Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

CP violation in D→KK decays: A comparative analysis of triplet and sextet diquarks

David Delepine*

Shaaban Khalil†

Carlos A. Ramirez‡

  • *Contact author: delepine@fisica.ugto.mx
  • †Contact author: skhalil@zewailcity.edu.eg
  • ‡Contact author: jpjdramirez@yahoo.com

Phys. Rev. D 114, 035037 – Published 28 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/zjgc-l23x

Abstract

Recent measurements of the charge-parity asymmetry in the decay D0→KS0KS0 by CMS Collaboration, ACP(KS0KS0)=(6.2±3.0±0.2±0.8)%, and by LHCb, ACP(D0→KS0KS0)=(1.86±1.04±0.41)%, suggest possible deviations from Standard Model expectations, which predict asymmetries below the percent level. This singly Cabibbo-suppressed decay is particularly sensitive to new physics, as the leading amplitudes vanish in the exact U-spin symmetry limit and the process is dominated by W-exchange topologies. We investigate scalar diquark contributions to this decay, comparing color-sextet and color-triplet representations. We find that the color-sextet diquark, characterized by a symmetric color structure (C1NP=C2NP), avoids color suppression and can generate CP asymmetries in the range 0.5%–1.5% for a diquark mass of order 1 TeV. In contrast, the color-triplet contribution is strongly suppressed due to destructive interference from its antisymmetric color structure. We further show that a flavor hierarchy in the sextet couplings, with λud>λus, can simultaneously account for the observed deviation from the U-spin sum rule in D0→K+K− and D0→π+π− and the measured CP asymmetry in D0→KS0KS0. These results identify color-sextet scalar diquarks as viable candidates for explaining enhanced CP violation in charm decays.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (41)

  1. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2026) 253.
  2. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 211803 (2019).
  3. A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1264 (2024).
  4. U. Nierste and S. Schacht, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054036 (2015).
  5. Y. Grossman, A. L. Kagan, and Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. D 75, 036008 (2007).
  6. H.-Y. Cheng and C.-W. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D 85, 034036 (2012).
  7. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 211803 (2019).
  8. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 091802 (2023).
  9. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 104, 072010 (2021).
  10. C.-H. Chen, C.-Q. Geng, and W. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 85, 077702 (2012).
  11. J. Brod, A. L. Kagan, and J. Zupan, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2012) 161.
  12. While the physical decay involves strange (s) and down (d) quarks, theorists use the u-quark operator as a reference point to isolate the flavor-symmetric part of the exchange diagram [4].

  13. G. F. Giudice, B. Gripaios, and R. Sundrum, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2011) 055.
  14. E. Golowich, J. Hewett, S. Pakvasa, and A. A. Petrov, Phys. Rev. D 76, 095009 (2007).
  15. I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. Kamenik, and N. Košnik, Phys. Rep. 641, 1–68 (2016).
  16. T. Feldmann, S. Nandi, and A. Soni, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2012) 007.
  17. M. Gronau, Phys. Lett. B 730, 221 (2014).
  18. G. Hiller, M. Jung, and S. Schacht, Phys. Rev. D 87, 014024 (2013).
  19. R. Aaij, A. S. W. Abdelmotteleb et al. (The LHCb Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2026) 253.
  20. S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, and I. Nišandžić, Phys. Rev. D 85, 094025 (2012).
  21. U. Nierste and S. Schacht, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054036 (2015).
  22. A. F. Falk, A. L. Kagan, Y. Nir, and G. Perez, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054034 (2002).
  23. T. Inami and C. S. Lim, Prog. Theor. Phys. 65, 297 (1981); 65, 1772(E) (1981).
  24. Y. Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 869 (2022).
  25. Y. S. Amhis et al. (HFLAV Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 052008 (2023).
  26. A. J. Buras and E. Venturini, Acta Phys. Pol. B 53, 6-A1 (2021).
  27. G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996).
  28. M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, L071102 (2022).
  29. R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group Collaboration), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 083C01 (2022).
  30. M. Kramer, T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. D 71, 057503 (2005).
  31. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 112007 (2019).
  32. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 108, 112005 (2023).
  33. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2018) 130.
  34. C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B147, 277 (1979).
  35. L. E. Ibanez and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. B 332, 100 (1994).
  36. A. J. Buras, M. Misiak, and J. Urban, Nucl. Phys. B586, 397 (2000); B1002, 116529(E) (2024).
  37. A. J. Buras and J. Girrbach, Acta Phys. Pol. B 43, 1427 (2012).
  38. I. Adachi et al. (Belle-II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 112, L031101 (2025).
  39. N. K. Nisar et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 211601 (2014).
  40. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 104, L031102 (2021).
  41. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 202001 (2014).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation