Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Experimental limits on quantum decoherence from $B$ meson systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A combined fit to LHCb mixing and CP asymmetry data finds that the B_d meson decoherence parameter λ_d is nonzero at about 6σ, and the first B_s analysis finds λ_s nonzero at about 3σ.

desk verdict A clear but ultimately unconvincing application: the nonzero decoherence claims likely fold in detector resolution effects that are never modeled. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03136 v1 pith:BHYQXIRF submitted 2025-01-06 hep-ph hep-ex

Ashutosh Kumar Alok , Neetu Raj Singh Chundawat , Jitendra Kumar , Saurabh Rai , S. Uma Sankar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex PACS 03.65.Yz14.40.Nd11.30.Er
keywords quantumdecoherenceneutralBmesonsB_doscillationB_sopensystemsCPasymmetryLHCbdataKrausoperators
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that neutral B mesons lose quantum coherence as they oscillate, and that two independent LHCb datasets already show this loss. Fitting the time-dependent mixing asymmetry and CP asymmetry of B_d mesons together, it finds a decoherence rate λ_d = 0.055 ± 0.009 $ps^{-1}$, nonzero at about 6σ, and a fit to 2013 B_s mixing data gives λ_s = 1.72 ± 0.52 $ps^{-1}$, nonzero at about 3σ. If these results hold, decoherence must be included in all future neutral B meson analyses, and past extractions of Δm_d and sin 2β that assumed perfect coherence are systematically biased. The paper's combined fit approach is the first to use both mixing and CP asymmetry data to isolate the decoherence parameter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the decoherence parameter λ_q, which enters through the Kraus-operator description of open quantum systems. In the two time-dependent asymmetry formulas, it appears as an exponential damping $e^{{-λ_q t}}$ multiplying both cos(Δm_q t) and sin(Δm_q t) terms. This factor is what lets a combined fit to the mixing and CP asymmetry data separate λ_q from the oscillation frequency Δm_q and the CP-violating parameters; the same machinery is applied to the B_s system with a nonzero ΔΓ_s held at its world average.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same LHCb datasets with an explicit per-event decay-time resolution and tagging-dilution model, allowing the resolution parameters and λ_q to float together; if λ_d and λ_s then become consistent with zero, the central claims are refuted. A direct independent measurement from Belle II or LHCb Run 3 that models resolution and finds λ_d = 0 would also falsify.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the time evolution of neutral B mesons carries a decoherence factor $e^{{-λ_q t}}$ multiplying the oscillation terms, and that existing data are already sensitive to it. For the B_d system, a combined $χ^{2}$ fit to LHCb mixing asymmetry data and the CP asymmetry in $B^{0}$_d → $ψK^{0}$_S yields λ_d = 0.055 ± 0.009 $ps^{-1}$, inconsistent with zero at about 6σ; including decoherence shifts Δm_d from 0.494 ± 0.007 $ps^{-1}$ to 0.469 ± 0.005 $ps^{-1}$ and shifts the mixing-induced CP asymmetry by nearly 4σ. For the B_s system, using LHCb 2013 semileptonic mixing data, the fit yields λ_s = 1.72 ± 0.52 $ps^{-1}$, nonzero at more than 3σ, with Δm_s = 18.85 ± 0.33 $ps^{-1}$. The paper concludes that decoherence is measurably present in both neutral B systems and that ignoring it distorts the extracted values of Δm_q, sin 2β, and the CP parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The fits attribute all damping seen in the measured time-dependent asymmetries to the intrinsic decoherence parameter λ_q, without explicitly modeling the experiments' decay-time resolution or tagging dilution, and the paper itself notes that the B_s oscillations were observed to gradually diminish, an effect likely due to poor decay time resolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future extractions of Δm_d, sin 2β, and the B_s mixing parameters must incorporate decoherence or inherit the biases quantified here.
  • The fitted values of Δm_d and the mixing-induced CP asymmetry shift by up to 4σ once decoherence is included, so past precision determinations of these quantities should be re-examined.
  • The B_s result, if confirmed with newer LHCb data, implies the fast B_s oscillations are strongly damped, with λ_s much larger than λ_d.
  • The same combined-fit strategy can be applied to other neutral meson systems (K and D) to search for or bound environmental decoherence.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A null test would be to compare the fitted λ_s against an independent measurement of the B_s oscillation amplitude's decay, since LHCb attributed the 2013 damping to resolution; if λ_s tracks the resolution exactly, it is likely an experimental artifact.
  • The 6σ significance of λ_d comes from the combined fit that includes CP asymmetry data; a fit using only the mixing asymmetry might give a weaker significance, but the paper does not show that decomposition.
  • If confirmed, the large λ_s compared to λ_d would suggest that environmental decoherence scales strongly with oscillation frequency, which could help discriminate among quantum-gravity-inspired decoherence models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies quantum decoherence in neutral B meson systems, showing that the time-dependent mixing asymmetry and CP asymmetry acquire an exponential damping factor e^{-λq t} when decoherence is present. Using published LHCb asymmetry data for the Bd meson (mixing asymmetry and CP asymmetry) and for the Bs meson (mixing asymmetry), the authors perform χ² fits and report λ_d = 0.055 ± 0.009 ps⁻¹ (≈6σ) and λ_s = 1.72 ± 0.52 ps⁻¹ (≈3σ). They conclude that decoherence must be included in future neutral B meson analyses.

