text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Understanding the physical origin of the violation of $`CP`$ (Charge Conjugation $`\times `$Parity) symmetry is one of the main goals of Particle Physics at the present time. Recent experiments at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders (BaBar, Belle) have produced fundamental results which strengthen the CKM picture of $`CP`$ violation  in the $`B`$ meson sector . However, the main results of these two collaborations are related to $`B`$ decays into pairs of pseudo-scalar mesons or into a vector plus a pseudo-scalar meson.

A very broad physics program can also be carried out in the sector with two vector mesons in the final state, following $`B`$ decay. Apart from measuring the standard angles, $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ of the Unitary Triangle (UT), the vector mesons are polarized and their decay products (usually long-lived $`0^+`$ mesons) are correlated. This opens the possibility of making interesting cross-checks of the Standard Model predictions as well testing some specific models of $`CP`$ violation beyond the SM approach (BSM).

In the special case of two neutral vector mesons, the orbital angular momentum, $`\mathrm{}`$, and the total spin, $`S`$, of the $`V_1^0V_2^0`$ system satisfy the equality $`\mathrm{}=S=0,1,2`$. The $`CP`$ eigenvalues are defined as $`(1)^{\mathrm{}}`$. Because of the allowed values for the angular momentum, $`\mathrm{}`$, one has a very clear indication of any mixing of different $`CP`$ eigenstates and hence of $`CP`$ non-conservation. The separation of the different $`CP`$ eigenstates requires a detailed analysis of the final angular distributions . However, because this analysis can be carried out in a model-independent way, it provides a significant constraint on any model.

After explaining the helicity formalism (Section II), a special study is devoted to the final state interactions (FSI) and the key role of $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing (Section III). A complete and realistic determination of the helicity amplitudes, in the framework of the effective Hamiltonian approach, is introduced in Section IV. Then, the main results of the Monte-Carlo simulations, providing estimates of the various density matrix elements $`h_{ij}`$, are shown in Section V. In the following section (Section VI) the numerical analysis and discussions about the branching ratios and asymmetries for $`B`$ decays into two vectors ($`B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2`$, with $`V_2=K^0,\overline{K}^0,K^{},K^+,\rho ^+,\rho ^{}`$) are given in detail. These two vectors, $`\rho ^0(\omega )`$ and $`V_2`$, each decay into two pseudo-scalars. Emphasis is put on the angular distributions of the pseudo-scalar mesons in both the helicity and transversity frames. Finally, in the last section, we summarize our results for the different channels which will be investigated in future experiments at $`p\overline{p}`$ colliders and make some concluding remarks.

## 2 General formalism for $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑽_\mathrm{𝟏}𝑽_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ decays

### 2.1 Helicity frame

Because the $`B`$ meson has spin $`0`$, the final two vector mesons, $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$, have the same helicity, $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=1,0,+1,`$ and their angular distribution is isotropic in the $`B`$ rest frame. Let $`H_w`$ be the weak Hamiltonian which governs the $`B`$ decays. Any transition amplitude between the initial and final states will have the following form:

$$H_\lambda =V_1(\lambda )V_2(\lambda )|H_w|B,$$
(1)
where the common helicity is $`\lambda =1,0,+1`$. Then, each vector meson $`V_i`$ will decay into two pseudo-scalar mesons, $`a_i,b_i`$, where $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ can be either a pion or a kaon, and the angular distributions of $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ depend on the polarization of $`V_i`$.

The helicity frame of a vector-meson $`V_i`$ is defined in the $`B`$ rest frame such that the direction of the Z-axis is given by its momentum, $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$. Schematically, the whole process gets the form:

$$BV_1+V_2(a_1+b_1)+(a_2+b_2).$$

The corresponding decay amplitude, $`M_\lambda \left(B_{i=1}^2(a_i+b_i)\right)`$, is factorized out according to the relation,

$$M_\lambda \left(B\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}(a_i+b_i)\right)=H_\lambda (BV_1+V_2)\times \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}A_i(V_ia_i+b_i),$$
(2)
where the amplitudes $`A_i(V_ia_i+b_i)`$ are related to the decay of the resonances $`V_i`$. The $`A_i(V_ia_i+b_i)`$ are given by the following expressions:

$`A_1(V_1a_1+b_1)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m_1=1}{\overset{1}{}}}c_1D_{\lambda ,m_1}^1(0,\theta _1,0),`$
$`A_2(V_2a_2+b_2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m_2=1}{\overset{1}{}}}c_2D_{\lambda ,m_2}^1(\varphi ,\theta _2,\varphi ).`$ (3)
These equalities are an illustration of the Wigner-Eckart theorem. In Eq. (2.1), the $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ parameters represent, respectively, the dynamical decays of the $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ resonances. The term $`D_{\lambda ,m_i}^1(\varphi _i,\theta _i,\varphi _i)`$ is the Wigner rotation matrix element for a spin-1 particle and we let $`\lambda (a_i)`$ and $`\lambda (b_i)`$ be the respective helicities of the final particles $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ in the $`V_i`$ rest frame. $`\theta _1`$ is the polar angle of $`a_1`$ in the $`V_1`$ helicity frame. The decay plane of $`V_1`$ is identified with the (X-Z) plane and consequently the azimuthal angle $`\varphi _1`$ is set to $`0`$. Similarly, $`\theta _2`$ and $`\varphi `$ are respectively the polar and azimuthal angles of particle $`a_2`$ in the $`V_2`$ helicity frame. Finally, the coefficients $`m_i`$ are defined as:

$$m_i=\lambda (a_i)\lambda (b_i).$$
(4)
Our convention for the $`D_{\lambda ,m_i}^1(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ matrix element is given in Rose’s book , namely:

$$D_{\lambda ,m_i}^1(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=\mathrm{exp}[i(\lambda \alpha +m_i\gamma )]d_{\lambda ,m_i}^1(\beta ).$$
(5)
The most general form of the decay amplitude $`\left(B_{i=1}^2(a_i+b_i)\right)`$ is a linear superposition of the previous amplitudes $`M_\lambda \left(B_{i=1}^2(a_i+b_i)\right)`$ denoted by,

$$\left(B\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}(a_i+b_i)\right)=\underset{\lambda }{}M_\lambda \left(B\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}(a_i+b_i)\right).$$
(6)
The decay width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BV_1V_2)`$, can be computed by taking the square of the modulus, $`\left|\left(B_{i=1}^2(a_i+b_i)\right)\right|`$, which involves the three kinematic parameters $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ and $`\varphi `$. This leads to the following general expression:

$$d^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(BV_1V_2)\left|\underset{\lambda }{}M_\lambda \left(B\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}(a_i+b_i)\right)\right|^2=\underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}h_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}F_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}(\theta _1)G_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}(\theta _2,\varphi ),$$
(7)
which involves three density-matrices, $`h_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}},F_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}(\theta _1)`$ and $`G_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}(\theta _2,\varphi )`$. The factor $`h_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}=H_\lambda H_\lambda ^{}^{}`$ is an element of the density-matrix related to the $`B`$ decay, while $`F_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}(\theta _1)`$ represents the density-matrix of the decay $`V_1a_1+b_1`$. In a similar way, $`G_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}(\theta _2,\varphi )`$ represents the density-matrix of the decay $`V_2a_2+b_2`$.

The analytic expression in Eq. (7) exhibits a very general form. It depends on neither the specific nature of the intermediate resonances nor their decay modes (except for the spin of the final particles). This approach also presents three key advantages. The first one comes from the fact that all the dynamics of the $`B`$ decay is introduced into the coefficients $`h_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$. This allows us to use various theoretical models involving different dynamical processes and form factors. The second is associated with the fact that the formal expressions for $`F_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}(\theta _1)`$ and $`G_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}(\theta _2,\varphi )`$, which are related to the polarization of the intermediate resonances, remain unchanged whatever the coefficients $`h_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$ happen to be. Finally, correlations among final particles arise in a straightforward way because of the previous expression which relates the angles $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ and $`\varphi `$. Consequently, a probability density function (pdf) can be inferred from the general expression and one gets:

$$f(\theta _1,\theta _2,\varphi )=\frac{d^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(BV_1V_2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BV_1V_2)d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)d\varphi },$$
(8)
where the angles $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ and $`\varphi `$ were defined earlier and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BV_1V_2)`$ is the partial decay width. This function allows one to compute three other pdfs separately for the variables $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ and $`\varphi `$.

The previous calculations are illustrated by the reaction $`B^0K^0\rho ^0`$ where $`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. In this channel, since all the final particles have spin zero, the coefficients $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, defined in Eq. (4), are equal to zero. The three-fold differential width has the following form:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(BV_1V_2)}{d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)d\varphi }\left(h_{++}+h_{}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2/4+h_{00}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2\hfill \\ \hfill +\left\{e(h_{+0})\mathrm{cos}\varphi m(h_{+0})\mathrm{sin}\varphi +e(h_0)\mathrm{cos}\varphi m(h_0)\mathrm{sin}\varphi \right\}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}2\theta _2/4\\ \hfill +\left\{e(h_+)\mathrm{cos}2\varphi m(h_+)\mathrm{sin}2\varphi \right\}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2/2,\end{array}$$
(9)
where all the terms in Eq. (9) have been already specified. It is worth noticing that the expression in Eq. (9) is completely symmetric in $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ and consequently, the angular distributions of $`a_1`$ in the $`V_1`$ frame is identical that of $`a_2`$ in the $`V_2`$ frame. From Eqs. (8) and (9) the normalized pdfs of $`\theta _1`$, $`\theta _2`$ and $`\varphi `$ can be derived and one finds:

$`f(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{1,2})`$ $`=(3h_{00}1)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{1,2}+(1h_{00}),`$
$`g(\varphi )`$ $`=1+2e(h_+)\mathrm{cos}2\varphi 2m(h_+)\mathrm{sin}2\varphi .`$ (10)
### 2.2 Transversity frame

Initially, the transversity frame (TF) was introduced by A. Bohr  in order to facilitate the determination of the spin and parity of a resonance decaying into stable particles. It can be extended to a system of two vector mesons coming from a heavy meson, $`B`$ or $`\overline{B}`$, in order to perform tests of $`CP`$ symmetry. In displaying new angular distributions, the TF provides complementary physical information to that seen in the standard helicity frame. The construction of the TF and its use require several steps. For a clear illustration, see Fig. 1, where the channel $`B^0\rho ^0K^0`$ is chosen.

Departing from the $`B`$ rest frame, the common helicity axis, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_H)`$, is given by the direction of the momentum $`\stackrel{}{p_1}`$. This and the decay plane, $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_D)`$, of the vector meson ($`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$) are the main ingredients of the TF. The vector meson $`\rho ^0`$ is taken at rest (origin of the frame) and the X-axis is given by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_H)`$. In the decay plane, $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_D)`$, the Y-axis which is orthogonal to the X-axis, is chosen in such a way that the $`K^+`$ meson has the Y-component of its momentum greater than or equal to zero. The Z-axis, which is orthogonal to the plane $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_D)`$, is obtained by the classical relation $`\stackrel{}{e}_Z=\stackrel{}{e}_X\times \stackrel{}{e}_Y`$.

The angular distributions of the $`\pi ^\pm `$ coming from the $`\rho ^0`$ decay are referred to the new Z-axis. It is worthy noticing that, in the TF, the flying meson and its decay products are very energetic compared to the $`B`$ frame. Explicitly, the $`\rho ^0`$ energy is given by the relation,

$$E_{\rho ^0}=(m_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})/2m_117\mathrm{GeV},$$
(11)
where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ refer to the masses of the $`K^0`$ and $`\rho ^0`$ resonances, respectively. As far as the transition amplitudes in the TF are concerned, they are a simple linear combination of the helicity amplitudes, namely:

$$H_P=\frac{H_++H_{}}{\sqrt{2}},\mathrm{and}H_T=\frac{H_+H_{}}{\sqrt{2}},$$
(12)
while $`H_0`$ remains unchanged. We can rewrite the angular distributions given in Eq. (2.1) by using the relations from Eq. (12) and angles $`\theta _{1,2},\varphi `$ expressed in the transversity frame. Thus one gets,

$`f_T(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{1,2})`$ $`=\left(3|H_T|^21\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{1,2}+\left(1|H_T|^2\right),`$
$`g_T(\varphi )`$ $`=\left(1+|H_0|^2|H_P|^2\right)\mathrm{cos}2\varphi .`$ (13)
## 3 Final state interactions and $`𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝎`$ mixing

### 3.1 Factorization hypothesis

Final state interactions (FSI) represent unavoidable effects in hadronic physics and they play a crucial role in heavy resonance decays . In the case of a $`B`$ meson, characterized by a center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}5.3`$ GeV, the charmless weak decays of the b-quark lead to light energetic quarks which can exchange several gluons amongst themselves as well as with the spectator quark in the $`B`$ meson. This fundamental process occurs in decays described by tree, penguin and annihilation diagrams and is characterized by two regimes: perturbative and non-perturbative. In order to handle the FSI in both regimes, the usual method is inspired by the effective Lagrangian approach. Perturbative calculations at next-to-leading order (NLO) are performed for a scale higher than $`m_b`$ (since our analysis is focused on $`B`$ decays) and the non-perturbative effects are inserted for a scale lower than $`m_b`$. This general method is called the factorization procedure  and further details are given below.

In the factorization approximation, either the vector meson $`\rho ^0(\omega )`$ or the $`K^{}`$ is generated by one current in the effective Hamiltonian which has the appropriate quantum numbers. For the $`B`$ decay processes considered here, two kinds of matrix element products are involved after factorization (i.e. omitting Dirac matrices and color labels): $`\rho ^0(\omega )|(\overline{u}u)|0K^{}|(\overline{q}_iq_j)|B^{\pm ,0}`$ and $`K^{}|(\overline{q}_iq_j)|0\rho ^0(\omega )|(\overline{u}b)|B^{\pm ,0}`$, where $`q_i`$ and $`q_j`$ could be either $`u,s`$ or $`d`$. We will calculate them in two phenomenological quark models.

The matrix elements for $`BX^{}`$ (where $`X^{}`$ denotes a vector meson) can be decomposed as follows ,

$$\begin{array}{c}X^{}|J_\mu |B=\frac{2}{m_B+m_X^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ^\nu p_B^\rho p_X^{}^\sigma V(k^2)+i\{ϵ_\mu ^{}(m_B+m_X^{})A_1(k^2)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{ϵ^{}k}{m_B+m_X^{}}(P_B+P_X^{})_\mu A_2(k^2)\frac{ϵ^{}k}{k^2}2m_X^{}k_\mu A_3(k^2)\}\\ \hfill +i\frac{ϵ^{}k}{k^2}2m_X^{}k_\mu A_0(k^2),\end{array}$$
(14)
where $`J_\mu `$ is the weak current, defined as $`J_\mu =\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b\mathrm{with}q=u,d,s`$ and $`k=p_Bp_X^{}`$ and $`ϵ_\mu `$ is the polarization vector of $`X^{}`$. The form factors $`A_0,A_1,A_2,A_3`$ and $`V`$ describe the transition $`0^{}1^{}`$. Finally, in order to cancel the poles at $`q^2=0`$, the form factors respect the condition:

$$A_3(0)=A_0(0),$$
(15)
and they also satisfy the following relations:

$$A_3(k^2)=\frac{m_B+m_X^{}}{2m_X^{}}A_1(k^2)\frac{m_Bm_X^{}}{2m_X^{}}A_2(k^2).$$
(16)
In the evaluation of matrix elements, the effective number of colors, $`N_c^{eff}`$, enters through a Fierz transformation. In general, for an operator $`O_i`$, one can write,

$$\frac{1}{(N_c^{eff})_i}=\frac{1}{3}+\xi _i,\mathrm{with}i=1,\mathrm{},10,$$
(17)
here $`\xi _i`$ describes non-factorizable effects. $`\xi _i`$ is assumed to be universal for all the operators $`O_i`$. Naive factorization assumes that we can replace -in a heavy quark decay- the matrix element of a four fermion operator by the product of the matrix elements of two currents. This reduces to the product of a form factor and a decay constant. This assumption is only rigorously justified at large values of $`N_c`$. But it is known that naive factorization may give a good estimate of the magnitude of the $`B`$ decay amplitude in many cases .

### 3.2 FSI at the quark level: strong phase generated by the penguin diagrams

Let $`A`$ be the amplitude for the decay $`B\rho ^0(\omega )K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^{}`$ (a similar procedure applies in the case where we have a $`\rho ^\pm `$  instead of the $`K^{}`$), then one has,

$$A=K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+|H^T|B+K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+|H^P|B,$$
(18)
with $`H^T`$ and $`H^P`$ being the Hamiltonians for the tree and penguin operators. We can define the relative magnitude and phases between these two contributions as follows,

$`A`$ $`=K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+|H^T|B[1+re^{i\delta }e^{i\varphi }],`$
$`\overline{A}`$ $`=\overline{K^{}}\pi ^+\pi ^{}|H^T|\overline{B}[1+re^{i\delta }e^{i\varphi }],`$ (19)
where $`\delta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are strong and weak phases, respectively. The phase $`\varphi `$ arises from the appropriate combination of CKM matrix elements, $`\varphi =\mathrm{arg}[(V_{tb}V_{ts}^{})/(V_{ub}V_{us}^{})]`$. As a result, $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ is equal to $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$, with $`\gamma `$ defined in the standard way . The parameter, $`r`$, is the absolute value of the ratio of tree and penguin amplitudes:

$$r\left|\frac{\rho ^0(\omega )K^{}|H^P|B}{\rho ^0(\omega )K^{}|H^T|B}\right|.$$
(20)
### 3.3 Strong phase generated by the $`𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝎`$ mixing

In the vector meson dominance model , the photon propagator is dressed by coupling to vector mesons. From this, the $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing mechanism  was developed. In order to obtain a large signal for direct $`CP`$ violation, we need some mechanism to make both $`\mathrm{sin}\delta `$ and $`r`$ large. We stress that $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing has the dual advantages that the strong phase difference is large (passing through $`90^o`$ at the $`\omega `$ resonance) and well known . With this mechanism, to first order in isospin violation, we have the following results when the invariant mass of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair is near the mass of the $`\omega `$ resonance,

$`K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+|H^T|B`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{s_\rho s_\omega }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }t_\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{s_\rho }}t_\rho ,`$
$`K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+|H^P|B`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{s_\rho s_\omega }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }p_\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{s_\rho }}p_\rho .`$ (21)
Here $`t_V(V=\rho \mathrm{or}\omega )`$ is the tree amplitude and $`p_V`$ the penguin amplitude for producing a vector meson, $`V`$, $`g_\rho `$ is the coupling for $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }`$ is the effective $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing amplitude, and $`s_V`$ is the inverse propagator of the vector meson $`V`$,

$$s_V=sm_V^2+im_V\mathrm{\Gamma }_V,$$
(22)
with $`\sqrt{s}`$ being the invariant mass of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair. We stress that the direct coupling $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is effectively absorbed into $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }`$ , leading to the explicit $`s`$ dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }`$. Making the expansion $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }(s)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }(m_\omega ^2)+(sm_w^2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }^{}(m_\omega ^2)`$, the $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing parameters were determined in the fit of Gardner and O’Connell : $`e\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }(m_\omega ^2)=3500\pm 300\mathrm{MeV}^2,m\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }(m_\omega ^2)=300\pm 300\mathrm{MeV}^2`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }^{}(m_\omega ^2)=0.03\pm 0.04`$. In practice, the effect of the derivative term is negligible. From Eqs. (18) and (3.3) one has

$$re^{i\delta }e^{i\varphi }=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }p_\omega +s_\omega p_\rho }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }t_\omega +s_\omega t_\rho }.$$
(23)
Defining

$$\frac{p_\omega }{t_\rho }r^{}e^{i(\delta _q+\varphi )},\frac{t_\omega }{t_\rho }\alpha e^{i\delta _\alpha },\frac{p_\rho }{p_\omega }\beta e^{i\delta _\beta },$$
(24)
where $`\delta _\alpha ,\delta _\beta `$ and $`\delta _q`$ are partial strong phases (absorptive part) arising from the tree and penguin diagram contributions. Substituting Eq. (24) into Eq. (23), one finds:

$$re^{i\delta }=r^{}e^{i\delta _q}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }+\beta e^{i\delta _\beta }s_\omega }{s_\omega +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }\alpha e^{i\delta _\alpha }},$$
(25)
where the total strong phase, $`\delta `$, is mainly proportional to the ratio of the penguin and tree diagram contributions.

### 3.4 Importance of the strong phase for $`𝑩\overline{𝑩}`$ asymmetry

Under a $`CP`$ transformation the strong phase, $`\delta `$, remains unchanged, while the weak phase, $`\varphi `$, which is related to the CKM matrix elements, changes sign. Thus, the asymmetry parameter, $`a_{CP}^{dir}`$, which can reveal direct $`CP`$ violation, can be deduced in the following way:

$`a_{CP}^{dir}={\displaystyle \frac{A^2\overline{A}^2}{A^2+\overline{A}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2r\mathrm{sin}\delta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }{1+r^2+2r\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}\varphi }}.`$ (26)
It is straightforward to see that the parameter $`a_{CP}^{dir}`$ depends on both the strong phase and the weak phase and, consequently, that the maximum value of $`a_{CP}^{dir}`$ can be reached if $`\mathrm{sin}\delta =1`$. This is why the strong final state interaction (FSI) among pions coming from $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing enhances the direct $`CP`$ violation in the vicinity of the mass of the $`\omega `$ resonance.

In the Wolfenstein parametrization , the weak phase comes from $`[V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}/V_{ub}V_{us}^{}]`$ and one has for the decay $`B\rho ^0(\omega )K^{}`$,

$`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}}},`$
$`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}}},`$ (27)
while the weak phase comes from $`[V_{tb}V_{td}^{}/V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}]`$ for the decay $`B\rho ^0(\omega )\rho `$,

$`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{[\rho (1\rho )\eta ^2]^2+\eta ^2}}},`$
$`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\rho (1\rho )\eta ^2}{\sqrt{[\rho (1\rho )\eta ^2]^2+\eta ^2}}}.`$ (28)
The values used for $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ will be discussed in Section V.

## 4 Explicit calculations according to the effective <br>Hamiltonian

### 4.1 Generalities concerning the OPE for weak hadronic decays

#### 4.1.1 Operator product expansion

The operator product expansion (OPE)  is an extremely useful tool in the analysis of weak interaction processes involving quarks. Defining the decay amplitude $`A(MF)`$ as

$$A(MF)C_i(\mu )F|O_i(\mu )|M,$$
(29)
where $`C_i(\mu )`$ are the Wilson coefficients (see Section 4.1.2), $`O_i(\mu )`$ are the operators given by the OPE and $`\mu `$ is an energy scale, one sees that the OPE separates the calculation of the amplitude, $`A(MF)`$, into two distinct physical regimes. One is related to hard or short-distance physics, represented by $`C_i(\mu )`$ and calculated by a perturbative approach. The other is the soft or long-distance regime. This part must be treated by non-perturbative approaches such as the $`1/N`$ expansion , QCD sum rules , hadronic sum rules or lattice QCD.

