EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

CERN-PH-EP-2011-214 LHCb-PAPER-2011-021 March 13, 2012

arXiv:1112.3183v3 [hep-ex] 12 Mar 2012

Measurement of the CP -violating phase s 0 in the decay Bs J/

R. Aaij23 , C. Abellan Beteta35,n , B. Adeva36 , M. Adinol42 , C. Adrover6 , A. Aolder48 , Z. Ajaltouni5 , J. Albrecht37 , F. Alessio37 , M. Alexander47 , G. Alkhazov29 , P. Alvarez Cartelle36 , A.A. Alves Jr22 , S. Amato2 , Y. Amhis38 , J. Anderson39 , R.B. Appleby50 , O. Aquines Gutierrez10 , F. Archilli18,37 , L. Arrabito53 , A. Artamonov 34 , M. Artuso52,37 , E. Aslanides6 , G. Auriemma22,m , S. Bachmann11 , J.J. Back44 , D.S. Bailey50 , V. Balagura30,37 , W. Baldini16 , R.J. Barlow50 , C. Barschel37 , S. Barsuk7 , W. Barter43 , A. Bates47 , C. Bauer10 , Th. Bauer23 , A. Bay38 , I. Bediaga1 , S. Belogurov30 , K. Belous34 , I. Belyaev30,37 , E. Ben-Haim8 , M. Benayoun8 , G. Bencivenni18 , S. Benson46 , J. Benton42 , R. Bernet39 , M.-O. Bettler17 , M. van Beuzekom23 , A. Bien11 , S. Bifani12 , T. Bird50 , A. Bizzeti17,h , P.M. Bjrnstad50 , T. Blake37 , F. Blanc38 , C. Blanks49 , J. Blouw11 , S. Blusk52 , A. Bobrov33 , V. Bocci22 , A. Bondar33 , N. Bondar29 , W. Bonivento15 , S. Borghi47,50 , A. Borgia52 , T.J.V. Bowcock48 , C. Bozzi16 , T. Brambach9 , J. van den Brand24 , J. Bressieux38 , D. Brett50 , M. Britsch10 , T. Britton52 , N.H. Brook42 , H. Brown48 , A. B uchler-Germann39 , I. Burducea28 , A. Bursche39 , J. Buytaert37 , S. Cadeddu15 , O. Callot7 , 20,j M. Calvi , M. Calvo Gomez35,n , A. Camboni35 , P. Campana18,37 , A. Carbone14 , G. Carboni21,k , R. Cardinale19,i,37 , A. Cardini15 , L. Carson49 , K. Carvalho Akiba2 , G. Casse48 , M. Cattaneo37 , Ch. Cauet9 , M. Charles51 , Ph. Charpentier37 , N. Chiapolini39 , K. Ciba37 , X. Cid Vidal36 , G. Ciezarek49 , P.E.L. Clarke46,37 , M. Clemencic37 , H.V. Cli43 , J. Closier37 , C. Coca28 , V. Coco23 , J. Cogan6 , P. Collins37 , A. Comerma-Montells35 , F. Constantin28 , A. Contu51 , A. Cook42 , M. Coombes42 , G. Corti37 , G.A. Cowan38 , R. Currie46 , C. DAmbrosio37 , P. David8 , P.N.Y. David23 , I. De Bonis4 , S. De Capua21,k , M. De Cian39 , F. De Lorenzi12 , J.M. De Miranda1 , L. De Paula2 , P. De Simone18 , D. Decamp4 , M. Deckenho9 , H. Degaudenzi38,37 , L. Del Buono8 , C. Deplano15 , D. Derkach14,37 , O. Deschamps5 , F. Dettori24 , J. Dickens43 , H. Dijkstra37 , P. Diniz Batista1 , F. Domingo Bonal35,n , S. Donleavy48 , F. Dordei11 , A. Dosil Su arez36 , D. Dossett44 , A. Dovbnya40 , F. Dupertuis38 , R. Dzhelyadin34 , 25 45 49 A. Dziurda , S. Easo , U. Egede , V. Egorychev30 , S. Eidelman33 , D. van Eijk23 , F. Eisele11 , S. Eisenhardt46 , R. Ekelhof9 , L. Eklund47 , Ch. Elsasser39 , D. Elsby55 , D. Esperante Pereira36 , L. Est` eve43 , A. Falabella16,14,e , 20,j 11 46 23 12 38 E. Fanchini , C. F arber , G. Fardell , C. Farinelli , S. Farry , V. Fave , V. Fernandez Albor36 , 37 M. Ferro-Luzzi , S. Filippov32 , C. Fitzpatrick46 , M. Fontana10 , F. Fontanelli19,i , R. Forty37 , M. Frank37 , C. Frei37 , M. Frosini17,f,37 , S. Furcas20 , A. Gallas Torreira36 , D. Galli14,c , M. Gandelman2 , P. Gandini51 , Y. Gao3 , J-C. Garnier37 , J. Garofoli52 , J. Garra Tico43 , L. Garrido35 , D. Gascon35 , C. Gaspar37 , N. Gauvin38 , M. Gersabeck37 , T. Gershon44,37 , Ph. Ghez4 , V. Gibson43 , V.V. Gligorov37 , C. G obel54 , D. Golubkov30 , 49,30,37 2 51 35 A. Golutvin , A. Gomes , H. Gordon , M. Grabalosa G andara , R. Graciani Diaz35 , 37 35 17 L.A. Granado Cardoso , E. Graug es , G. Graziani , A. Grecu28 , E. Greening51 , S. Gregson43 , B. Gui52 , 32 34 37 E. Gushchin , Yu. Guz , T. Gys , G. Haefeli38 , C. Haen37 , S.C. Haines43 , T. Hampson42 , S. Hansmann-Menzemer11 , R. Harji49 , N. Harnew51 , J. Harrison50 , P.F. Harrison44 , T. Hartmann56 , J. He7 , V. Heijne23 , K. Hennessy48 , P. Henrard5 , J.A. Hernando Morata36 , E. van Herwijnen37 , E. Hicks48 , K. Holubyev11 ,