Significance. If the results were correct, the Bd signal would be the first experimental evidence for decoherence in neutral meson systems, with implications for open quantum system phenomenology and for the extraction of CKM parameters. The paper derives the decoherence-modified asymmetry formulas clearly and provides a useful reference framework. However, the central experimental claims are not supported because the fits ignore detector resolution and tagging dilution—effects that can mimic the proposed decoherence term. The Bs analysis even attributes the damping it later fits as λ_s to poor decay-time resolution. The paper is therefore a valuable phenomenological study but does not, in its current form, establish nonzero decoherence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 'Estimation of decoherence parameter from Bd system' and 'Estimation of decoherence parameter from Bs…] The fitted model in Eq. (2) and Eq. (6) does not include decay-time resolution or tagging dilution. The measured asymmetry is attenuated by a tagging dilution factor (1−2ω) and by a resolution-induced suppression of the oscillation amplitude, approximately exp(−Δm_q² σ_t²/2). Over a finite time range, a constant amplitude suppression can be absorbed by a positive λ_q because the exponential factor is anchored to unity at t=0. The paper itself states in the Bs section that the oscillations 'were observed to gradually diminish, an effect likely due to poor decay time resolution,' and then fits the same diminution as λ_s. Without a detector response model, the reported nonzero λ_d and λ_s are not uniquely attributable to intrinsic decoherence.
  2. [Section 'Estimation of decoherence parameter from Bd system'; Table I] The Bd analysis uses only the four best-tagging datasets out of the sixteen reported in Ref. [38], with no justification for this selection. The data points are extracted with WebPlotDigitizer, and no estimate is provided for the systematic uncertainty from digitization. The quoted 6σ significance therefore depends on an arbitrary data subset and an unvalidated extraction procedure; including all tagging categories or accounting for digitization errors could substantially change λ_d.
  3. [Section 'Estimation of decoherence parameter from Bs system'] The Bs analysis employs a data cutoff chosen 'where reasonable accuracy can be achieved using our data extraction tools' and a vaguely defined 5% inflation of statistical uncertainties. These choices are ad hoc and can bias the fitted λ_s. Moreover, the more precise 2022 LHCb measurement of Δm_s [26] is excluded only because the data are plotted versus t modulo 2π/Δm_s, so the claimed 3σ constraint rests on the least precise available data and an old measurement with known resolution problems.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The reference numbers in the 'Values from LHCb' column appear to be swapped: the Δm_d value is quoted with Ref. [39] (the CP asymmetry paper) and the CP asymmetries with Ref. [38] (the mixing paper); please correct these citations.
  2. [Section 'Estimation of decoherence parameter from Bd system'] The sentence 'When direct CP-asymmetry is neglected i.e., Adir, fCP CP is set to zero in the fit, the resulting values of remaining parameters are similar to the λd ≠ 0 case' is ambiguous; please specify which fit configuration is being compared.
  3. [General presentation] The paper would be much easier to evaluate if a figure showing the Bd mixing and CP asymmetry data together with the fitted curves were included, analogous to Fig. 1 for the Bs system.
  4. [Section 'Estimation of decoherence parameter from Bs system'] The 5% variation in statistical uncertainties is not defined; indicate whether it is a common rescaling, an added systematic in quadrature, or a point-by-point inflation.
  5. [Introduction and Eq. (2)] The paper does not state whether the published mixing asymmetry points from Ref. [38] are already corrected for tagging dilution or represent raw asymmetries; this distinction is essential for comparing Eq. (2) with the data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: λ_d and λ_s are fit parameters from external LHCb data, not outputs of a self-referential chain; the B_s result carries an unmodeled experimental-resolution confound that the paper itself flags, but that is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities λ_d and λ_s are obtained by χ² fits to published LHCb mixing-asymmetry and CP-asymmetry data (Refs. [38], [39], and [23]) after hand-digitizing the published points with WebPlotDigitizer. The model functions, Eq. (2) and Eq. (6), come from the open-quantum-systems formalism and from the authors' earlier Refs. [18,19]. Citing one's own earlier formalism is self-citation, but the empirical input is external to this paper, so the fit is not