary $`b\mathrm{}`$ and secondary $`bc\mathrm{}`$ leptons . Evidence for charmless decays is revealed as an excess in the region of the kinematic end point of the $`bc\mathrm{}\nu `$ lepton spectrum .

The simplicity of the semileptonic decay makes it all the more vexing that it has been the cause of a great deal of anxiety. There are two main puzzles. Why is the $`B`$ semileptonic branching fraction measured at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ so small? Why is the $`B`$ semileptonic branching fraction measured at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ smaller than that at the $`Z^0`$? The left-hand graph in Fig. 3 shows an assessment

by Neubert of the problem as of about two years ago . Naive considerations suggest a $`B`$ semileptonic branching fraction of at least 12%, while experiment has consistently given values smaller than this. Mechanisms that enhance hadronic $`B`$ decays can reduce the semileptonic branching fraction, but only by increasing $`n_c`$, the number of charm quarks per $`B`$. The data from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ did not bear this out. The fact that the branching fraction is smaller at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is a separate matter that is also quite perplexing. The dominant $`B`$ mesons at the $`Z^0`$ are the same as those at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, and the inclusion of higher-mass $`b`$-flavored particles at higher energy would be expected to reduce the average semileptonic branching fraction.

No new data from CLEO have been presented since 1997. There have been new developments on both the semileptonic branching fraction  and $`n_c`$  fronts from the LEP experiments.

DELPHI (, L3  and OPAL  have all presented new measurements of the $`B`$ semileptonic branching fraction. They use a variety of techniques with second-lepton, $`B`$-vertex and jet-charge tagging, with neural nets employed to separate primary, secondary and background leptons. L3 uses two separate analyses based on double-tag methods to determine simultaneously the $`Z^0`$ $`b`$-quark fraction $`R_b`$ and $`(BX\mathrm{}\nu `$). One analysis uses a displaced-vertex $`b`$ tag, while the other demands a high-$`p_t`$ lepton. The observed lepton $`p_t`$ distributions and the unfolded momentum in the $`b`$ rest frame are shown in Fig. 4. The result of this

measurement of $`(BX\mathrm{}\nu `$), and of the most recent measurements from the other four LEP experiments, are summarized in Table 1.

The new $`Z^0`$ average, $`(BX\mathrm{}\nu )=(10.63\pm 0.17)\%`$, represents a significant decrease from the $`(11.1\pm 0.3)\%`$ average of the high-energy measurement circa 1997. The PDG value for the semileptonic branching fraction at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is $`(10.45\pm 0.21)\%`$, quite compatible with the new $`Z^0`$ average. This may still overstate the difference, however, since the PDG average has an aggressively small error considering the experimental and theoretical errors of the input measurements and the spread among them.

New measurements of the multiplicity of charm quarks per $`b`$ decay have been reported by ALEPH  and DELPHI  . Combining these with an earlier OPAL measurement  leads to a new correlated average of $`n_c=1.151\pm 0.022\pm 0.022\pm 0.051`$ , where the errors are statistical, systematic, and that due to input branching fractions. CLEO’s previous number, $`n_c=1.10\pm 0.05`$ becomes $`1.12\pm 0.05`$ when consistent branching fractions are used, again in very good agreement.

The right-hand graph of Fig. 3 is an update of Neubert’s original comparison. It is clear from that graph that the gap between high-energy and low-energy measurements has narrowed considerably. The low-energy data still lies outside the theory comfort zone, but the puzzle seems much less compelling than it did previously.

### 2.2 Determination of $`|V_{cb}|`$

We determine the CKM parameter $`|V_{cb}|`$ by two techniques, both involving semileptonic decays $`bc\mathrm{}\nu `$. The favored method has been to use the rate for the exclusive semileptonic decay $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$ (or $`BD\mathrm{}\nu `$) at zero recoil. A method that languished in disrepute for some years, but which has been rehabilitated, is to use the inclusive semileptonic decay rate. Both approaches are rooted in HQET, and there is extensive theoretical guidance on extracting $`|V_{cb}|`$ and estimating its uncertainty .

