$\mathit CP$ VIOLATION PARAMETERS in ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$

$\mathit CP$ Violation phase $\beta _{s}$ (${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}{(1S)}}{{\mathit \phi}}$)

INSPIRE   JSON PDGID:
S086PJS
VALUE ($ 10^{-2} $ rad) DOCUMENT ID TECN  COMMENT
$\bf{ 3.0 \pm0.7}$ OUR EVALUATION  $~~$(Produced by HFLAV)
$\bf{ 3.0 \pm0.7}$ OUR AVERAGE
$3.65$ $\pm1.10$ $\pm0.50$ 1, 2
HAYRAPETYAN
2026A
 
CMS ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ at 13 TeV
$1.95$ $\pm1.1$ $\pm0.3$ 3
AAIJ
2024A
 
LHCB ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ at 13 TeV
$4.05$ $\pm2.05$ $\pm1.1$ 4, 5
AAD
2021AE
 
ATLS ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ at 13 TeV
$0$ $\pm14$ $\pm4$ 6
AAIJ
2021AN
 
LHCB ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ at 7, 8 TeV
$5.05$ $\pm4.10$ $\pm2.10$ 7, 8
AAD
2016AP
 
ATLS ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ at 8 TeV
$3.75$ $\pm4.85$ $\pm1.55$ 9
KHACHATRYAN
2016S
 
CMS ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ at 8 TeV
$2.9$ $\pm2.5$ $\pm0.3$ 10
AAIJ
2015I
 
LHCB ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ at 7, 8 TeV
$-6$ $\pm13$ $\pm3$ 11
AAD
2014U
 
ATLS ${{\mathit p}}{{\mathit p}}$ at 7 TeV
12
AALTONEN
2012AJ
 
CDF ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ at 1.96 TeV
$27.5$ ${}^{+18}_{-19}$ 13
ABAZOV
2012D
 
D0 ${{\mathit p}}{{\overline{\mathit p}}}$ at 1.96 TeV
• • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • •
$0.55$ $\pm2.5$ $\pm0.5$ 14, 15
SIRUNYAN
2021E
 
CMS Repl. by HAYRAPETYAN 2026A
$4.15$ $\pm2.05$ $\pm0.3$ 16
AAIJ
2019Q
 
LHCB Repl. by AAIJ 2024A
$-0.5$ $\pm3.5$ $\pm0.5$ 17
AAIJ
2013AR
 
LHCB Repl. by AAIJ 2015I
$-11$ $\pm20.5$ $\pm5$ 18
AAD
2012CV
 
ATLS Repl. by AAD 2014U
$22$ $\pm22$ $\pm1$ 19
AAIJ
2012B
 
LHCB Repl. by AAIJ 2012Q
$-7.5$ $\pm9$ $\pm3$ 20
AAIJ
2012D
 
LHCB Repl. by AAIJ 2013AR
$0.95$ ${}^{+8.7}_{-8.65}$ ${}^{+0.15}_{-0.2}$ 21
AAIJ
2012Q
 