The operators, $`O_i`$, are local operators which can be written in the general form:

$$O_i=(\overline{q}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}q_j)(\overline{q}_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n2}q_l),$$
(30)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n2}`$ denote a combination of gamma matrices and $`q`$ the quark flavor. They should respect the Dirac structure, the color structure and the types of quarks relevant for the decay being studied. They can be divided into two classes according to topology: tree operators ($`O_1,O_2`$), and penguin operators ($`O_3`$ to $`O_{10}`$). For tree contributions (where $`W^\pm `$ is exchanged), the Feynman diagram is shown in Fig. 2 (left). The current-current operators related to the tree diagram are the following:

$`O_1^s`$ $`=\overline{q}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})u_\beta \overline{s}_\beta \gamma ^\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})b_\alpha ,`$
$`O_2^s`$ $`=\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})u\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})b,`$ (31)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the color indices. The penguin terms can be divided into two sets. The first is from the QCD penguin diagrams where gluons are exchanged, while the second is from the electroweak penguin diagrams (where either a $`\gamma `$ or a $`Z^0`$ is exchanged). The Feynman diagram for the QCD penguin diagram is shown in Fig. 2 (right) and the corresponding operators are written as follows:

$`O_3`$ $`=\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})b{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\overline{q}^{}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})q^{},`$
$`O_4`$ $`=\overline{q}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})b_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\overline{q}_\beta ^{}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})q_\alpha ^{},`$ (32)
$`O_5`$ $`=\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})b{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}\overline{q}^{}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})q^{},`$
$`O_6`$ $`=\overline{q}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})b_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}\overline{q}_\beta ^{}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})q_\alpha ^{},`$ (33)
where $`q^{}=u,d,s,c`$. Finally, the electroweak penguin operators arise from the two Feynman diagrams represented in Fig. 3 (left) and Fig. 3 (right) where $`Z,\gamma `$ is exchanged from a quark line and from the $`W`$ line, respectively. They have the following expressions:

$`O_7`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})b{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}e_q^{}\overline{q}^{}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})q^{},`$
$`O_8`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{q}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})b_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}e_q^{}\overline{q}_\beta ^{}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})q_\alpha ^{},`$
$`O_9`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})b{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}e_q^{}\overline{q}^{}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})q^{},`$
$`O_{10}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{q}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})b_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}e_q^{}\overline{q}_\beta ^{}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma {}_{5}{}^{})q_\alpha ^{},`$ (34)
where $`e_q^{}`$ denotes the electric charge of $`q^{}`$.

#### 4.1.2 Wilson coefficients

As we mentioned in the preceding subsection, the Wilson coefficients , $`C_i(\mu )`$, represent the physical contributions from scales higher than $`\mu `$ (the OPE describes physics for scales lower than $`\mu `$). Since QCD has the property of asymptotic freedom, they can be calculated in perturbation theory. The Wilson coefficients include the contributions of all heavy particles, such as the top quark, the $`W`$ bosons, and the charged Higgs boson. Usually, the scale $`\mu `$ is chosen to be of $`𝒪(m_b)`$ for $`B`$ decays. The Wilson coefficients have been calculated to next-to-leading order (NLO). The evolution of $`C(\mu )`$ (the matrix that includes $`C_i(\mu )`$) is given by,

$$C(\mu )=U(\mu ,M_W)C(M_W),$$
(35)
where $`U(\mu ,M_W)`$ is the QCD evolution matrix:

$$U(\mu ,M_W)=\left[1+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{4\pi }J\right]U^0(\mu ,M_W)\left[1\frac{\alpha _s(M_W)}{4\pi }J\right],$$
(36)
with $`J`$ the matrix summarizing the next-to-leading order corrections and $`U^0(\mu ,M_W)`$ the evolution matrix in the leading-logarithm approximation. Since the strong interaction is independent of quark flavor, the $`C(\mu )`$ are the same for all $`B`$ decays. At the scale $`\mu =m_b=5`$ GeV, $`C(\mu )`$ take the values summarized in Table 1. To be consistent, the matrix elements of the operators, $`O_i`$, should also be renormalized to the one-loop order. This results in the effective Wilson coefficients, $`C_i^{}`$, which satisfy the constraint,

$`C_i(m_b)O_i(m_b)=C_i^{}O_i^{tree},`$ (37)
here $`O_i^{tree}`$ are the matrix elements at the tree level. These matrix elements will be evaluated within the factorization approach. From Eq. (37), the relations between $`C_i^{}`$ and $`C_i`$ are :

$`C_1^{}`$ $`=C_1,`$ $`C_2^{}`$ $`=C_2,`$
$`C_3^{}`$ $`=C_3P_s/3,`$ $`C_4^{}`$ $`=C_4+P_s,`$
$`C_5^{}`$ $`=C_5P_s/3,`$ $`C_6^{}`$ $`=C_6+P_s,`$
$`C_7^{}`$ $`=C_7+P_e,`$ $`C_8^{}`$ $`=C_8,`$
$`C_9^{}`$ $`=C_9+P_e,`$ $`C_{10}^{}`$ $`=C_{10},`$ (38)
where,

$`P_s`$ $`=(\alpha _s/8\pi )C_2(10/9+G(m_c,\mu ,q^2)),`$
$`P_e`$ $`=(\alpha _{em}/9\pi )(3C_1+C_2)(10/9+G(m_c,\mu ,q^2)),`$ (39)
and

$`G(m_c,\mu ,q^2)=4{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx(x1)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2x(1x)q^2}{\mu ^2}}.`$ (40)
Here $`q^2`$ is the typical momentum transfer of the gluon or photon in the penguin diagrams and $`G(m_c,\mu ,q^2)`$ has the following explicit expression ,

$`eG={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}4{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{q^2}}+\left(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{q^2}}\right)\sqrt{14{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{q^2}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{14\frac{m_c^2}{q^2}}}{1\sqrt{14\frac{m_c^2}{q^2}}}}\right),`$
$`mG={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{q^2}}\right)\sqrt{14{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{q^2}}}.`$ (41)
Based on simple arguments at the quark level, the value of $`q^2`$ is chosen in the range $`0.3<q^2/m_b^2<0.5`$ . From Eqs. (4.1.2-4.1.2) we can obtain numerical values for $`C_i^{}`$. These values are listed in Table 2, where we have taken $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.112,\alpha _{em}(m_b)=1/132.2,m_b=5`$ GeV, and $`m_c=1.35`$ GeV.

#### 4.1.3 Effective Hamiltonian

In any phenomenological treatment of the weak decays of hadrons, the starting point is the weak effective Hamiltonian at low energy . It is obtained by integrating out the heavy fields (e.g. the top quark, $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons) from the standard model Lagrangian. It can be written as:

$$_{eff}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{i}{}V_{CKM}C_i(\mu )O_i(\mu ),$$
(42)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, $`V_{CKM}`$ is the CKM matrix element (see Section 4.3), $`C_i(\mu )`$ are the Wilson coefficients (see Section 4.1.2), $`O_i(\mu )`$ are the operators from the operator product expansion (see Section 4.1.1), and $`\mu `$ represents the renormalization scale. We emphasize that the amplitude corresponding to the effective Hamiltonian for a given decay is independent of the scale $`\mu `$. In the present case, since we analyze direct $`CP`$ violation in $`B`$ decays, we take into account both tree and penguin diagrams. For the penguin diagrams, we include all operators $`O_3`$ to $`O_{10}`$. Therefore, the effective Hamiltonian used will be,

$$_{eff}^{B=1}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left[V_{ub}V_{us}^{}(C_1O_1^s+C_2O_2^s)V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\underset{i=3}{\overset{10}{}}C_iO_i\right]+H.c.,$$
(43)
and consequently, the decay amplitude can be expressed as follows,

$$\begin{array}{c}A(BV_1V_2)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}[V_{ub}V_{us}^{}(C_1V_1V_2|O_1^s|B+C_2V_1V_2|O_2^s|B)\hfill \\ \hfill V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\underset{i=3}{\overset{10}{}}C_iV_1V_2|O_i|B]+H.c.,\end{array}$$
(44)
where $`V_1V_2|O_i|B`$ are the hadronic matrix elements. They describe the transition between the initial state and the final state for scales lower than $`\mu `$ and include, up to now, the main uncertainties in the calculation since they involve non-perturbative effects.

### 4.2 New expression of helicity amplitudes $`𝒉_{𝒊𝒋}`$ according to Wilson Coefficients

#### 4.2.1 General helicity amplitude

The weak hadronic matrix element is expressed as the sum of three helicity matrix elements, each of which takes the form $`H_\lambda \left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right)=V_1V_2|H_{w}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}|B`$, and is defined by gathering all the Wilson coefficients of both the tree and penguin operators. Linear combinations of those coefficients arise, such as $`c_{t_i}^{V_i}`$ (tree diagram contribution) and $`c_{p_i}^{V_i}`$ (penguin diagram contribution). Then, in the case of $`B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2`$, ($`V_1=\rho ^0`$ or $`\omega `$), the helicity amplitude $`H_\lambda \left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right)`$ has the general following expression:

$$\begin{array}{c}H_\lambda (B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2)=(V_{ub}V_{us}^{}c_{t_1}^\rho V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}c_{p_1}^\rho )\{\beta _1^\rho \epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_{V_2}^\alpha (\lambda )ϵ_\rho ^\beta (\lambda )P_B^\gamma P_{V_2}^\delta \hfill \\ \hfill +i(\beta _2^\rho ϵ_{V_2}^{}(\lambda )ϵ_\rho ^{}(\lambda )\beta _3^\rho (ϵ_{V_2}^{}(\lambda )P_B)(ϵ_\rho ^{}(\lambda )P_B))\}+(V_{ub}V_{us}^{}c_{t_2}^\rho V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}c_{p_2}^\rho )\\ \hfill \left\{\beta _4^\rho \epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_\rho ^\alpha (\lambda )ϵ_{V_2}^\beta (\lambda )P_B^\gamma P_\rho ^\delta +i\left(\beta _5^\rho ϵ_\rho ^{}(\lambda )ϵ_{V_2}^{}(\lambda )\beta _6^\rho (ϵ_\rho ^{}(\lambda )P_B)(ϵ_{V_2}^{}(\lambda )P_B)\right)\right\}\\ \hfill +\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }}{(s_\rho m_\omega ^2)+im_\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega }[(V_{ub}V_{us}^{}c_{t_1}^\omega V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}c_{p_1}^\omega )\{\beta _1^\omega \epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_{V_2}^\alpha (\lambda )ϵ_\omega ^\beta (\lambda )P_B^\gamma P_{V_2}^\delta \\ \hfill +i(\beta _2^\omega ϵ_{V_2}^{}(\lambda )ϵ_\omega ^{}(\lambda )\beta _3^\omega (ϵ_{V_2}^{}(\lambda )P_B)(ϵ_\omega ^{}(\lambda )P_B))\}+(V_{ub}V_{us}^{}c_{t_2}^\omega V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}c_{p_2}^\omega )\\ \hfill \{\beta _4^\omega \epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_\omega ^\alpha (\lambda )ϵ_{V_2}^\beta (\lambda )P_B^\gamma P_\omega ^\delta +i(\beta _5^\omega ϵ_\omega ^{}(\lambda )ϵ_{V_2}^{}(\lambda )\beta _6^\omega (ϵ_\omega ^{}(\lambda )P_B)(ϵ_{V_2}^{}(\lambda )P_B))\}],\end{array}$$
(45)
with $`ϵ_{V_2,\rho ,\omega }(\lambda )`$ being the $`K^{}`$, $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ polarization vectors expressed in the $`B`$ rest frame. Finally $`\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ is the antisymmetric tensor in Minkowski space.