The connection between $`V_{cb}`$ and the semileptonic width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$ from HQET and the operator product expansion (OPE) is as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(B)=\frac{G_F^2m_b^5|V(cb)|^2}{192\pi ^3}\left[z_0\left(1\frac{\mu _\pi ^2\mu _G^2}{2m_b^2}\right)2\left(1\frac{m_c^2}{m_b^2}\right)^4\frac{\mu _G^2}{m_b^2}\frac{2\alpha _S}{3\pi }z_0^{(1)}+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(1)
Three HQET parameters appear in the expansion. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ connects the quark mass with the meson mass. $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ (or its relative $`\lambda _1`$) relates to the average kinetic energy of the $`b`$ quark. $`\mu _G^2`$ ($`\lambda _2`$) is connected to the hyperfine splitting. Bigi judges that a “prudent” theoretical uncertainty for the extraction of $`|V_{cb}|`$ by this procedure is $`6\%`$ . The contributions of the uncertainties in the experimental inputs, the $`B`$ semileptonic branching fraction ($`(10.5\pm 0.2\pm 0.4)\%`$) and average $`B`$ lifetime ($`1.61\pm 0.02`$ ps), are small in comparison. The result is $`|V_{cb}|=(40.\pm 0.4\pm 2.4)\times 10^3`$.

On the exclusive front, HQ symmetry tells us that a heavy-light meson decaying at rest really isn’t changing at all. A measurement of the decay rate of $`BD^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ at maximum $`q^2`$ ($`w=1`$) gives $`(1)V_{cb}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dw}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{48\pi ^3}}|V(cb)|^2m_D^{}(m_Bm_D^{})^2^2(w)𝒢(w)\text{, where}`$ (2)
$`w`$ $`=`$ $`(m_B^2+m_D^{}^2q^2)/(2m_Bm_D^{})`$
Add the form-factor normalization $`(1)`$ from theory and we are done. There has been continuing evolution in thinking about $`(1)`$, and some controversy . Bigi  suggests $`(1)=0.88\pm 0.08`$, with a smaller value and a much bigger error than earlier suggestions.

A new measurement of $`BD^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ has been reported by DELPHI , joining ALEPH , OPAL , and CLEO . The new DELPHI measurement (Fig. 5) is based on $`5500`$ tagged decays and has the best precision. (CLEO has so far reported on only one sixth of its total data sample.)

Table 2 summarizes the results on $`|V_{cb}|`$ from $`BD^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$, following the LEP $`V_{cb}`$ working group , and Bigi’s

proposal for $`(1)`$. Everything agrees very well. The exclusive $`|V_{cb}|`$ result is consistent with the inclusive, and the overall precision is comparable.

Both extraction procedures rely on the HQET/OPE approach, which is beautiful but largely unvalidated by experiment. Experimental tests are needed, and measurements of the parameters $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\lambda _1`$/$`\mu _\pi ^2`$ would be extremely valuable. Measurements of the moments of the hadronic mass and lepton energy in $`B`$ decays have been proposed to do this . CLEO has made a preliminary measurement of this type , the results of which are shown in in Fig. 5. The mass moments and lepton-energy moments do not admit a common solution, and the discrepancy is significant. Perhaps one (or both) of the measurements is flawed, or perhaps there is something wrong with the theoretical approach. Some have suggested that the assumption of quark/hadron duality should be scrutinized. CLEO is updating its measurements with more data and a better understanding of the experimental systematics.

### 2.3 Determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$

Compared to $`|V_{ub}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$ was easy. The advantages afforded by heavy-quark symmetry in studying $`bc\mathrm{}\nu `$ do not carry over to the heavy-to-light transition of $`bu\mathrm{}\nu `$. Extraction of $`|V_{ub}|`$ is highly model-dependent, the experiments are tougher, and the achievable precision will likely always be less. The CLEO and ARGUS discovery measurements for $`bu\mathrm{}\nu `$ , and the subsequent confirmation in CLEO II data  were based on the nonzero excess of leptons near and above the kinematic limit for $`bc\mathrm{}\nu `$ at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$. The measurement of the yield is straightforward, but since only a tiny corner of the $`bu\mathrm{}\nu `$ phase space is sampled, models  must be used to extrapolate to the total rate. It is very difficult to assess the theoretical uncertainty, and my preference is to be very cautious: $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.08\pm 0.02`$.