LHCB Repl. by AAIJ 2013AR
22
AALTONEN
2012D
 
CDF Repl. by AALTONEN 2012AJ
23
AALTONEN
2008G
 
CDF Repl. by AALTONEN 2012D
$28$ ${}^{+12}_{-15}$ ${}^{+4}_{-1}$ 13, 24
ABAZOV
2008AM
 
D0 Repl. by ABAZOV 2012D
$39.5$ $\pm28.0$ ${}^{+0.5}_{-7.0}$ 25, 26
ABAZOV
2007
 
D0 Repl. by ABAZOV 2007N
$35$ ${}^{+20}_{-24}$ 26, 27
ABAZOV
2007N
 
D0 Repl. by ABAZOV 2008AM
1  HAYRAPETYAN 2026A measured $\phi _{s}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = ($-7.3$ $\pm2.2$ $\pm1.0$) $ \times 10^{-2}$ rad. using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays with the ML-improved flavor-tagging algorithm.
2  Reports a combination of ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = ($3.70$ $\pm1.15$) $ \times 10^{-2}$ rad with KHACHATRYAN 2016S.
3  AAIJ 2019Q reports ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.039$ $\pm0.022$ $\pm0.006$ rad. measured using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit K}^{+}}{{\mathit K}^{-}}$ decays.
4  Reports a combination of $0.0435$ $\pm0.0180$ $\pm0.0105$ with AAD 2016AP.
5  AAD 2021AE measured ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.087$ $\pm0.036$ $\pm0.021$ rad. using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays.
6  AAIJ 2021AN measured ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-2{{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $0.00$ $\pm0.28$ $\pm0.07$ rad, using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays with ${{\mathit J / \psi}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit e}^{+}}{{\mathit e}^{-}}$.
7  Reports a combination of $0.0435$ $\pm0.0180$ $\pm0.0105$ with AAD 2014U.
8  AAD 2016AP reports $\phi _{s}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.090$ $\pm0.078$ $\pm0.041$ rad. that was measured using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays.
9  KHACHATRYAN 2016S reports $\phi _{s}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.075$ $\pm0.097$ $\pm0.031$ rad. that was measured using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays.
10  AAIJ 2015I reports $\phi _{s}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.058$ $\pm0.049$ $\pm0.006$ rad. that was measured using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit K}^{+}}{{\mathit K}^{-}}$ decays. It also combines this result with that of AAIJ 2014S and quotes $\phi _{s}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.010$ $\pm0.039$ rad.
11  AAD 2014U reports $\phi _{s}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $0.12$ $\pm0.25$ $\pm0.05$ rad. that was measured using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays.
12  AALTONEN 2012AJ reports $−{{\mathit \pi}}$/2 $<{{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}<-1.51$ or $-0.06<{{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}<$ 0.30, or 1.26 $<{{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}<{{\mathit \pi}}$/2 rad. at 68$\%$ CL. Measured using the time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays.
13  ABAZOV 2012D reports ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.55$ ${}^{+0.38}_{-0.36}$ rad. that was measured using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays. A single error includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties.
14  Reports a combination of $0.0105$ $\pm0.0220$ $\pm0.0050$ with KHACHATRYAN 2016S.
15  SIRUNYAN 2021E measured $\phi _{s}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.021$ $\pm0.044$ $\pm0.010$ rad. using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays.
16  AAIJ 2019Q reports ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.083$ $\pm0.041$ $\pm0.006$ rad. that was measured using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit K}^{+}}{{\mathit K}^{-}}$ decays.
17  AAIJ 2013AR reports ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-2{{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $0.01$ $\pm0.07$ $\pm0.01$ rad. obtained from combined fit to ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit K}^{+}}{{\mathit K}^{-}}$ and ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ data sets. Also reports separate results of ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ = $0.07$ $\pm0.09$ $\pm0.01$ rad. from ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit K}^{+}}{{\mathit K}^{-}}$ decays and ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.14$ ${}^{+0.17}_{-0.16}$ $\pm0.01$ rad. from ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ decays.
18  AAD 2012CV reports $\phi _{s}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $0.22$ $\pm0.41$ $\pm0.10$ rad. that was measured using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays.
19  Reports ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.44$ $\pm0.44$ $\pm0.02$ rad. that was measured using a time-dependent fit to ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit f}_{{{0}}}{(980)}}$ decays.
20  Reports ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $0.15$ $\pm0.18$ $\pm0.06$ rad. that was measured using a time-dependent angular analysis of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays.
21  Reports ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-2$ ${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ = $-0.019$ ${}^{+0.173}_{-0.174}{}^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$ rad. which was measured using a time-dependent fit to ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ decays, with the ${{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ mass within $775 - 1550$ MeV. Searches for, but finds no evidence, for direct $\mathit CP$ violation in ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit \pi}}$ decays.
22  Reports 0.02 $<$ ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}<$ 0.52 or 1.08 $<$ ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}<$ 1.55 rad. at 68$\%$ C.L. confidence regions in the two-dimensional space of ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ and $\Delta {\Gamma}_{{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ from ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays.
23  Reports 0.32 $<$ 2${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}<$ 2.82 rad. at 68$\%$ C.L. and confidence regions in the two-dimensional space of 2${{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$ and $\Delta \Gamma $ from the first measurement of ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays using flavor tagging. The probability of a deviation from SM prediction as large as the level of observed data is 15$\%$.
24  Reports $\phi _{s}$ = $-2$ $\beta _{s}$ and obtains 90$\%$ CL interval $-0.03$ $<$ $\beta _{s}$ $<$ 0.60 rad.
25  The first direct measurement of the $\mathit CP$-violating mixing phase is reported from the time-dependent analysis of flavor untagged ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ decays.
26  Reports ${{\mathit \phi}_{{{s}}}}$ which equals to $-2{{\mathit \beta}_{{{s}}}}$.
27  Combines D0 collaboration measurements of time-dependent angular distributions in ${{\mathit B}_{{{s}}}^{0}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit J / \psi}}{{\mathit \phi}}$ and charge asymmetry in semileptonic decays. There is a 4-fold ambiguity in the solution.
Conservation Laws:
$\mathit CP$ INVARIANCE
References