equivalent by construction to its own output. No quantity is simultaneously used as input and then claimed as a prediction. The only passage that deserves explicit flagging is the B_s section: the paper quotes LHCb's observation that the B_s oscillations 'were observed to gradually diminish, an effect likely due to poor decay time resolution,' and then fits the same exponential damping as λ_s = 1.72 ± 0.52 ps⁻¹ without convolving a decay-time resolution model. This is a physical degeneracy — Gaussian resolution smearing damps cos(Δm_s t) by an envelope roughly exp(−Δm_s²σ_t²/2), which is hard to distinguish from e^{−λ_s t} over the fitted time range — so it weakens the central 3σ B_s claim. However, this is a robustness/validity concern, not a circularity in the derivation: the fit parameter is not defined from the claim, and no external benchmark is inverted. The 6σ B_d claim is less affected by the resolution degeneracy at the quoted Δm_d, though the same omission of explicit tagging dilution and resolution modeling applies there too. Overall, the paper does not reduce to its inputs; it is a data-fit with a stated, self-identified confound. Score 2 rather than 0 because the central B_s result rests on the authors' own formalism and on a quoted experimental explanation that is not modeled, but neither element constitutes a definitional circle.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central fit introduces two decoherence parameters (lambda_d, lambda_s) plus four physical or nuisance parameters fitted to the same data, and an ad hoc 5% uncertainty inflation. The main modeling axioms are the exponential decoherence form and the neglect of detector resolution, the latter being the fragile premise for the claimed nonzero signals. No new particles or forces are proposed; the only invented entity is the empirical nonzero decoherence effect itself, with no evidence outside the fit.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda_d (Bd decoherence parameter) = 0.055 +/- 0.009 ps^-1
    Central fitted quantity from a simultaneous chi-square fit to LHCb Bd mixing and CP asymmetry data; its nonzero value is the main claim.
  • lambda_s (Bs decoherence parameter) = 1.72 +/- 0.52
    Fitted to LHCb 2013 semileptonic Bs mixing asymmetry data; claims 3 sigma non-zero.
  • Delta m_d (Bd oscillation frequency) = 0.469 +/- 0.005 ps^-1 (decoherence fit)
    Fitted simultaneously with lambda_d; shifts by about 4 sigma when decoherence is included, which drives part of the significance.
  • Delta m_s (Bs oscillation frequency) = 18.85 +/- 0.33 ps^-1 (decoherence fit)
    Fitted simultaneously with lambda_s; differs from the world average by about 2-3 sigma, suggesting possible fit distortion.
  • Adir_CP (direct CP asymmetry) = -0.005 +/- 0.021
    Nuisance parameter in the CP asymmetry fit.
  • Amix_CP (mixing-induced CP asymmetry) = 0.836 +/- 0.038
    Nuisance parameter that shifts by about 4 sigma when lambda_d is included.
  • Error inflation factor (5% variation in statistical uncertainties) = 5%
    Ad hoc adjustment to statistical uncertainties for the Bs data to account for digitization precision; its size affects the reported confidence levels.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The environment-induced decoherence of neutral B mesons has the single-exponential form e^{-lambda_q t} multiplying both cos(Delta m t) and sin(Delta m t) terms in the asymmetries.
    Adopted from Refs. [18,19] by the same group; no microscopic derivation of this specific form is given.
  • domain assumption CP violation in mixing is negligible (|q/p| = 1) for Bd and Bs in the fitted expressions.
    Standard approximation, but it constrains the parameterization used in Eq. (2) and Eq. (6).
  • domain assumption Delta Gamma_d = 0 for the Bd system.
    Standard since Delta Gamma_d is tiny, but it removes a term that could partially absorb the fitted damping.
  • ad hoc to paper Detector decay-time resolution and tagging dilution do not need to be modeled because the extracted published asymmetry points are used as measured.
    This is the load-bearing premise: the fit assigns all damping to lambda_q. The paper states the Bs oscillations diminish 'likely due to poor decay time resolution' but does not include a resolution baseline.
invented entities (1)
  • Nonzero decoherence parameter lambda_q in B meson evolution
    purpose: To absorb the residual damping in the measured time-dependent mixing and CP asymmetries beyond the standard oscillatory terms.
    The nonzero value is inferred from the same data being fit; no independent prediction, such as a specific energy or channel dependence, is made.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental limits on quantum decoherence from $B$ meson systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BHYQXIRF