In the past few years, ALEPH , L3  and DELPHI  have all presented ambitious analyses that seek to measure the $`bu\mathrm{}\nu `$ component in $`b`$ decays at the $`Z^0`$. The strategy is to reconstruct the charmless hadronic mass $`m_X`$ in $`bX\mathrm{}\nu `$, and to enrich the sample in $`bu\mathrm{}\nu `$ by demanding $`m_X`$ to be less than $`1.6\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. Discrimination between $`bu`$-like and $`bc`$-like is based on many event details, including displaced vertices, transverse momentum, presence of kaons, and other features, combined for maximum discrimination with neural nets. This technique exploits the advantages of production at the $`Z^0`$: well-separated jets and fast-moving $`B`$’s, but it requires very detailed understanding of $`bc\mathrm{}\nu `$. The DELPHI $`bu\mathrm{}\nu `$ lepton-energy distribution in the $`B`$ rest frame is shown in Fig. 6. It is fitted to signal and background components to extract $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$.

The LEP $`|V_{ub}|`$ working group  combines the three LEP measurements to obtain an average of $`|V_{ub}|=(4.05_{0.74}^{+0.62})\times 10^3`$, very consistent with CLEO. Because more of the spectrum is measured than in the end-point analysis, the extraction of $`|V_{ub}|`$ should have less theoretical uncertainty in principle. Unfortunately, dealing with the enormous $`bc\mathrm{}\nu `$ component introduces different uncertainties that are also very difficult to quantify.

The first measurement of the exclusive charmless semileptonic decays $`B\pi /\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$ by CLEO  was a milestone in the determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$. Conventional wisdom has held that the extraction of $`|V_{ub}|`$ from exclusive decays would be less model-dependent than the earlier end-point measurements. The main reason for this prejudice has been that tools like light-cone sum rules and lattice QCD, along with experimental input from charm decays, would provide necessary form-factor information.

CLEO has presented a new analysis of $`B\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$  with higher efficiency than full reconstruction. Binned maximum-likelihood fits are made of the lepton energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and candidate mass to parameterizations for $`B\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$, $`B\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$, $`B\omega \mathrm{}\nu `$, other $`bu\mathrm{}\nu `$, continuum, and fake leptons. The data sample is divided according to lepton-momentum, with the greatest sensitivity to $`B\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$ in the highest bin ($`>2.3\mathrm{GeV}/c`$). Several models  are used to evaluate efficiencies and extract $`|V_{ub}|`$. This measurement is averaged with the previously published CLEO results , to give $`(B^0\rho ^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu )=(2.57\pm 0.29_{0.46}^{+0.33}\pm 0.41)\times 10^4`$ and $`|V_{ub}|=(3.25\pm 0.14_{0.29}^{+0.21}\pm 0.55)\times 10^3`$. The experimental uncertainties in this measurement are smaller than the theoretical uncertainty. Further progress will depend on advances in theory with guidance from experiment. This analysis included a first measurement of the $`q^2`$ distribution for $`B\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$, but the data are not yet sufficiently precise to discriminate among models.

## 3 Rare $`B`$ Decays

Rare decays have provided much of the excitement in $`B`$ physics during the past several years. As data samples have grown, the roster of rare processes that have come within the reach of experiment has lengthened steadily. The discovery of the electroweak penguin decay $`bs\gamma `$, first exclusively  and later inclusively , was a major milestone in two ways. First, it excluded a broad range of physics beyond the Standard Model by coming in very close to expectations . Second, it was a first signal of the major role of penguin processes in $`B`$ decays, a feature that has greatly influenced expectations for studies of CP violation.

