Flavor SU(3) analysis of heavy meson (B and D) hadronic charmless decays can be formulated in two different ways. One is to construct the SU(3) irreducible representation amplitude (IRA) by decomposing effective Hamiltonian according to the SU(3) transformation properties. The other is to use the topological diagrams (TDA). These two methods should give equivalent physical results in the SU(3) limit. Using B → P P decays as an example, we point out that previous analyses in the literature using these two methods do not match consistently in several ways, in particular a few SU(3) independent amplitudes have been overlooked in the TDA approach. Taking these new amplitudes into account, we find a consistent description in both schemes. These new amplitudes can affect direct CP asymmetries in some channels significantly. A consequence is that for any charmless hadronic decay of heavy meson, the direct CP symmetry cannot be identically zero.
I. INTRODUCTIONHadronic charmless B decays provide an ideal platform to extract the CKM matrix elements, test the standard model description of CP violation and look for new physics effects beyond the standard model (SM). Experimentally, quite a number of physical observables like branching fractions, CP asymmetries and polarizations have been precisely measured by experiments at the electron-position colliders and hadron colliders. For a collection of these results, please see Refs. [1,2]. On the other hand, theoretical calculations of the decay amplitudes greatly rely on the factorization ansatz. Depending on the explicit realizations of factorization, several QCD-based dynamic approaches have been established, such as QCDF [3], PQCD [4][5][6], SCET [7,8]. Apart from factorization approaches, the flavor SU (3) symmetry has been also wildly used in two-body and three-body heavy meson decays [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. An advantage of this method is its independence on the detailed dynamics in factorization. Since the SU(3) invariant amplitudes can be determined by fitting the data, the SU(3) analysis also provides a bridge between the experimental data and the dynamic approaches.In the literature, the SU(3) analysis has been formulated in two distinct ways. One is to derive the decay amplitudes correspond to various topological diagrams (TDA) [15][16][17][18][19][20], and another is to construct the SU(3) irreducible representation amplitude (IRA) by decomposing effective Hamiltonian according to irreducible representations [10][11][12][13][14]. These two methods should give the same physical results in the SU(3) limit when all relevant contributions are taken into account. However, as we will show we find that previous analyses in the literature using these two methods do not match consistently in several ways, in particular a few SU(3) independent amplitudes have been overlooked in the *