In Eq. (45) the parameters $`\beta _i`$ are mainly the form factors describing transitions between vector mesons. They take the form:

$`\beta _{1,4}^{V_1}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_{V_1,V_2}m_{V_1,V_2}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_B+m_{V_2,V_1}}}V^{BV_2,V_1}(m_{V_1,V_2}^2),`$ (46)
$`\beta _{2,5}^{V_1}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_{V_1,V_2}m_{V_1,V_2}(m_B+m_{V_2,V_1})A_1^{BV_2,V_1}(m_{V_1,V_2}^2),`$ (47)
$`\beta _{3,6}^{V_1}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_{V_1,V_2}m_{V_1,V_2}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_B+m_{V_2,V_1}}}A_2^{BV_2,V_1}(m_{V_1,V_2}^2),`$ (48)
here $`f_{V_1,V_2}`$ is either the $`\rho ^0,\omega `$ or $`K^{}`$ decay constant. $`V^{BV_2,V_1}`$ and $`A_i^{BV_2,V_1}`$ are respectively the vector and axial form factors defined in Eqs. (14-16). It is worth noticing that the tensorial terms which enter $`H_\lambda \left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right)`$ become simplified in the $`B`$ rest frame because the four-momentum of the $`B`$ is given by $`P_B=(m_B,\stackrel{}{0})`$. Then, using the orthogonality properties of $`ϵ_{V_i}(\lambda )`$, the helicity amplitude $`H_\lambda \left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right)`$ acquires a much simpler expression than above:

$$\begin{array}{c}H_\lambda \left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right)=iB_\lambda ^\rho (V_{ub}V_{us}^{}c_{t_1}^\rho V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}c_{p_1}^\rho )+iC_\lambda ^\rho (V_{ub}V_{us}^{}c_{t_2}^\rho V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}c_{p_2}^\rho )+\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }}{(s_\rho m_\omega ^2)+im_\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega }\left[iB_\lambda ^\omega (V_{ub}V_{us}^{}c_{t_1}^\omega V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}c_{p_1}^\omega )+iC_\lambda ^\omega (V_{ub}V_{us}^{}c_{t_2}^\omega V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}c_{p_2}^\omega )\right],\end{array}$$
(49)
where the terms $`B_\lambda ^{V_1}`$ and $`C_\lambda ^{V_1}`$ take the following forms for the helicity ($`\lambda `$) values, $`1,0,+1`$:

$$B_{\lambda =0}^{V_1}=\beta _2^{V_1}\frac{m_B^2(m_{V_2}^2+m_{V_1}^2)}{2m_{V_2}m_{V_1}}\beta _3^{V_1}\frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|^2m_B^2}{m_{V_2}m_{V_1}},$$
(50)
$$C_{\lambda =0}^{V_1}=\beta _5^{V_1}\frac{m_B^2(m_{V_2}^2+m_{V_1}^2)}{2m_{V_2}m_{V_1}}\beta _6^{V_1}\frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|^2m_B^2}{m_{V_2}m_{V_1}},$$
(51)
$$B_{\lambda =\pm 1}^{V_1}=\beta _1^{V_1}m_B|\stackrel{}{p}|\beta _2^{V_1},$$
(52)
$$C_{\lambda =\pm 1}^{V_1}=\beta _4^{V_1}m_B|\stackrel{}{p}|\beta _5^{V_1}.$$
(53)
In the above equations, $`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$ is the momentum common to the $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ particles in the $`B`$ rest frame. It takes the form:

$$|\stackrel{}{p}|=\frac{\sqrt{[m_B^2(m_{V_1}+m_{V_2})^2][m_B^2(m_{V_1}m_{V_2})^2]}}{2m_B},$$
(54)
where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are the vector masses. Taking into account the previous relations, we arrive at the final form for the amplitudes $`H_\lambda \left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right)`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}H_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}\left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right)=\hfill \\ \hfill A\lambda ^2\left\{\left[R_1^\rho B_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\rho +R_2^\rho C_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\rho \right]+i\left[I_1^\rho B_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\rho +I_2^\rho C_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\rho \right]\right\}\\ \hfill +\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }}{(s_\rho m_\omega ^2)+im_\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega }[A\lambda ^2\{[R_1^\omega B_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\omega +R_2^\omega C_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\omega ]\\ \hfill +i[I_1^\omega B_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\omega +I_2^\omega C_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\omega ]\}],\end{array}$$
(55)
where one defines,

$`R_i^{V_1}`$ $`=\eta \lambda ^2c_{t_i}^{V_1}m(c_{p_i}^{V_1}),`$ (56)
$`I_i^{V_1}`$ $`=\rho \lambda ^2c_{t_i}^{V_1}+e(c_{p_i}^{V_1}),`$ (57)
with $`V_1`$ being either $`\rho ^0`$ or $`\omega `$. From Eq. (55), the density-matrix elements $`h_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$ can be derived automatically and on has:

$$h_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}=H_\lambda \left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right)H_\lambda ^{}^{}\left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right).$$
(58)
Because of the hermiticity of the matrix ($`h_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$), only six elements must be calculated.

#### 4.2.2 Explicit amplitudes for the $`𝑩`$ decays investigated

By applying the formalism described in Section III, one gets in the case of the $`\rho ^0`$ production, the following linear combinations of the effective Wilson coefficients:
for the decay $`\overline{B}^0\overline{K}^0\rho ^0`$:

$`c_{t_1}^\rho `$ $`=C_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2^{}}{N_c}},`$ $`c_{p_1}^\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(C_9^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{10}^{}}{N_c}}+C_7^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_8^{}}{N_c}}\right),`$
$`c_{t_2}^\rho `$ $`=0,`$ $`c_{p_2}^\rho =\left(C_4^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_3^{}}{N_c}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{10}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_9^{}}{N_c}}\right),`$ (59)
where $`C_i^{}`$ are listed in Table 2. The coefficients, $`c_{t_i}^\rho `$, relate to the tree diagrams and $`c_{p_i}^\rho `$ to the penguin diagrams. To simplify the formulas we used $`N_c`$ for $`N_c^{eff}`$ in the expressions (Eqs. (4.2.2)-(4.2.2)).
for the decay $`B^{}K^{}\rho ^0`$:

$`c_{t_1}^\rho `$ $`=C_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2^{}}{N_c}},`$ $`c_{p_1}^\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(C_9^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{10}^{}}{N_c}}+C_7^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_8^{}}{N_c}}\right),`$
$`c_{t_2}^\rho `$ $`=C_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^{}}{N_c}},`$ $`c_{p_2}^\rho =C_4^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_3^{}}{N_c}}+C_{10}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_9^{}}{N_c}}.`$ (60)
In the case of $`\omega `$ production one obtains the following linear combinations of effective Wilson coefficients:
for the decay $`\overline{B}^0\overline{K}^0\omega `$:

$`c_{t_1}^\omega `$ $`=0,`$ $`c_{p_1}^\omega =C_4^{}{\displaystyle \frac{C_3^{}}{N_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{10}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_9^{}}{N_c}}\right),`$
$`c_{t_2}^\omega `$ $`=C_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2^{}}{N_c}},`$ $`c_{p_2}^\omega =2\left(C_3^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_4^{}}{N_c}}+C_5^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_6^{}}{N_c}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_9^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{10}^{}}{N_c}}+C_7^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_8^{}}{N_c}}\right).`$ (61)
for the decay $`B^{}K^{}\omega `$:

$`c_{t_1}^\omega `$ $`=C_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^{}}{N_c}},`$ $`c_{p_1}^\omega =C_4^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_3^{}}{N_c}}+\left(C_{10}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_9^{}}{N_c}}\right),`$
$`c_{t_2}^\omega `$ $`=C_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2^{}}{N_c}},`$ $`c_{p_2}^\omega =2\left(C_3^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_4^{}}{N_c}}+C_5^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_6^{}}{N_c}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_9^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{10}^{}}{N_c}}+C_7^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_8^{}}{N_c}}\right).`$ (62)
We refer to Appendix A for details of the helicity amplitudes, while for the channel $`B^\pm \rho ^0(\omega )\rho ^\pm `$ we refer to Appendix B.

### 4.3 CKM matrix and form factors

In phenomenological applications, the widely used representation of the CKM matrix is the Wolfenstein parametrization . In this approach, the four independent parameters are $`\lambda _c,A,\rho `$ and $`\eta `$. Then, by expanding each element of the matrix as a power series in the parameter $`\lambda _c=\mathrm{sin}\theta _c=0.2209`$ ($`\theta _c`$ is the Gell-Mann-Levy-Cabibbo angle), one finds ($`O(\lambda _c^4)`$ is neglected)

$$\widehat{V}_{CKM}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{1}{2}\lambda _c^2& \lambda _c& A\lambda _c^3(\rho i\eta )\\ \lambda _c& 1\frac{1}{2}\lambda _c^2& A\lambda _c^2\\ A\lambda _c^3(1\rho i\eta )& A\lambda _c^2& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(63)
where $`\eta `$ plays the role of the $`CP`$-violating phase. In this parametrization, even though it is an approximation in $`\lambda _c`$, the CKM matrix satisfies unitarity exactly, which means,

$$\widehat{V}_{CKM}^{}\widehat{V}_{CKM}=\widehat{I}=\widehat{V}_{CKM}\widehat{V}_{CKM}^{}.$$
(64)
The form factors, $`V(k^2)`$ and $`A_j(k^2)`$, depend on the inner structure of the hadrons. Here we will adopt two different theoretical approaches. The first was proposed by Bauer, Stech, and Wirbel  (BSW), who used the overlap integrals of wave functions in order to evaluate the meson-meson matrix elements of the corresponding current. In that case the momentum dependence of the form factors is based on a single-pole ansatz. The second approach was developed by Guo and Huang (GH) , who modified the BSW model by using some wave functions described in the light-cone framework. Nevertheless, both of these models use phenomenological form factors which are parametrized by making the assumption of nearest pole dominance. The explicit $`k^2`$ dependence of the form factor is :

$$V(k^2)=\frac{h_V}{\left(1\frac{k^2}{m_V^2}\right)},A_j(k^2)=\frac{h_{A_j}}{\left(1\frac{k^2}{m_{A_j}^2}\right)},$$
(65)
where $`m_{A_j}`$ and $`m_V`$ are the pole masses associated with the transition current and $`h_V`$ and $`h_{A_j}`$ are the values of the form factors at $`q^2=0`$.

## 5 Monte-Carlo simulations: computation of $`𝒉_{𝒊𝒋}`$ and general results

### 5.1 Numerical inputs

#### 5.1.1 CKM values

In our numerical calculations we have several parameters: $`q^2,N_c^{eff}`$ and the CKM matrix elements in the Wolfenstein parametrization. As mentioned in Section IV, the value of $`q^2`$ is conventionally chosen to be in the range $`0.3<q^2/m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}<0.5`$. The CKM matrix, which should be determined from experimental data, is expressed in terms of the Wolfenstein parameters, $`A,\lambda _c,\rho `$, and $`\eta `$ . Here, we shall use the latest values , which were extracted from charmless semileptonic $`B`$ decays, ($`|V_{ub}|`$), charmed semileptonic $`B`$ decays, ($`|V_{cb}|`$), $`s`$ and $`d`$ mass oscillations, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s,\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, and $`CP`$ violation in the kaon system ($`ϵ_K`$), ($`\rho ,\eta `$). Hence, one has,

$$\lambda _c=0.2237,A=0.8113,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.190}<\rho <0.268,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.284}<\eta <0.366.$$
(66)
These values respect the unitarity triangle as well (see also Table 3). In our numerical simulations, we will use the average values of $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$.