@misc{pith2026250103136,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental limits on quantum decoherence from $B$ meson systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BHYQXIRF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03136}
}
abstract

Neutral $B$-meson systems serve as critical tests of the Standard Model and play a key role in limiting its extensions. While these systems are typically studied under the assumption of perfect quantum coherence, interactions with the environment can lead to decoherence. Such decoherence effects can obscure the measured values of key parameters such as the oscillation frequency $ \Delta m $ and $CP$-violating parameter $ \sin 2\beta $. Using the experimental data, we present the first combined analysis of mixing asymmetry and $CP$-asymmetry measurements for $ B_d $-mesons, which indicates that $ \lambda_d $ is non-zero at approximately $ 6 \,\sigma $. We also establish the first experimental constraints on the decoherence parameter $ \lambda_s $ for $ B_s $-mesons, finding it to be non-zero at $ 3 \,\sigma $.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03136 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Time-dependent mixing asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    A precise measurement of the B0 meson oscillation frequency,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “A precise measurement of the B0 meson oscillation frequency,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no.7, 412 (2016) [arXiv:1604.03475 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [26]

    Precise determination of the B0 s –B 0 s oscillation frequency,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Precise determination of the B0 s –B 0 s oscillation frequency,” Nature Phys. 18, no.1, 1-5 (2022) [arXiv:2104.04421 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    Quan- tum Gravitational Bubbles

    S. W. Hawking, D. N. Page and C. N. Pope, “Quan- tum Gravitational Bubbles” , Nucl. Phys. B 170, 283-306 (1980)

    work page 1980

  4. [2]

    Dhar, Current Science 81, 1598 (2001)

    A. Dhar, Current Science 81, 1598 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [3]

    CPT violation and decoherence in quantum gravity

    N. E. Mavromatos, “CPT violation and decoherence in quantum gravity”, Lect. Notes Phys. 669, 245-320 (2005) [arXiv:gr-qc/0407005 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2005

  6. [4]

    Loss of coherence from discrete quantum gravity

    R. Gambini, R. A. Porto and J. Pullin,‘Decoherence from discrete quantum gravity” , Class. Quant. Grav. 21, L51- L57 (2004) [arXiv:gr-qc/0305098 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  7. [5]

    On the Generators of Quantum Dynamical Semigroups

    G. Lindblad, “On the Generators of Quantum Dynamical Semigroups”, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976)

    work page 1976

  8. [6]

    Completely Positive Dynamical Semigroups of N Level Systems

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski and E. C. G. Sudarshan, “Completely Positive Dynamical Semigroups of N Level Systems”, J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976)

    work page 1976

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Properties of Quantum Markovian Master Equations

    V. Gorini, A. Frigerio, M. Verri, A. Kossakowski and E. C. G. Sudarshan, “Properties of Quantum Markovian Master Equations” , Rept. Math. Phys. 13, 149 (1978)

    1978

  2. [8]

    Stochastic dynamics of quantum-mechanical systems

    P. M. Matthews, J. Rau and G. Sudarshan, “Stochastic dynamics of quantum-mechanical systems” , Phys. Rev. 121, 920-924 (1961)

    1961

  3. [9]

    Kraus, States, Effects and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory (Springer Verlag 1983)