The principal source for new measurements of rare $`b`$ decays has been the nearly 20 million $`B`$ mesons in the CLEO II/II.V data sample. Contributions have also been made by ALEPH, and by CDF and D0 in searches for modes with dileptons.

### 3.1 Charmless Two-Body $`B`$ Decays

CLEO has made great strides in filling in the table of charmless two-body decays. The implications of these measurements for the future $`B`$ program are significant. The principal contributing processes, $`bs`$ penguins and $`bu`$ trees, are shown in Fig. 7.

Interference between tree and penguin diagrams opens a window on the unitarity-triangle angle $`\gamma `$ in measurements of decay rates. CLEO measurements of $`B\pi \pi `$, $`B\pi \rho `$ and other modes define the strategies for future CP-violation searches, including the determination of $`\alpha `$. Searches for direct CP violation could provide our first glimpse of physics beyond the Standard Model.

CLEO’s two-body charmless decay analyses share a common set of tools that take advantage of the features of $`B\overline{B}`$ production at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$. Candidates are identified based on the beam-constrained mass, $`M_B=\sqrt{E_{beam}^2|\stackrel{}{p}|^2}`$, and the difference between the beam energy and the measured energy of the $`B`$ candidate’s daughters, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_1+E_2E_{beam}`$. For signal events $`M_B`$ must be close to the known $`B`$-meson mass ($`\sigma (M_B)2.5`$ MeV), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ must be close to zero ($`\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }E)1525`$ Mev, depending on the mode). Two-body $`B`$ decays have considerable background from continuum $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$, for which the cross section is roughly three times higher than $`B\overline{B}`$. The jet-like continuum background is aggressively suppressed with event-shape cuts based on numerous input variables that are combined into a linear multivariate (Fisher) discriminant. Residual continuum background is estimated with data collected 60 MeV below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. In addition to the common selection criteria, there are a number of signal-specific cuts including resonance mass, particle identification and helicity angles.

After imposition of loose cuts, final signals are extracted with unbinned maximum likelihood fits to $`7`$ quantities, including $`M_B`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, resonant masses ($`\rho `$, $`K^{}`$, $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$, $`\omega `$), particle ID, helicity angles, and continuum-suppression variables. In addition to the fits, cut-and-count analyses are performed for confirmation. All of CLEO’s new preliminary results have been obtained using between 5.8 million and the full 9.7 million $`B\overline{B}`$ events in the combined CLEO II and CLEO II.V data sets.

Results from CLEO’s updated search for the decays $`Bh^+h^{}`$  are shown in Fig. 8.

The full likelihood fit of $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`BK^\pm \pi ^{}`$ gives the confidence-level contours shown, with 11.7$`\sigma `$ and 4.2$`\sigma `$ statistical significance, respectively. (There is no evidence for $`BK^+K^{}`$.) The projected signal for the $`K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ mode is extremely strong, while that for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is much less compelling. Projections onto $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ for the undifferentiated $`h^+h^{}`$ events analyzed as $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ again show the dominance of $`K^\pm \pi ^{}`$, with no clear indication of a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ signal. For the events satisfying particle-ID criteria for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, however, it is clear that a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ component is needed in addition to the misidentified $`K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ to explain the distribution. The results for the branching fractions of these modes are given in Table 3.

This first measurement of $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ provides a long-awaited piece of the rare-decay puzzle, and it confirms that studies of this mode, and its future use in CP-violation measurements, are greatly complicated by “penguin pollution.” This study is only one piece of a growing picture, however, and CLEO has also presented new results on the closely related decay modes $`B^+K^0h^+`$ and $`B^+h^+\pi ^0`$, also summarized in Table 3 . In this case there are statistically significant signals for $`K^0\pi ^+`$ ($`7.6\sigma `$) and $`K^+\pi ^0`$ ($`6.1\sigma `$), but not for $`\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, reinforcing the picture of penguin dominance. In addition, there has been a first neasurement of the decay to $`K^0\pi ^0`$, providing a complete set of four $`K\pi `$ branching fractions.

