[Wrong Sign]
[CLEO]
[Harry Nelson]
Here, I will survey literature on various D0>PP and D0>PV decays,
with attention to those that are Cabibbo-suppressed.
From the 1998 Review of Particle Physics:
Cabibbo favored modes:
- D0>K-pi+ (PP) has a branching ratio of
3.85+-0.09%, p* = 861 MeV
- The three PV modes have branching ratios:
- D0>K-rho+, 10.8+-1.0%, p* = 678 MeV.
- D0>Kbar*0pi0, 3.2+-0.4%, p* = 709 MeV.
- D0>K*-pi+, 5.1+-0.4%, p* = 711 MeV.
Single Cabibbo suppressed modes; the first number is the
branching ratio, the second, the ratio relative to the
Cabibbo favored mode, divided by tan^2(theta_c); sin(theta_c)
is taken to be 0.2205.
- PP:
- D0>pi-pi+, 0.153+-0.009%, 0.78+-0.05, p* = 922 MeV.
- D0>K-K+, 0.427+-0.016%, 2.2+-0.1, p* = 791 MeV.
- PV:
- K-K*+, 0.35+-0.08%, 0.63+-0.16, p* = 610 MeV.
- Kbar*0K0, <0.16%, <1, (90% CL), p* = 605 MeV.
- Kbar0,K*0, <0.8%, <0.5, (90% CL), p* = 605 MeV.
- K*-K+, 0.18+-0.10%, 0.7+-0.4, p* = 610 MeV
Note, the p* for D0>K*0Kbar*0 is 257 MeV, and that for D0>rho^0rho^0 is
528 MeV.
Double Cabibbo suppressed modes; the first number is the
branching ratio, the second, the ratio relative to the
Cabibbo favored mode, divided by tan^4(theta_c); sin(theta_c)
is taken to be 0.2205.
- PP:
- D0>pi-K+, 0.028+-0.009%, 2.9+-0.9
Theoretical predictions, for suppressed rates:
- Buccella, Lusignoli, and Pugliese; this paper has lots of tables of rates.
Here are the suppressed ratios:
Single Cabibbo suppressed modes; the first number is the
branching ratio, the second, the ratio relative to the
Cabibbo favored mode, divided by tan^2(theta_c); sin(theta_c)
is taken to be 0.2205.
- PP:
- D0>pi-pi+, 0.159%, 0.770
- D0>K-K+, 0.446%, 2.16
- PV:
- pi-rho+, 0.69%, 1.23
- rho0pi0, 0.12%, 0.67
- rho-pi+, 0.57%, 2.30
- K-K*+, 0.43%, 0.76
- Kbar*0K0, 0.062%, 0.35
- Kbar0,K*0, 0.064%, 0.36
- K*-K+, 0.30%, 1.21
Double Cabibbo suppressed modes; the first number is the
branching ratio, the second, the ratio relative to the
Cabibbo favored mode, divided by tan^4(theta_c); sin(theta_c)
is taken to be 0.2205.
- PP:
- PV:
- D0>pi-K*+, 0.035%, 1.22
- D0>pi0K*0, 0.0039%, 0.43
- D0>rho-K+, 0.025%, 1.97
- Browder and Pakvasa, 1995; this paper discusses the large wrong-sign
rate reported in 1993 by CLEO, and speculates that there is no big phase
shift between wrong and right sign.
Here are some of Chau, and of Cheng's papers:
Here are a bunch of Kamal's papers.
- Kamal and Verma, 1987
- Kamal and Sinha, 1987, which is a coupled-channel analysis
of Cabibbo-suppressed D decays.
- Kamal and Verma, 1991
- Czarnecki, Kamal, and Xu, 1991; a scanned version is
here.
- Kamal, Xu, and Czarnecki 1994.
- Kamal and Pham, 1994. This paper appears to be central
to understanding why the BR for D0>K+K- is 2.8 times as big as
D0>pi+pi-. They argue that inelastic FSI deplete transitions to
one isospin amplitude of the pi+pi- state (I=0), but leave I=2 OK;
the amplitude to I=2 agrees with factorization. In the transitions
to the K+K- state, both isospin amplitudes as estimated by factorization
come out wrong; the I=0 is larger than factorization would predicts,
and the I=1 is smaller. The pattern, the authors argue, is more consistent
with inelastic FSI than with another possibility, penguin amplitudes.
- Kamal and Pham, 1994.
Here is the CLEO 1993 D>pipi, which has a useful citation list:
Here are some recent papers:
hnn@charm.physics.ucsb.edu, 11/06/98