    K. Kraus, States, Effects and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory (Springer Verlag 1983)

    1983

  4. [10]

    Quantum Dynamical Semi- groups and Applications

    R. Alicki and K. Lendi, “Quantum Dynamical Semi- groups and Applications” Lect. Notes Phys. 717 (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg 2007)

    2007

  5. [11]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press 2002)

    2002

  6. [12]

    An open quantum system approach to the evolution of entanglement in K0 anti-K0 systems

    P. Caban, J. Rembielinski, K. A. Smolinski and Z. Wal- czak, “An open quantum system approach to the evolution of entanglement in K0 anti-K0 systems” , Phys. Lett. A 363 (2007) 389

    2007

  7. [13]

    Unstable particles as open quantum sys- tems

    P. Caban, J. Rembielinski, K. A. Smolinski and Z. Walczak, “Unstable particles as open quantum sys- tems”, Phys. Rev. A 72, 032106 (2005) [arXiv:quant- ph/0506183 [quant-ph]]

    2005

  8. [14]

    Multipartite entangled states in particle mixing

    M. Blasone, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, M. Di Mauro and F. Illuminati, “Multipartite entangled states in particle mixing” , Phys. Rev. D 77, 096002 (2008) [arXiv:0711.2268 [quant-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Quantum correlations in B and K meson systems

    S. Banerjee, A. K. Alok and R. MacKenzie, “Quantum correlations in B and K meson systems” , Eur. Phys. J. Plus 131, no.5, 129 (2016) [arXiv:1409.1034 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Study of tem- poral quantum correlations in decohering B and K me- son systems

    J. Naikoo, A. K. Alok and S. Banerjee, “Study of tem- poral quantum correlations in decohering B and K me- son systems” , Phys. Rev. D 97, no.5, 053008 (2018) [arXiv:1802.04265 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Study of coherence and mixedness in meson and neu- trino systems

    K. Dixit, J. Naikoo, S. Banerjee and A. K. Alok, “Study of coherence and mixedness in meson and neu- trino systems” , Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.2, 96 (2019) [arXiv:1809.09947 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Re- examining sin2 β and ∆md from evolution of B0 d mesons with decoherence,

    A. K. Alok, S. Banerjee and S. Uma Sankar, “ Re- examining sin2 β and ∆md from evolution of B0 d mesons with decoherence, ” Phys. Lett. B 749, 94-97 (2015) [arXiv:1504.02893 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Probing quantum decoherence at Belle II and LHCb,

    A. K. Alok, S. Banerjee, N. R. S. Chundawat and S. U. Sankar, “ Probing quantum decoherence at Belle II and LHCb, ” JHEP 05, 124 (2024) [arXiv:2402.02470 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Averages of b-hadron, c- hadron, and τ -lepton properties as of 2021,

    Y. S. Amhis et al. [HFLA V], “Averages of b-hadron, c- hadron, and τ -lepton properties as of 2021, ” Phys. Rev. D 107, no.5, 052008 (2023) [arXiv:2206.07501 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Measurement of the B0 s − ¯B0 s os- cillation frequency ∆ms in B0 s → D− s (3)π decays,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Measurement of the B0 s − ¯B0 s os- cillation frequency ∆ms in B0 s → D− s (3)π decays,” Phys. Lett. B 709, 177-184 (2012) [arXiv:1112.4311 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Precision measurement of the B0 s - ¯B0 s oscillation frequency with the decay B0 s → D− s π+,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Precision measurement of the B0 s - ¯B0 s oscillation frequency with the decay B0 s → D− s π+,” New J. Phys. 15, 053021 (2013) [arXiv:1304.4741 [hep- ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Observation of B0 s - ¯B0 s mixing and measurement of mixing frequencies using semilep- tonic B decays,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Observation of B0 s - ¯B0 s mixing and measurement of mixing frequencies using semilep- tonic B decays,” Eur. Phys. J. C 73, no.12, 2655 (2013) [arXiv:1308.1302 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Precision measurement of CP violation in B0 s → J/ψK +K − decays,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Precision measurement of CP violation in B0 s → J/ψK +K − decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, no.4, 041801 (2015) [arXiv:1411.3104 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Measurement of the CKM angle 6 γ and B0 s - ¯B0 s mixing frequency with B0 s → D∓ s h±π±π∓ decays,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Measurement of the CKM angle 6 γ and B0 s - ¯B0 s mixing frequency with B0 s → D∓ s h±π±π∓ decays,” JHEP 03, 137 (2021) [arXiv:2011.12041 [hep- ex]]