#### 5.1.2 Quark masses

The running quark masses are used in order to calculate the matrix elements of penguin operators. The quark mass is evaluated at the scale $`\mu m_b`$ in $`B`$ decays. Therefore one has ,

$`m_u(\mu =m_b)`$ $`=2.3\mathrm{MeV},`$ $`m_d(\mu =m_b)`$ $`=4.6\mathrm{MeV},`$
$`m_s(\mu =m_b)`$ $`=90\mathrm{MeV},`$ $`m_b(\mu =m_b)`$ $`=4.9\mathrm{GeV},`$ (67)
which corresponds to $`m_s(\mu =1\mathrm{GeV})=140\mathrm{MeV}`$. For meson masses, we shall use the following values :

$`m_{B^\pm }`$ $`=5.279\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`m_{K^{}0}`$ $`=0.896\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`m_\omega `$ $`=0.782\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`m_{B^0}`$ $`=5.279\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`m_{\rho ^\pm }`$ $`=0.770\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`m_{\pi ^\pm }`$ $`=0.139\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`m_{K^\pm }`$ $`=0.892\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`m_{\rho ^0}`$ $`=0.770\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`m_{\pi ^0}`$ $`=0.135\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (68)
#### 5.1.3 Form factors and decay constants

In Table 4 we list the relevant form factor values at zero momentum transfer  for the $`BK^{}`$, $`B\rho `$ and $`B\omega `$ transitions. The different models are defined as follows : model (1) is the BSW model where the $`q^2`$ dependence of the form factors is described by a single-ansatz. Model (2) is the GH model with the same momentum dependence as model (1). Finally, we define the decay constant for vector ($`f_V`$) meson as usual by,

$`\sqrt{2}\rho (q)|\overline{q}_1\gamma _\mu q_2|0`$ $`=f_\rho m_\rho ϵ_\rho \mathrm{for}\rho \mathrm{and}\mathrm{otherwise},`$
$`V(q)|\overline{q}_1\gamma _\mu q_2|0`$ $`=f_Vm_Vϵ_V,`$ (69)
with $`q`$ being the momentum of the vector meson and $`m_V`$ and $`ϵ_V`$ being the mass and polarization vector of the vector meson, respectively. Numerically, in our calculations, we take ,

$$f_K^{}=214\mathrm{MeV},f_\rho =221\mathrm{MeV},f_\omega =195\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(70)
Finally, the free parameter (effective number of color, $`N_c^{eff}`$) is taken to lie between the lower(upper) limits 0.66(2.84) for $`bs`$ transition. Nevertheless, we focus our analysis on values of $`N_c^{eff}`$ bigger than 1, as suggested in . Regarding the $`bd`$ transition, the lower(upper) limits for $`N_c^{eff}`$ are 0.98(2.01) .

### 5.2 Simulation of the $`𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝎`$ mixing

All the channels studied here include at least one $`\rho ^0`$ meson which mixes with the $`\omega `$ meson. The other vector mesons are either a $`K^{0,\pm }`$ or a $`\rho ^\pm `$. Thus, the mass of each resonance is generated according to a relativistic Breit-Wigner:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dM^2}=C_N\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_RM_R}{(M^2M_R^2)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_RM_R)^2},$$
(71)
where $`C_N`$ is a normalization constant. In Eq. (71), $`M_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ are respectively the mass and the width of the vector meson which have been determined experimentally. $`M`$ is the mass of the generated resonance. A simple and phenomenological relation describing the amplitude for $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing is used for the Monte-Carlo simulations . In the expression for the Breit-Wigner, the $`\rho ^0`$-propagator is replaced by the following one:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_{\rho \omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{T_\omega }{T_\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }}{s_\rho s_\omega }},`$ (72)
where $`T_\omega `$ and $`T_\rho `$ are respectively the $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ production amplitudes. In addition, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }`$ is the mixing parameter for which recent values come from $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ annihilations. Explanations have been already been given in Section III. Finally, $`1/s_V`$ has the same definition as in Eq. (22). Because the same physical processes enter the production of both the $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ resonances (they are both made out from $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$ quark pairs with the same weight $`1/2`$), it seems natural to choose $`T_\omega /T_\rho =1`$. So, the invariant mass distribution of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ system becomes simplified, being given by,

$$d\sigma /dm^2\left|𝒜(\rho ^0(\omega ))\right|^2,$$
(73)
where $`𝒜(\rho ^0(\omega ))`$ is the amplitude of the two mixed Breit-Wigner distributions and $`m`$ is the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass. In Fig. 4, the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass spectra for $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing is displayed. Because of the very narrow width of the $`\omega `$, ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega =8.44\mathrm{MeV}`$), we notice a high and narrow peak at the $`\omega `$ pole ($`782\mathrm{MeV}`$).

### 5.3 Density matrix $`𝒉_{𝝀\mathbf{,}𝝀^{^{\mathbf{}}}}`$

Three main parameters remain free in our simulations: the ratio $`q^2/m_b^2`$ (related to the penguin diagrams), the form factor model (GH or BSW) and the effective number of colors, $`N_c^{eff}`$ (associated with the factorization hypothesis). The histograms plotted in Fig. 5 display spectra of the diagonal and normalized density matrix elements $`h_{i,i}`$, for the channels $`B^0\rho ^0(\omega )K^0`$ (left hand-side) and $`B^+\rho ^0(\omega )\rho ^+`$ (right hand-side). The input numerical parameters are $`q^2/m_{}^{2}{}_{b}{}^{}=0.3`$, $`N_c^{eff}=2.84`$ (left hand-side figure) or $`N_c^{eff}=2.01`$ (right hand-side figure), and the GH form factor model is applied for both decays. Note also that the average values of CKM parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ are used. The wide spectrum of values of the density matrix element $`h_{\lambda ,\lambda }`$, is caused by the resonance widths (especially that of the $`\rho `$) which provides, in turn, a large spectrum for the common momentum $`p_V`$ in the $`B`$ rest-frame. Whatever the $`\rho ^0(\omega )V_2`$ channel is, $`h_{00}=|H_0|^2`$, which corresponds to longitudinal polarization, is the dominant value. Numerically, for the $`B^0\rho ^0(\omega )K^0`$ decay, the mean value of $`h_{00}`$ is around $`0.87`$ while it is of order $`0.90`$ for $`B^+\rho ^0(\omega )\rho ^+`$. The dominance of the longitudinal polarization has already been confirmed experimentally, since recent experimental data related to the channel $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$ show clearly that the longitudinal decay amplitude dominates in that case, with $`|H_0|^2=0.59\pm 0.06\pm 0.01`$ . Extrapolating these results to the charmless vector meson final states requires some modifications of the form factors without a big change of the relative contributions of the polarization states. Regarding $`h_{}=|H_1|^2`$, it represents less than $`0.5\%`$ of the total amplitude for both decays. This numerical result is confirmed by complete analytical calculations.

In Figs. 6 and 7, the real and imaginary parts of the non-diagonal and normalized density matrix elements $`h_{i,j}`$ are shown for the channels $`B^0\rho ^0(\omega )K^0`$ and $`B^+\rho ^0(\omega )\rho ^+`$, respectively. The input parameters are the same as previously mentioned. The main feature of the non-diagonal matrix elements, $`h_{i,j}`$, is the smallness of both the imaginary and real parts – the imaginary part being at least one order of magnitude smaller than the real part one. For the $`B^+\rho ^0(\omega )\rho ^+`$ decay, we observe that the mean value of all the imaginary parts is zero, whereas it can vary for the other decay. Note also that each of the three real parts are quite similar for both decays. Because of the tiny value of $`h_{}=|H_1|^2`$, the moduli of the non-diagonal elements, $`h_+=H_+H_{}^{}`$ and $`h_0=H_0H_{}^{}`$, are very small, while the modulus of $`h_{+0}=H_+H_0^{}`$ is around $`0.3`$ for both decays. As a first conclusion, the general behavior of the density matrix seems to be similar whatever the decay is. Experimentally, only the mean values of the diagonal elements and $`h_+`$ will be able to be measured through the angular distributions.

These angular distributions are plotted in Figs. 8 and 9 in the helicity frame and in the transversity frame, respectively for $`B^0\rho ^0(\omega )K^0`$ and for the usual input parameters. Their normalized pdfs have been displayed above in Eq. (2.1). As a consequence of the small value of $`h_+`$, the azimuthal angle distribution in the helicity frame is nearly flat, whereas it is sinusoidal in the transversity frame. From the distribution as a function of polar angle (in the TF) displayed in Eq. (2.2), one can infer a mean value of the $`H_T`$ amplitude. This represents an additional piece of information through which one can access the dynamics of $`B(\overline{B})`$ decays into two charmless hadrons.

## 6 Branching ratio and asymmetry in $`𝑩`$ decays into two vector mesons

The analytic expressions for the density matrix elements, $`h_{ij}`$ allow us to calculate the hadronic branching ratios $`(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2)`$ and to estimate the asymmetries related to $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ decays. All these physical observables depend primarily on a subset of the parameters mentioned previously, such as the form factors, the ratio $`q^2/m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (where $`q^2`$ is the mass of the virtual gluon in the penguin diagram), the effective number of colors, $`N_c^{eff}`$ (used as a free parameter in the framework of the factorization hypothesis), and the CKM matrix element parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$.

### 6.1 Branching ratio: results and discussions

Departing from the definition of the branching ratio ($`(Bf)`$),

$$(Bf)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Bf)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BAll)},$$
(74)
the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BV_1V_2)`$ can be inferred from its differential form given by the standard relation :

$`d\mathrm{\Gamma }(BV_1V_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2M}}|(BV_1V_2)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_1}{2E_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_2}{2E_2}}\delta ^4(Pp_1p_2).`$ (75)
In Eq. (75), $`P=(M,\stackrel{}{0})`$, where $`M=m_b`$ and $`(E_1,\stackrel{}{p}_1)`$ and $`(E_2,\stackrel{}{p}_2)`$ are the 4-momenta of $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$, respectively, in the $`B`$ rest frame. Because of the large width of the $`\rho ^0`$ meson ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho 150`$ MeV) and the $`K^{}`$ meson ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}50`$ MeV), the energy, $`E_i`$, and the momentum, $`p_i`$, of each vector meson vary according to the generated event. Computation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2)`$ could not be done analytically but numerically by Monte-Carlo methods. A total number of $`50000`$ events have been generated in order to obtain a precise estimate of this decay width.

In Tables 5 and 6 we list (respectively) the branching ratios for $`\overline{B}\rho ^0(\omega )\overline{V}_2`$ and $`B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2`$ and their dependence on the form factor models (BSW and GH), $`q^2/m_b^2`$, $`N_c^{eff}`$ and the average values of the CKM parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$. For a fixed value of $`q^2/m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, there are important variations of the branching ratios, depending on the form-factor model. They can vary by up to a factor two. In the framework of a given form-factor model, some branching ratio modifications appear with $`q^2/m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, especially in the channels including a $`K^{}`$. However, these changes do not exceed $`34\%`$. Regarding the ratio between $`(B^0\rho ^0(\omega )K^0)`$ and $`(B^+\rho ^0(\omega )K^+)`$, its value is found to be of the order $`0.40`$ for the BSW model and $`0.34`$ for the GH model.

Finally, we observe that the relative difference between two conjugate branching ratios, $`(Bf)`$ and $`(\overline{B}\overline{f})`$, is almost independent of the form-factor models, for a fixed value of $`q^2/m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. It can be computed from the two tables just mentioned and, usually, it does not exceed $`20\%`$. The exception is for the $`K^\pm \rho ^0(\omega )`$ channels, where it reaches $`39\%`$.

### 6.2 Asymmetry: results and discussions

A search for direct $`CP`$ violation requires asymmetries between conjugate final states coming from $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ decays respectively. In our case, these searches are performed in two complementary ways. We consider first the global $`CP`$-violating asymmetry $`a_{CP}`$, calculated from branching ratios:

$`a_{CP}={\displaystyle \frac{(Bf)\overline{}(\overline{B}\overline{f})}{(Bf)+\overline{}(\overline{B}\overline{f})}}.`$ (76)
Secondly, we use the partial widths of $`B(f)`$ and $`\overline{B}(\overline{f})`$, calculated as described above together with the differential asymmetries investigated as a function of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass in the whole range of the $`\rho ^0`$ Breit-Wigner resonance. Hence, $`a_{CP}(m)`$ takes the following form:

$`a_{CP}(m)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_m(Bf)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m(\overline{B}\overline{f})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_m(Bf)+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m(\overline{B}\overline{f})}},`$ (77)
where $`m`$ is the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m(Bf)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m(\overline{B}\overline{f})`$ in Eq. (77) are the partial widths written as a function of $`m`$.