As the available sample of charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays grows, it becomes possible to search for direct CP violation. CP asymmetries are possible when two or more contributing diagrams differ in weak and strong phases. CLEO has presented preliminary measurements the of asymmetry $`𝒜\frac{(bf)(\overline{b}\overline{f})}{(bf)+(\overline{b}\overline{f})}`$ for five charmless two-body final states $`f`$ ($`K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`K^{}\pi ^0`$, $`K_s^0\pi ^+`$, $`K^{}\eta ^{}`$, $`\omega \pi ^+`$) . Within the Standard Model, theoretical expectations for these asymmetries range up to $`0.10`$ . Using the full CLEO II/II.V data sample, the statistical precision on $`𝒜`$ is between $`\pm 0.12`$ and $`\pm 0.25`$ for the modes studied. While these measurements are not yet a powerful test of the Standard Model, increasing event samples could render the larger asymmetries measurable within a few years.

The growing recognition that $`B\pi \pi `$ will not provide an easy route to the unitarity triangle parameter $`\alpha `$ has stimulated the search for alternatives. The most promising avenue was suggested by Snyder and Quinn . They observe that a full Dalitz analysis of $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ exploits interference among the different $`B\rho \pi `$ modes to remove ambiguities due to unknown phases. This provides a determination of $`\alpha `$ to within about $`6^{}`$ with a sample of $`1000`$ $`B\rho \pi `$ decays, assuming the sample to be essentially background-free.

CLEO has presented preliminary results of searches for $`B`$ decays into final states with a $`K^{}`$, $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, or $`\varphi `$ meson and a second low-mass meson . The results for all modes investigated are summarized in Table 4.

Fig. 9 shows the likelihood contours and beam-constrained mass distributions for $`B^+\rho ^0h^+`$ candidates.

there is clear evidence of a signal, which translates into a branching fraction measurement $`(B^+\rho ^0\pi ^+)=(1.5\pm 0.5\pm 0.4)\times 10^5`$. There is no significant signal for $`B^+\rho ^0K^+`$, with a 90% confidence-level upper limit of $`(B^+\rho ^0K^+)<2.2\times 10^5`$. The situation is similar for $`B^0\rho ^\pm h^{}`$, for which the significant $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ background demands a cut on the helicity angle. Again there is a measurement for the $`\rho \pi `$ mode ($`(B^0\rho ^\pm \pi ^{})=(3.5_{1.0}^{+1.1}\pm 0.5)\times 10^5`$), and only an upper limit for $`\rho K`$ ($`(B^0\rho ^\pm K^{})<2.5\times 10^5`$ at 90% confidence level).

These measurements allow us to assess the feasibility of measuring $`\alpha `$ with $`B\rho \pi `$. More than 100 fb-1 will be needed to obtain the specified 1000 events. This sample will require several years of an asymmetric $`B`$ factory to accumulate, and the need to reduce and understand backgrounds will be a major challenge.

Among the other measurements reported in Ref.  is the intriguing observation of the decay $`B^+\omega \pi ^+`$. Fig. 10

shows the projected distributions of beam-constrained mass and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. The signal is solid, and the measured branching fraction $`(B^+\omega \pi ^+)=(11.3_{2.9}^{+3.3}\pm 1.5)\times 10^6`$ agrees well with CLEO’s measurement for $`B\rho ^0\pi ^+`$, as expected from isospin. While the branching fraction for $`B^+\omega \pi ^+`$ is consistent with CLEO’s published upper limit on this mode , the new upper limit on $`B\omega K^+`$ conflicts with the previously reported observation . There is no obvious explanation for this change other than a fluctuation in the previous search. The new measurement is an improvement over the first in several ways. The data sample has almost tripled and analysis-procedure improvements have increased the reconstruction efficiencies by between 10% and 20%.