    2021

  20. [27]

    Improved Measurement of CP Violation Parameters in Bs0 →J/ψK+K- Decays in the Vicinity of the ϕ(1020) Resonance,

    I. Bezshyiko et al. [LHCb], “Improved Measurement of CP Violation Parameters in Bs0 →J/ψK+K- Decays in the Vicinity of the ϕ(1020) Resonance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.5, 051802 (2024) [arXiv:2308.01468 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  21. [28]

    Measurement of the CP -violating phase ϕs in the B 0 s → J/ψ ϕ(1020) → µ+µ−K+K− channel in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], “Measurement of the CP -violating phase ϕs in the B 0 s → J/ψ ϕ(1020) → µ+µ−K+K− channel in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 816, 136188 (2021) [arXiv:2007.02434 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Review of par- ticle physics,

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of par- ticle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  23. [30]

    Measurement of B0−B 0 flavor oscillations in hadronic B0 decays,

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], “Measurement of B0−B 0 flavor oscillations in hadronic B0 decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 221802 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ex/0112044 [hep-ex]]

    2002 arXiv

  24. [31]

    A study of time dependent CP- violating asymmetries and flavor oscillations in neutral B decays at the Υ(4S),

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], “A study of time dependent CP- violating asymmetries and flavor oscillations in neutral B decays at the Υ(4S),” Phys. Rev. D 66, 032003 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ex/0201020 [hep-ex]]

    2002 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Measurement of the B0 − B 0 oscillation frequency with inclusive dilepton events,

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], “Measurement of the B0 − B 0 oscillation frequency with inclusive dilepton events,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 221803 (2002) [arXiv:hep- ex/0112045 [hep-ex]]

    2002

  26. [33]

    Simultaneous measurement of the B0 meson lifetime and mixing frequency with B0 → D∗−ℓ+νℓ decays,

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], “Simultaneous measurement of the B0 meson lifetime and mixing frequency with B0 → D∗−ℓ+νℓ decays,” Phys. Rev. D 67, 072002 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0212017 [hep-ex]]

    2003 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Measurement of the B 0 life- time and the B0B 0 oscillation frequency using partially reconstructed B 0 → D∗+ℓ− ¯νℓ decays,

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], “Measurement of the B 0 life- time and the B0B 0 oscillation frequency using partially reconstructed B 0 → D∗+ℓ− ¯νℓ decays,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 012004 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ex/0507054 [hep-ex]]

    2006 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Measurement of the B0 − B 0 mixing rate with B0(B 0 ) —> D∗∓π± partial recon- struction,

    Y. Zheng et al. [Belle], “Measurement of the B0 − B 0 mixing rate with B0(B 0 ) —> D∗∓π± partial recon- struction,” Phys. Rev. D 67, 092004 (2003) [arXiv:hep- ex/0211065 [hep-ex]]

    2003

  29. [36]

    Studies of B0 − B 0 mixing properties with inclusive dilepton events,

    N. C. Hastings et al. [Belle], “Studies of B0 − B 0 mixing properties with inclusive dilepton events,” Phys. Rev. D 67, 052004 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0212033 [hep-ex]]

    2003 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Improved measurement of CP- violation parameters sin 2 ϕ1 and |λ|, B meson lifetimes, and B0 − B 0 mixing parameter ∆md,

    K. Abe et al. [Belle], “Improved measurement of CP- violation parameters sin 2 ϕ1 and |λ|, B meson lifetimes, and B0 − B 0 mixing parameter ∆md,” Phys. Rev. D 71, 072003 (2005) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 71, 079903 (2005)] [arXiv:hep-ex/0408111 [hep-ex]]

    2005 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Measurement of CP Violation in B0→ψ(→ℓ+ℓ−)K0 S(→π+π−) Decays,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Measurement of CP Violation in B0→ψ(→ℓ+ℓ−)K0 S(→π+π−) Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.2, 021801 (2024) [arXiv:2309.09728 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  32. [40]

    Rohatgi, A. (2021). WebPlotDigitizer (Version 5.2). Re- trieved from https://automeris.io

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.