In Table 7 we list the global $`CP`$-violating asymmetry between the $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ decays for the channels under investigation. It can be noticed that, for a fixed value of $`q^2/m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, the two form factor models provide quite similar results. For different $`q^2/m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ values, the corresponding results could vary, especially in the $`K^\pm \rho ^0(\omega )`$ channels. In Figs. 10 and 11 we show, respectively, the histogram of the direct $`CP`$-violating asymmetry parameter $`a_{CP}(m)`$, for the decays $`B^0\rho ^0(\omega )K^0`$ and $`B^+\rho ^0(\omega )\rho ^+`$, as a function of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass in the $`\omega `$ mass region and for both form factor models. The asymmetry reaches its maximum when $`\sqrt{s}`$ is around $`780`$ MeV. However, outside the displayed windows, the asymmetry goes to zero in any case. The peak of the asymmetry is emphasized when the GH form factor model is used in our simulations. For the $`K^0\rho ^0(\omega )`$ channels, the maximum of the $`CP`$ violating asymmetry is around $`13\%`$ and $`16\%`$, for the BSW model and the GH model, respectively. Finally, we emphasise that the $`\rho ^\pm \rho ^0(\omega )`$ channels present the most intriguing results because, in any case, their asymmetry is at least $`80\%`$ (BSW model) and can reach $`95\%`$ (GH model). This last channel is highly recommended for a direct search for $`CP`$ violation.

## 7 Perspectives and conclusions

We have studied direct $`CP`$ violation in decay process such as $`B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\pi ^+\pi ^{}V_2`$, where $`V_2`$ is either $`K^{0,\pm }`$ or $`\rho ^\pm `$, with the inclusion of $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing. When the invariant mass of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair is in the vicinity of the $`\omega `$ resonance, it is found that the $`CP`$-violating asymmetry, $`a_{CP}(m)`$, reaches its maximum value. In our analysis we have also investigated the branching ratios for the same channels. Thanks to the standard helicity and transversity formalisms, rigorous and detailed calculations of the $`B^{0\pm }`$ decays into two charmless vector mesons have been carried out completely. Using the effective Hamiltonian based on the operator product expansion with the appropriate Wilson coefficients, we derived in detail the amplitudes corresponding to $`B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\pi ^+\pi ^{}V_2`$ decay and the density matrix, $`h_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ as well.

In order to apply our formalism, we used a Monte-Carlo method for all the numerical simulations. Moreover, we dealt at length with the uncertainties coming from the input parameters. In particular, these include the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element parameters, $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$, the effective number of colors, $`N_c^{eff}`$, coming from the naive factorization and two phenomenological models in order to show the possible dependence on form factors, GH or BSW. These form factors vary slightly according to the final states. Recall that this work was achieved by applying a phenomenological treatment, where some assumptions regarding the evaluation of the hadronic matrix elements have been made. In this approach, corrections associated with the limit of validity of the factorization hypothesis were parameterized phenomenologically and may involve large uncertainties.

As a major result, the predominance of the longitudinal polarization, $`h_{00}`$, has been pointed out in all the investigated decays. We also found a large direct $`CP`$-violating asymmetry in these $`B`$ decays into two charmless vector mesons. We stress that, without the inclusion of $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing, we would not have a large $`CP`$-violating asymmetry. Finally, we predicted branching ratios to be of the order $`0.72.1\times 10^6`$ for $`K^0\rho ^0(\omega )`$ and of the order $`2.36.6\times 10^6`$ for $`K^\pm \rho ^0(\omega )`$ (depending on the different phenomenological models). For the channel $`\rho ^\pm \rho ^0(\omega )`$, we found the branching ratios to be of the order $`1124\times 10^6`$.

Two main conclusions can be drawn. The first is the relative importance of the form factor model which is used, since some branching ratios in $`B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2`$ could change by up to a factor two. The second is the important role of $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing, which can enhance considerably the asymmetry parameter $`a_{CP}`$, between the conjugate final states coming, respectively, from $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ decays.

Beside the “standard” ways to look for direct $`CP`$ violation, such as the difference between branching ratios and/or discrepancies in the angular distributions of the decay products, we have presented a detailed discussion of a new method. This involves the variation of $`a_{CP}`$ as a function of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass over the whole range of the $`\rho ^0`$ resonance . We believe that this method will be very fruitful for future experiments and has already been implemented in the generator of the LHCb experiment. Indeed, we look forward to being able to apply the formalism developed here to the analysis of experimental data for decays such as $`B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2`$ (with $`V_2`$ being either a $`K^{}`$ or a $`\rho ^\pm `$) in the near future.

#### Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Australian Research Council and the University of Adelaide. The LHCb Clermont-Ferrand group would like to acknowledge G. Menessier from the LPTM, for many illuminating discussions regarding the exciting question of FSI in hadronic physics.

## Appendix

## Appendix A Practical calculations of the helicity amplitudes

The helicity formalism in the case of vector mesons requires the introduction of three polarization four-vectors for each spin 1 particle :

$$ϵ(1)=(0,\stackrel{}{ϵ}(1)),ϵ(2)=(0,\stackrel{}{ϵ}(2)),\mathrm{and}ϵ(3)=(|\stackrel{}{k}|/m,E\widehat{k}/m).$$
(78)
They also satisfy the following relations as well:

$$ϵ(i)^2=1,\mathrm{and}ϵ(i)ϵ(j)=0,\mathrm{with}ij,$$
(79)
where $`m,E`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ are respectively the mass, the energy and the momentum of the vector meson. $`\widehat{k}`$ is defined as the unit vector along the vector momentum, $`\widehat{k}=\stackrel{}{k}/|\stackrel{}{k}|`$. The three vectors $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}(1),\stackrel{}{ϵ}(2)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}(3)=E\widehat{k}/m`$ form an orthogonal basis. $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}(1)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}(2)`$ are the transverse polarization vectors while $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}(3)`$ is the longitudinal polarization vector. These three vectors allow one to define the helicity basis:

$$ϵ(+)=\frac{\left(ϵ(1)+iϵ(2)\right)}{\sqrt{2}},ϵ()=\frac{\left(ϵ(1)iϵ(2)\right)}{\sqrt{2}},\mathrm{and}ϵ(0)=ϵ(3).$$
(80)
These 4-vectors are eigenvectors of the helicity operator $``$ corresponding, respectively, to the eigenvalues $`\lambda =+1,1`$ and $`0`$. In the $`B^{0\pm }`$ rest-frame, the vector mesons have opposite momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_1=\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ and their respective polarization vectors are correlated. This implies the following expressions,

$$\stackrel{}{k}_K=\stackrel{}{k}_\rho =\stackrel{}{k}=\left(\begin{array}{c}k\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ k\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ k\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$

where $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are respectively polar and azimuthal angles of the produced $`K^{}`$. In our case, one has for the transversal polarization vectors ($`K^{}`$ and $`\rho `$) the expressions:

$$\stackrel{}{ϵ}_K(1)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta \end{array}\right)=\stackrel{}{ϵ}_\rho (1),$$

and,

$$\stackrel{}{ϵ}_K(2)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ 0\end{array}\right)=\stackrel{}{ϵ}_\rho (2).$$

Regarding the longitudinal polarization, $`ϵ_K(3)`$ and $`ϵ_\rho (3)`$ take the form:

$$ϵ_K(3)=(\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}|}{m_K},\frac{E_K}{m_K}\widehat{k}),ϵ_\rho (3)=(\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}|}{m_\rho },\frac{E_\rho }{m_\rho }(\widehat{k})).$$
(81)
By applying the relations from Eq. (80), one can expressed vectors $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}(i)`$ in the helicity basis and one gets $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\pm )`$:

$$\stackrel{}{ϵ}_K(+)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi i\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi +i\mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta \end{array}\right)/\sqrt{2}=\stackrel{}{ϵ}_K^{}()=\stackrel{}{ϵ}_\rho (),$$
(82)
$$\stackrel{}{ϵ}_K()=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +i\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi i\mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta \end{array}\right)/\sqrt{2}=\stackrel{}{ϵ}_K^{}(+)=\stackrel{}{ϵ}_\rho (+).$$
(83)
The weak hadronic amplitude is therefore decomposed, in the helicity basis, according to the general method developed by Bauer, Stech and Wirbel . This will allow one to obtain two interesting results. Firstly, one can isolate the contribution of each helicity state to the total amplitude. Secondly, the contributions of the tree and penguin operators to the total amplitude can be separated via the helicity states.

The knowledge of the main input parameters $`\rho ,\eta ,A,\mathrm{sin}\theta _c(=\lambda _c)`$ and the masses and widths of the intermediate resonances allow a complete determination of the three helicity amplitudes $`H_\lambda \left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right)`$, where the helicity $`\lambda `$ can take the values -1,0 or +1.

## Appendix B Channel $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }`$

The formalism applied in case of $`B\rho ^0(\omega )K^{}`$ can be extend to $`B^\pm \rho ^0(\omega )\rho ^\pm `$. Nevertheless, in the last case one has $`bd`$ transition instead of $`bs`$. The amplitude $`H_\lambda \left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right)`$ has the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}H_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}\left(B\rho ^0(\omega )V_2\right)=\hfill \\ \hfill A\lambda ^3\left\{\left[R_1^\rho B_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\rho +R_2^\rho C_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\rho \right]+i\left[I_1^\rho B_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\rho +I_2^\rho C_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\rho \right]\right\}\\ \hfill +\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\rho \omega }}{(s_\rho m_\omega ^2)+im_\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega }[A\lambda ^3\{[R_1^\omega B_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\omega +R_2^\omega C_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\omega ]\\ \hfill +i[I_1^\omega B_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\omega +I_2^\omega C_{\lambda =_{\pm 1}^0}^\omega ]\}],\end{array}$$
(84)
where one defines,

$`R_i^{V_1}`$ $`=(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}})\eta c_{t_i}^{V_1}+\eta e(c_{p_i}^{V_1})(1\rho )m(c_{p_i}^{V_1}),`$ (85)
$`I_i^{V_1}`$ $`=(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}})\rho c_{t_i}^{V_1}+\eta m(c_{p_i}^{V_1})+(1\rho )e(c_{p_i}^{V_1}),`$ (86)
with $`V_1`$ being either $`\rho ^0`$ or $`\omega `$.

$`\mathrm{If}V_1\rho \mathrm{and}i=2\mathrm{then}R_i^{V_1}=I_i^{V_1}=0.`$ (87)
The expressions for $`c_{t_i}^{V_1}`$ and $`c_{p_i}^{V_1}`$, which correspond to the investigated channel, take the following form:
for the decay $`B^{}\rho ^0\rho ^{}`$:

$`c_{t_1}^\rho `$ $`=C_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2^{}}{N_c}}+C_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^{}}{N_c}},`$
$`c_{p_1}^\rho `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(C_7^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_8^{}}{N_c}}+C_9^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{10}^{}}{N_c}}+C_{10}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_9^{}}{N_c}}).`$ (88)
In the case of $`\omega `$ production, one obtains the linear combinations of the effective Wilson coefficients:
for the decay $`B^{}\omega \rho ^{}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}c_{t_1}^\omega =C_2^{}+\frac{C_1^{}}{N_c},c_{p_1}^\omega =C_4^{}+\frac{C_3^{}}{N_c}+\left(C_{10}^{}+\frac{C_9^{}}{N_c}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill c_{t_2}^\omega =C_1^{}+\frac{C_2^{}}{N_c},c_{p_2}^\omega =2\left(C_3^{}+\frac{C_4^{}}{N_c}+C_5^{}+\frac{C_6^{}}{N_c}\right)\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}\left(C_9^{}+\frac{C_{10}^{}}{N_c}+C_7^{}+\frac{C_8^{}}{N_c}C_{10}^{}\frac{C_9^{}}{N_c}\right).\end{array}$$
(89)
All the terms used in the appendix have been defined in Section IV.