A “poster child” for the challenge of interpreting charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays is the decay $`B\eta ^{}K`$. In 1998 CLEO reported an unexpectedly large branching fraction for this mode , stimulating considerable theoretical interest. An updated search for two-body $`B`$ decays to $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ has now been reported , and the mystery has not gone away. The distributions of beam-constrained mass for $`B\eta K^{}`$ and $`B\eta ^{}K`$ are shown in Fig. 11. The branching fractions for the modes with clear signals are $`(B^+\eta ^{}K^+=(6.5_{1.4}^{+1.5}\pm 0.9)\times 10^5`$ and $`(B^0\eta ^{}K^0=(4.7_{1.4}^{+2.7}\pm 0.9)\times 10^5`$. These exceed all theoretical predictions . No statistically significant signal is observed among the 17 other modes involving $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$. A few of these limits are impinging on the predicted Standard Model range.

Fig. 12 shows summary graphs for all CLEO-measured

rare two-body $`B`$-decay processes. Comparisons with theoretical predictions are included. Perhaps the most impressive feature of the work done is the breadth of the set of modes that have been measured. This prepares us for global analyses of rare charmless hadronic decays in which multiple measurements of related modes are used to extract detailed information about the CKM matrix. I return to this question in Sec. 4.

### 3.2 $`bs\gamma `$ and $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$

Inclusive measurements of $`bs\gamma `$ provide powerful constraints on physics beyond the Standard Model. CLEO has recently presented an updated analysis of 3.3 million $`B\overline{B}`$ events . The technique is an amalgam of continuum suppression through shape variables with a neural net and pseudo-reconstruction of $`BX_s\gamma `$. For the latter, the $`X_s`$ consists of a charged or neutral kaon and up to four pions, one of which can be a $`\pi ^0`$. The photon spectrum is shown in Fig. 13, and the branching fraction measurement is $`=(3.15\pm 0.35\pm 0.32\pm 0.26)\times 10^4`$, where the errors are statistical, systematic and model-dependent, respectively. ALEPH has also presented an inclusive measurement of $`bs\gamma `$ . In their analysis non-$`B`$ backgrounds are suppressed with an opposite-hemisphere lifetime tag. As for CLEO a pseudo-reconstruction approach is employed, in which $`BX_s\gamma `$ is assembled from between one and eight tracks, $`K_s^0`$’s and $`\pi ^0`$’s. The photon spectrum is shown in Fig. 13. ALEPH’s

result is $`=(3.11\pm 0.80\pm 0.72)\times 10^4`$, very consistent with CLEO’s.

It has recently been recognized that additional sensitivity to new physics is provided by the rate asymmetry $`𝒜=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bs\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{b}\overline{s}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bs\gamma )+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{b}\overline{s}\gamma )}`$. Some non-Standard Model predictions give asymmetries as large as 40% . CLEO’s updated study of inclusive $`bs\gamma `$  includes an extension of the pseudo-reconstruction analysis to measure this asymmetry. The strangeness content of the $`X_s`$ system can be used to tag the flavor of the decaying $`B`$, but mistags and untaggable states must be carefully accounted for. CLEO finds $`𝒜=(0.16\pm 0.14\pm 0.05)\times (1.0\pm 0.14)`$, with both additive and multiplicative (mistagging rate) systematic uncertainties. The 90% confidence-level range on $`𝒜`$ is $`0.09<𝒜<0.42`$.

A probe of non-Standard Model physics similar to $`bs\gamma `$ is provided by $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. CDF dominates the search for the exclusive decays $`BK/K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ , with a very large sample of hadronically produced $`B`$’s and the capability to tag $`B`$ production by displaced vertices. Fig. 14 shows the distributions of $`M(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ vs.

$`M(K/K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$) for the CDF data. The background is largely confined to the easily excluded $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ dilepton mass bands, leaving a very clean measurement. CDF obtains the 90% confidence limits $`(B^+K^+\mu ^+\mu ^{})<5.2\times 10^6`$ (Standard Model prediction: $`0.30.7\times 10^6`$), and $`(B^0K^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})<4.0\times 10^6`$ (Standard Model: $`14\times 10^6`$). With a data sample of 2 $`fb^1`$ expected for Run II, the observation of this mode should not be far off.