## Figure captions

* Fig. 1 Transversity frame for $`B\rho ^0K^{}`$.
* Fig. 2 Tree diagram (left), and QCD-penguin diagram (right), for $`B`$ decays.
* Fig. 3 Electroweak-penguin diagram (left), and electroweak-penguin diagram with coupling between $`Z,\gamma `$ and $`W`$ (right), for $`B`$ decays.
* Fig. 4 Spectrum of $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing (in MeV/$`c^2`$), simulated by the interference of two Breit-Wigner curves.
* Fig. 5 Spectrum of $`h_{},h_{00},h_{++}`$. Histograms on the left correspond to the channel $`B^0\rho ^0(\omega )K^0`$ where the parameters used are: $`q^2/m_{}^{2}{}_{b}{}^{}=0.3`$, $`N_c^{eff}=2.84`$, $`\rho =0.229,\eta =0.325`$ and form factors from the GH model . Histograms on the right correspond to the channel $`B^+\rho ^0(\omega )\rho ^+`$ for the same parameters with $`N_c^{eff}=2.01`$.
* Fig. 6 Spectrum of $`e(h_{ij})\mathrm{and}m(h_{ij})`$ where $`ij`$. Histograms correspond to the channel $`B^0\rho ^0(\omega )K^0`$ where the parameters used are: $`q^2/m_{}^{2}{}_{b}{}^{}=0.3`$, $`N_c^{eff}=2.84`$, $`\rho =0.229,\eta =0.325`$ and form factors from the GH model.
* Fig. 7 Spectrum of $`e(h_{ij})\mathrm{and}m(h_{ij})`$ where $`ij`$. Histograms correspond to the channel $`B^+\rho ^0(\omega )\rho ^+`$ where the used parameters are: $`q^2/m_{}^{2}{}_{b}{}^{}=0.3`$, $`N_c^{eff}=2.01`$, $`\rho =0.229,\eta =0.325`$ and form factors from the GH model.
* Fig. 8 Spectrum of polar angle (upper figure) and azimuthal angle (lower one) in the helicity frame for the channel $`B^0\rho ^0(\omega )K^0`$. Parameters are: $`q^2/m_{}^{2}{}_{b}{}^{}=0.3`$, $`N_c^{eff}=2.84`$, $`\rho =0.229,\eta =0.325`$ and form factors from the GH model.
* Fig. 9 Spectrum of polar angle (upper figure) and azimuthal angle (lower one) in the transversity frame for the channel $`B^0\rho ^0(\omega )K^0`$. Parameters are: $`q^2/m_{}^{2}{}_{b}{}^{}=0.3`$, $`N_c^{eff}=2.84`$, $`\rho =0.229,\eta =0.325`$ and form factors from the GH model.
* Fig. 10 $`CP`$-violating asymmetry parameter $`a_{CP}(m)`$, as a function of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass in the vicinity of the $`\omega `$ mass region for the channel $`B^0\rho ^0(\omega )K^0`$. Parameters are: $`q^2/m_{}^{2}{}_{b}{}^{}=0.3`$, $`N_c^{eff}=2.84`$, $`\rho =0.229,\eta =0.325`$. Solid triangles up and circles correspond to the BSW and GH form factor models respectively.
* Fig. 11 $`CP`$-violating asymmetry parameter $`a_{CP}(m)`$, as a function of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass in the vicinity of the $`\omega `$ mass region for the channel $`B^+\rho ^0(\omega )\rho ^+`$. Parameters are: $`q^2/m_{}^{2}{}_{b}{}^{}=0.3`$, $`N_c^{eff}=2.01`$, $`\rho =0.229,\eta =0.325`$. Solid triangles down and circles correspond to the BSW and GH form factor models respectively.

## Table captions

* Table 1 Wilson coefficients to the next-leading order.
* Table 2 Effective Wilson coefficients related to the tree operators, electroweak and QCD-penguin operators.
* Table 3 Values of the CKM unitarity triangle for limiting values of the CKM matrix elements.
* Table 4 Form factor values for $`B\rho `$, $`B\omega `$ and $`BK`$ at $`q^2=0`$.
* Table 5 $`\overline{B}^0,B^{}`$ branching ratios (in units of $`10^6`$) using either the BSW or GH form factor models, for $`q^2/m_b^2=0.3(0.5)`$, with $`N_{cmax}^{bs}=2.84(2.82)`$, $`N_{cmax}^{bd}=2.01(1.95)`$, $`\rho =0.229`$ and $`\eta =0.325`$.
* Table 6 $`B^0,B^+`$ branching ratios (in units of $`10^6`$) using either the BSW or GH form factor models, for $`q^2/m_b^2=0.3(0.5)`$, with $`N_{cmax}^{bs}=2.84(2.82)`$, $`N_{cmax}^{bd}=2.01(1.95)`$, $`\rho =0.229`$ and $`\eta =0.325`$.
* Table 7 Global $`CP`$-violating asymmetries (in percents) using either the BSW or GH form factor models, for $`q^2/m_b^2=0.3(0.5)`$, with $`N_{cmax}^{bs}=2.84(2.82)`$, $`N_{cmax}^{bd}=2.01(1.95)`$, $`\rho =0.229`$ and $`\eta =0.325`$.


format: text

text:
# Electron capture decay of indium-111 human carbonic anhydrase I: A time differential K X ray coincidence perturbed angular correlation study

## Introduction

Perturbed angular correlation spectroscopy (PAC) is a potential technique for investigating hot atom chemistry following electron capture decay of a radionuclide probe Adloff (1978); Boyer and Baudry (1984). As is the case with Mössbauer emission spectroscopy, it may be possible to identify the chemical form of the probe nuclide coordination complex during the nuclear lifetime Sano and Gütlich (1984); Alflen et al. (1989). The average Auger and Coster-Kronig electron yield is significantly diminished when the vacancy cascade following electron capture includes the emission of a K X ray as compared to when it does not. It is in principle possible to study the dependence of hot atom chemistry on the intensity of Auger and Coster-Kronig emissions by detecting the nuclear radiations of perturbed angular correlation or Mössbauer emission spectroscopy in coincidence with K shell X rays Haydock and Sastry (1987); Kobayashi et al. (1979). Given the very limited knowledge of hot atom chemistry of electron capture nuclides that are possible perturbed angular correlation probes, one may ask only a yes or no question. Does or does not the hot atom chemistry depend electron emission intensity? To answer this, a chemical transmutation model and a dose dependent damage model are constructed for the perturbed angular correlation spectra following electron capture. Both models encompass several alternative pictures of the hot atom chemistry. The simplest hot atom chemistry of the chemical transmutation model is very similar to $`\beta ^+`$ decay on the nanosecond time scale. Note that $`\beta ^+`$ decay is energetically forbidden for 111In. The multiple Auger ionization processes are followed by complete electron recombination that leaves the daughter nuclide in a metastable state with both the atomic number and valence decreased by one unit from the parent. The metastable state is the result of the change in charge rather that charge neutralization or Auger electron irradiation. The metastable state of the daughter nuclide decays within tens of nanoseconds to the ground state coordination complex of the daughter and ligands. However, any hot atom chemistry involving an excited state of the daughter that decays thereafter into the ground state complex is equally consistent with the chemical transmutation model. The only requirement is that the excited state be independent of Auger emission intensity. The dose dependent damage model pictures radiolytic fragmentation of probe coordination complex ligands. The amplitudes and rates of ligand fluctuations increase with the intensity of the Auger emissions. Though uncertain about the details of hot atom chemistry both models predict perturbed angular correlation spectra. The comparison of these spectra with experimental data indicates whether or not the hot atom chemistry during the nanoseconds following electron capture depends on Auger emission intensity.

A partial decay scheme for 111In and 111mCd is shown in Fig. 1. Perturbed angular correlation spectra of the isomeric 111mCd decay provide the quadrupole interaction parameters of the ground state coordination complex in the chemical transmutation model and the ligand relaxation parameters at zero dose in the dose dependent damage model. Following 111In electron capture decay the 111Cd daughter is in a 120 picosecond nuclear excited state that initiates the 171–245 keV gamma cascade. Processes occurring faster than the lifetime of this initial nuclear state, including dissipation of thermal hot spots Sano and Gütlich (1984); Kim and Dlott (1991), do not influence perturbed angular correlation spectra. The spectra reflect the hot atom chemistry occurring during the lifetime of the intermediate state. Indirect effects involving the diffusion of water radicals are not observed. A great variety of radiochemical and radiobiological experiments show that direct and indirect processes together result in damage that is proportional to the Auger emission intensity. For example, when zinc bovine carbonic anhydrase is X ray irradiated just above the zinc K edge, enzyme activity and zinc release assays indicate significant Auger inactivation Diehn et al. (1976). The more intense Auger emissions accompanying 111In decay can be expected to inactivate HCA I even more effectively. The combined direct and indirect effects are Auger emission intensity dependent. An Auger dependent effect on the nanosecond time scale can be detected with K X ray coincidence perturbed angular correlation spectroscopy.

## Materials and Methods

Human carbonic anhydrase I was isolated from freshly outdated erythrocytes Khalifah et al. (1977). The apoenzyme was obtained by dialysis at 4C against pyridine-2,6-dicarboxylic acid Hunt et al. (1977). HCA I activity was assayed spectrophotometrically with $`p`$-nitrophenyl acetate (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Missouri) as substrate Pocker and Stone (1967). Conventional time differential gamma-gamma perturbed angular correlation spectra of 111In labeled HCA I were measured on a movable two detector perturbed angular correlation spectrometer Frauenfelder and Steffen (1965). A 2 by 2 inch cylindrical BC-404 plastic scintillator with 0.25 inch centered side bore for internal sample mounting and RCA 8575 phototube detected the K X rays. Coincidence gating electronics, including a time to pulse height converter for coincidence timing K X rays and the gamma-gamma cascade, selected either K X ray coincidence or anti-coincidence spectra for storage and analysis. Carrier free 111In in 0.05 molar HCl (Du Pont de Nemours & Co. Inc., Wilmington, Delaware) was ordered at two week intervals. ApoHCA I was incubated for 48 h with 111In in 100 mM HEPES buffer (Research Organics Inc., Cleveland, Ohio) at pH 7.7 with sodium citrate acting as carrier for indium. In order to hold constant both the volume and total indium concentration, the specific activity of the 111In stock was adjusted with cold indium chloride. After labeling with indium, the effects of HCA I rotational motions on the perturbed angular correlation spectrum were diminished by adding sucrose to a final concentration by weight of 50%. Seven labeled protein samples were prepared from each shipment of 111In. A perturbed angular correlation spectrum was accumulated for 46 h from each sample. The first and last samples were run as incubation controls. These samples were measured for an initial twelve h as 111In-citrate; HCA I was added, and the measurement was continued for another 34 h. The time integral perturbation factors accumulated for 20 min intervals monitored the HCA I labeling reaction. All spectra from shipments that did not give excellent labeling were discarded. Three of the five non-control samples per shipment were measured in K X ray coincidence mode and two in K X ray anti-coincidence mode. A total of 52 coincidence mode samples and 36 anti-coincidence mode samples were combined for analysis. All sample preparations and measurements were done at $`21\pm 1^{}`$C.

Electron capture gamma-gamma perturbed angular correlation spectra measure the ensemble average electric quadrupole relaxation of the daughter nucleus spin. Magnetic dipole interactions are assumed to be negligible. The measurable parameters are model dependent. All models must contain one or more rate constants that characterize the time dependence of the quadrupole interactions. In the chemical transmutation model, spin relaxation is the result of the decay of a metastable state of the daughter nucleus coordination complex. This metastable state might be a valence electron, coordination geometry, or ligand conformation state. In any case, the quadrupole interaction parameters of the initial metastable state are the frequency mean, frequency standard deviation, asymmetry, and the mean lifetime of the state. The initial state decays into the ground state coordination complex. The interaction parameters of the ground state are the frequency mean, frequency standard deviation, asymmetry, and Euler rotation angles relative to the initial state. The initial and ground state interaction frequencies are independent Gaussian distributions. Each individual daughter nucleus interacts with the initial and ground state coordination complexes at fixed quadrupole frequencies that are randomly and independently sampled from the respective Gaussian distributions. The lifetimes of the initial interactions are given by an exponential distribution. In addition to relaxation from coordination complex decay, the chemical transmutation model includes relaxation from overall molecular tumbling by multiplying the spectrum with an exponential factor.

The dose dependent damage model ascribes the spin relaxation to ligand reorientation in the coordination complex. The quadrupole interaction parameters of the coordination complex are the mean frequency, frequency standard deviation, asymmetry, rotation angle standard deviation, and jump rate. These five parameters depend linearly on dose to the coordination complex and have a baseline value for the zero dose coordination complex. The electric field gradient orientation distribution is defined by rotations from a reference orientation, where the rotation angle distribution is Gaussian and the rotation axis distribution is isotropic. Note that though there is a single reference orientation in this interaction model, the perturbed angular correlation spectrum is for an isotropic source because the interactions of each daughter nucleus are averaged over random orientations when the spectrum is computed. The interaction frequency distribution is a Gaussian. Both the interaction frequency and orientation are sampled after every jump. The time intervals between jumps are exponentially distributed.

In both the chemical transmutation and dose dependent damage models, the interaction of each individual daughter nucleus is piecewise static and each set of model parameters specifies a probability distribution function for piecewise static interactions. The perturbation factor (which is loosely refered to as the perturbed angular correlation spectrum), is the average over this probability distribution of the perturbation factor of each piecewise static interaction. For a piecewise static interaction averaged over random source orientations, the perturbation factors are Frauenfelder and Steffen (1965),

$`G_{kk}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_am_bN}{}}\{(1)^{2I+m_a+m_b}`$ (6)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}I\hfill & I\hfill & k\hfill \\ m_a^{}\hfill & m_a\hfill & N\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I\hfill & I\hfill & k\hfill \\ m_b^{}\hfill & m_b\hfill & N\hfill \end{array}\right)`$
$`\times m_b|\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)|m_am_b^{}|\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)|m_a^{}^{}\},`$
where $`k`$ is an even index, $`t`$ is the delay time between emission of the two gamma rays from the daughter nucleus gamma-gamma cascade, $`I`$ is the spin of the intermediate nuclear state, $`m_a`$, $`m_a^{}`$, $`m_b`$, and $`m_b^{}`$ index magnetic substates of the intermediate state, the matrix element coefficients are the Wigner 3-$`j`$ symbols, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ is the piecewise static time evolution operator. Since only $`G_{22}(t)`$ is usually measurable, it is refered to as the perturbation factor. The index $`N`$ takes all integer values with absolute value less than or equal to $`k`$ and the primed magnetic substate indices are given by $`m_a^{}m_a+N=0`$ and $`m_b^{}m_b+N=0`$. Since the perturbation factor is always computed at a series of time points, it is appropriate to express the piecewise static time evolution operator as a series operator product of interval evolution operators. The interval evolution operator for the time interval $`(t^{},t)`$ is a series operator product of static evolution operators,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(t^{},t)=\underset{j=J^{}}{\overset{J}{}}e^{iH_jt_j/\mathrm{}},$$
(7)
where $`H_j`$ is the $`j^{\text{th}}`$ time independent interaction Hamiltonian, $`J`$ is the index of the first Hamiltonian with active interval overlapping $`(t^{},t)`$, $`J^{}`$ is the index of the last Hamiltonian with active interval overlapping $`(t^{},t)`$, and $`t_j`$ is the time overlap of $`(t^{},t)`$ and the active time interval of the $`j^{\text{th}}`$ Hamiltonian. Matthias et al. Matthais et al. (1963) give the electric quadrupole Hamiltonian matrix elements for arbitrary intermediate spin, interaction frequency, asymmetry parameter, and $`y`$ convention Goldstein (1980) orientation. The quadrupole interaction frequency is specified by the angular frequency $`\omega _0`$. By definition, $`\omega _0`$ equals 3 times the quadrupole interaction frequency for integer spin and 6 times the quadrupole interaction frequency for half integer spin. When the electric quadrupole Hamiltonian is axially symmetric $`\omega _0\mathrm{}`$ equals the smallest nonvanishing eigenvalue difference. The angular frequency $`\omega _0`$ is frequently reported with correct numerical value but with the erroneous dimension of Hertz Bauer (1985).

The piecewise static perturbation factors were evaluated by repeated extension of the time evolution operators in increments of $`0.025(2\pi /\omega _0)`$, where $`\omega _0`$ was the mean angular frequency of the ground state or zero dose coordination complex. The evolution operator at each time point was extended to the next time point by matrix multiplication with a time interval evolution operator. Each time interval evolution operator was a product of static evolution operators with the Hamiltonian indices and overlap intervals indicated in Eq. (7). The interaction Hamiltonians were diagonalized Smith et al. (1976); the static evolution operators were expressed in diagonal form with the eigenvalues, transformed back into the magnetic substate representation with the eigenvectors, and multiplied together to give the time interval evolution operators. Since in the parameter domain of interest the perturbation factor time intervals were an order of magnitude smaller than the typical static Hamiltonian active time interval, most interval evolution operators were a single static evolution operator and each Hamiltonian diagonalization generated many interval evolution operators. The time interval evolution operators were repeatedly multiplied to give the evolution operators at a series of 160 time points. The matrix elements of the evolution operators were inserted in Eq. (6) to give the piecewise static perturbation factors at these time points.

The piecewise static perturbation factor probability distribution function was averaged by Monte Carlo integration James (1980). Perturbation factor error estimates were calculated from the deviation of subaverages around the overall average as a function of the spectrum delay time. Gaussian interaction frequency and rotation angle distributions were generated by summing uniform random variates. Excited state and orientation lifetimes were generated by logarithmic transform of uniform random numbers on the unit interval. Isotropic rotation directions were generated by an acceptance-rejection technique Allen and Tildesley (1989). Random numbers uniform on the unit interval were generated by a 32-bit linear congruential pseudo-random generator with divisor $`2^{31}1`$ and multiplier $`7^5`$.

Initially the qualitative dependence of the perturbation factor on parameter space of the chemical transmutation and the dose dependent damage models was coarsely surveyed. The chemical transmutation model metastable state lifetime, ground state rotation angle, and relative magnitude of the metastable and ground state mean interaction frequency parameters were varied. Based on the preliminary survey and known ground state coordination complex parameters, a crude estimate was made of the parameter point that fit the data. This fit was refined by varying the unknown parameters one at a time until the residuals were about the same magnitude as the experimental error. The chemical transmutation model ground state frequency mean, frequency standard deviation, and asymmetry and the overall tumbling relaxation time constant were fixed at the known values. The Euler rotation angles relative to the initial state were fixed at values found in the preliminary survey to give strong spin relaxation. The initial metastable state was assumed to be axially symmetric, and the frequency mean and frequency standard deviation were varied.

The preliminary dose dependent damage model parameter survey fixed the mean frequency, frequency standard deviation, and asymmetry parameters at the known zero dose coordination complex values, and varied the rotation angle standard deviation and jump rate parameters. By comparing of the results of this search and the perturbation factor measured by Bauer et al. Bauer et al. (1976) with the assumption that spin relaxation is due to molecular tumbling, values were identified for the rotation angle standard deviation and jump rate parameters approximately equivalent to the molecular tumbling time constant of the zero dose coordination complex. The preliminary search also yielded the initial parameter point for fitting the dose dependent damage model to the data. The mean frequency, frequency standard deviation, asymmetry, rotation angle standard deviation, and jump rate parameters were all varied.

During the preliminary parameter space searches and parameter refinement, the perturbation factors were computed by averaging $`10^3`$ piecewise static interactions. The standard deviations of these perturbation factors were fairly independent of spectrum delay time and typically about 0.01. The displayed perturbation factors were averaged over $`10^4`$ interactions to give a standard deviation of about 0.003. All calculations were done on a DEC VAX 3600 or Silicon Graphics 4D workstation.

## Results and Discussion

The measured K X ray coincidence and anti-coincidence perturbed angular correlation spectra for 111In HCA I in 50% sucrose are shown in both Figs. 23. Figure 2 shows theoretical spectra for the chemical transmutation model at parameter values listed in Table 1 and Fig. 3 shows theoretical spectra for the dose dependent damage model at parameter values listed in Table 2. The procedure for approximately fitting the models is given in the methods section. Relaxation in the chemical transmutation model spectra results from metastable coordination complex decay and molecular tumbling. Evidently these mechanisms can account for all relaxation experimentally observed in 111In HCA I perturbed angular correlation spectra. Since the coordination complex initial metastable state is assumed to be independent of the Auger emission intensity, the chemical transmutation model predicts equality of the K X ray coincidence and anti-coincidence spectra.

Relaxation in the dose dependent damage model spectra results from ligand reorientation. The absence of molecular tumbling relaxation in this model is a matter of convenience. Additional high precision 111mCd HCAB I spectra would be required to establish the correct balance of relaxation due to internal and overall motion. The theoretical K X ray coincidence and anti-coincidence spectra for the dose dependent damage model depend upon the relative Auger emission intensities. The electron capture decay of 111In in coincidence with a cadmium K X ray yields on average 11.0 Auger and Coster-Kronig electrons and in anti-coincidence yields on average 16.8 electrons (R. W. Howell, private communication). The anti-coincidence yield must be corrected for the efficiency of detection for K X rays. The corrected anti-coincidence yield,

$$Y_k^{}=\frac{(1\omega )}{1ϵ\omega }Y_k+\frac{\omega (1ϵ)}{1ϵ\omega }Y_{k+},$$
(8)
where $`ϵ`$ is the K X ray detection efficiency, $`\omega `$ is the probability per decay of K X ray emission, $`Y_k`$ is the perfect anti-coincidence yield, and $`Y_{k+}`$ the K X ray coincidence yield. At the estimated detection efficiency for cadmium K X rays of 23%, the corrected anti-coincidence Auger electron yield is 13.0. The ratio $`Y_{k+}/Y_k^{}=11/13`$ interpolates the K X ray coincidence parameters between the zero dose and K X ray anti-coincidence parameters in the dose dependent damage model. The ratio of the difference between the K X ray coincidence and zero dose parameters to the difference between the K X ray anti-coincidence and zero dose parameters is 11/13, see Table 2. The experimental 111In HCA I K X ray coincidence and anti-coincidence spectra are identical. However, since the difference in the theoretical K X ray coincidence and anti-coincidence spectra is small enough relative to the experimental error, the dose dependent damage model may not be confidently rejected.

## Conclusions

The indistinguishability of the experimental 111In HCA I K X ray coincidence and anti-coincidence spectra suggests that during the first $`10^8`$ seconds following electron capture decay the hot atom chemistry is independent of the Auger and Coster-Kronig electron emission intensity. As demonstrated by the dose dependent damage model, the experimental data do not conclusively rule out dependence of hot atom chemistry on emission intensity. The difference between the HCA I K X ray coincidence and anti-coincidence spectra could be significantly increased by detecting Kβ X rays for the coincidence spectrum, increasing the detection efficiency of all K X rays for the anti-coincidence spectrum, and possibly by measuring at liquid nitrogen temperature.

###### Acknowledgements.

Special thanks are due to Kandula S. R. Sastry and Franklyn G. Prendergast for their continued encouragement and support of this project. Lynda McDowell purified HCA I and helped with indium binding assays. Heiner Winkler introduced me to the Monte Carlo procedure Gerdau et al. (1976) for computing a perturbation factor by averaging over the probability distribution of piecewise static interactions. Roger Howell provided electron yields. Alexander Halpern has called to my attention references Adloff (1978); Boyer and Baudry (1984); Sano and Gütlich (1984); Diehn et al. (1976). This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grant 1 R03 RR02219-01.