Since interpretation of the exclusive decays is somewhat problematic (as for $`bs\gamma `$), inclusive measurements would have some advantage. Both D0  and CLEO  have reported inclusive analyses. For D0 this is a search for lepton pairs with masses between the charmonium region and the $`B`$ meson, a window that includes only a portion of $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, but which is very clean. CLEO employs a pseudo-reconstruction technique similar to the $`bs\gamma `$ procedure. All limits obtained are an order of magnitude or more above Standard Model expectation.

## 4 Interpretation – CKM

Information relevant to the determination of the CKM parameters is being accumulated at an accelerating rate. While principal responsibility for its interpretation in these proceedings falls to Adam Falk , I will briefly comment on the conventional view and then highlight a speculative interpretation of CLEO’s rare-$`B`$-decay data.

A number of authors have incorporated the principal constraints from $`B`$ decay ($`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and the limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$) with input from $`K_L^0`$ CP violation ($`|ϵ_K|`$) in global fits to obtain the Wolfenstein parameters $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$, and the angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ of the unitarity triangle. Parodi et al.  and Mele  have performed maximum likelihood fits that assign Gaussian errors to several theoretical inputs. The fits of Parodi et al. give the solution shown on the left-hand side of Fig. 15,

leading to $`\overline{\rho }=0.202_{0.059}^{+0.053}`$ and $`\overline{\eta }=0.340\pm 0.035`$, which in turn give $`\mathrm{sin2}\alpha =0.26_{0.28}^{+0.29}`$, $`\mathrm{sin2}\beta =0.725_{0.060}^{+0.050}`$ and $`\gamma =(59.5_{7.5}^{+8.5})`$ degrees.

Stone has pointed out the danger of underestimating the overall uncertainty when assuming Gaussian errors for theoretical inputs . Plaszczynski  has taken a much more cautious approach, considering all theoretical models on an equal basis and presenting the full spread in the resulting parameter values as shown in Fig. 15. He obtains the larger ranges $`0\overline{\rho }0.3`$ and $`0.2\overline{\eta }0.45`$, leading to $`0.50\mathrm{sin2}\beta 0.85`$ and $`0.95\mathrm{sin2}\alpha 0.50`$. Of course everything is consistent with CDF’s first direct measurement, $`\mathrm{sin2}\beta =0.79_{0.44}^{+0.41}`$ .

Because rare hadronic $`B`$ decays incorporate both penguin and $`bu`$ tree processes, their rates and CP asymmetries carry information about weak phases. In particular, it has been suggested by several authors that combinations of measured rates can be used to extract the value of $`\gamma `$, the phase of $`V_{ub}^{}`$. The first suggestions  focused on the $`BK\pi `$ branching fractions, but these approaches do not set significant bounds on $`\gamma `$ with current data.

A much more aggressive procedure to extract maximal information from the data has been suggested by Hou, Smith and Würthwein . They assume factorization holds and write the $`B`$-decay amplitudes in terms of five parameters: $`\gamma =Arg(V_{ub}^{})`$, $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, $`R_{su}`$ (incorporating information about quark masses), $`F^{B\pi }`$ ($`B\pi `$ form factor), and $`A_0^{B\rho }`$ ($`B\rho `$ form factor). The CP-averaged branching fractions for 14 of CLEO’s measured charmless two-body decays  were fitted with this parameterization. (Modes with $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ were excluded based on their anomalies.) The constraint $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.08\pm 0.02`$ was imposed. The result of the fit is shown in Fig. 16. The

minimum $`\chi ^2`$ (10.3 for 10 degrees of freedom) occurs for $`\gamma =113_{23}^{+25}`$ degrees. The other fit parameters all give very reasonable values. This result agrees with earlier observations that CLEO data favor $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma <0`$ .

This is an intriguing result. The reasonable values of the fit parameters other than $`\gamma `$ suggest that there may be some validity, in spite of the very model-dependent assumptions. On the other hand, this may be nothing more than a misleading coincidence. Skepticism is appropriate.

## 5 Other Topics

It is impossible to report exhaustively on all of the activity in heavy-quark decays within a single review. While my focus has been on CKM tests and measurements relevant to CP violation, there is other work that is also having impact. Even in the $`B`$ sector I have had to ignore some work, including CLEO and LEP studies of hadronic decays and exclusive semileptonic decays to charm, that are important elements of a comprehensive understanding of $`B`$ decay.

Charm physics remains an extremely valuable complement to $`b`$ physics in our program of Standard Model testing. Because the expected rates for rare FCNC processes are extremely small, the potential to see new physics in $`D\overline{D}`$ mixing, in rare $`D`$-meson decays or in CP-violating processes is great. Additionally, studies of semileptonic and leptonic charm decays are an important adjunct to the CKM measurements, with potential to reduce model uncertainties in the extraction of $`V_{ub}`$ and other parameters. A number of experiments have presented new results on charm decays, with much more on the way. This is a very broad program, the components of which have been the subject of several excellent recent reviews, including that of lifetimes and mixing elsewhere in these proceedings .

As in $`B`$ physics, studies of hadronic charm decays  are important for developing a comprehensive understanding of heavy flavors, probing questions of final-state interactions and interference effects. Both meson and baryon decays are useful in this effort, and previously reported results from E791, CLEO and other experiments will be greatly enhanced by FOCUS and SELEX.

A number of new form-factor measurements for semileptonic $`D`$ and $`D_s`$ decays have been presented in the past year by E687 . FOCUS will soon have results from larger samples, and CLEO will also extend previous studies to their full data set. In tandem with HQET these measurements will significantly reduce model uncertainties in the extraction of $`|V_{ub}|`$ from data on semileptonic $`B`$ decays. Measurements of heavy-meson decay constants in leptonic decays of charmed mesons provide input to $`B`$-physics analyses and tests of lattice calculations.

New limits on rare or forbidden charm decays  have been presented by E791. A blind search for 24 modes was performed, with no signals observed in any and 90% confidence-level upper limits that range from $`10^3`$ or $`10^4`$ for $`K/\pi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ to less than $`10^5`$ for $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. Again FOCUS will benefit from much greater statistics, with improvements in sensitivity for these modes of an order of magnitude or better.

## 6 Summary and Conclusion

The past several years have seen steady progress on a broad program of Standard Model tests in $`B`$ decays, but there remains much to be done.

The embarrassment of the $`Z^0/\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ disagreement on the $`B`$ semileptonic branching fraction has eased. The basic experimental observation that there are too few semileptonic decays for the observed multiplicity of charm quarks is still with us, but it is not of crisis proportions. Theoretical tools for describing semileptonic decays have matured, but underlying assumptions like quark-hadron duality must be scrutinized. Hints of inconsistency between HQET-inspired interpretations of CLEO’s hadronic-mass and lepton-energy moments in semileptonic $`B`$ decays are troubling. A great deal more data and a great deal of work will be required of to reach final conclusion on the values of $`V_{ub}`$ and $`V_{cb}`$. Intensive theory/experiment collaboration is a big plus.

In rare $`B`$ decays we have a number of major developments. The decay $`B\pi \pi `$ has been observed, and the rare hadronic decay picture is filling in with more measurements and tighter limits.

We stand on the verge of truly powerful tests of the Standard Model. First efforts to measure CP asymmetries and CDF’s first measurement of $`\mathrm{sin2}\beta `$ are opening salvoes in the next phase of the campaign to make redundant measurements of the sides and angles of the unitarity triangle. So far fits to the usual experimental constraints show the Standard Model to be holding up well, but this is only the beginning.

The exciting future of heavy flavor physics is well documented elsewhere in these proceedings. The three $`e^+e^{}`$ $`B`$ factories, complemented by the upgraded Tevatron detectors, will produce a wealth of new physics. It is to be hoped that these facilities, their successor $`e^+e^{}`$ machines of still higher luminosity, and specialized detectors at hadron colliders, will carry us well beyond the Standard Model.