ii P. Hopchev4 , W. Hulsbergen23 , P. Hunt51 , T. Huse48 , R.S. Huston12 , D. Hutchcroft48 , D. Hynds47 , V. Iakovenko41 , P. Ilten12 , J. Imong42 , R. Jacobsson37 , A. Jaeger11 , M. Jahjah Hussein5 , E. Jans23 , F. Jansen23 , P. Jaton38 , B. Jean-Marie7 , F. Jing3 , M. John51 , D. Johnson51 , C.R. Jones43 , B. Jost37 , M. Kaballo9 , S. Kandybei40 , M. Karacson37 , T.M. Karbach9 , J. Keaveney12 , I.R. Kenyon55 , U. Kerzel37 , T. Ketel24 , A. Keune38 , B. Khanji6 , Y.M. Kim46 , M. Knecht38 , P. Koppenburg23 , A. Kozlinskiy23 , L. Kravchuk32 , K. Kreplin11 , M. Kreps44 , G. Krocker11 , P. Krokovny11 , F. Kruse9 , K. Kruzelecki37 , M. Kucharczyk20,25,37,j , T. Kvaratskheliya30,37 , V.N. La Thi38 , D. Lacarrere37 , G. Laerty50 , A. Lai15 , D. Lambert46 , R.W. Lambert24 , E. Lanciotti37 , G. Lanfranchi18 , C. Langenbruch11 , T. Latham44 , C. Lazzeroni55 , R. Le Gac6 , J. van Leerdam23 , J.-P. Lees4 , R. Lef` evre5 , A. Leat31,37 , J. Lefran cois7 , O. Leroy6 , T. Lesiak25 , L. Li3 , L. Li Gioi5 , M. Lieng9 , M. Liles48 , 37 11 3 R. Lindner , C. Linn , B. Liu , G. Liu37 , J. von Loeben20 , J.H. Lopes2 , E. Lopez Asamar35 , N. Lopez-March38 , H. Lu38,3 , J. Luisier38 , A. Mac Raighne47 , F. Machefert7 , I.V. Machikhiliyan4,30 , F. Maciuc10 , O. Maev29,37 , J. Magnin1 , S. Malde51 , R.M.D. Mamunur37 , G. Manca15,d , G. Mancinelli6 , N. Mangiafave43 , U. Marconi14 , R. M arki38 , J. Marks11 , G. Martellotti22 , A. Martens8 , L. Martin51 , A. Mart n S anchez7 , D. Martinez Santos37 , 1 12 20 29 6 A. Massaerri , Z. Mathe , C. Matteuzzi , M. Matveev , E. Maurice , B. Maynard52 , A. Mazurov16,32,37 , G. McGregor50 , R. McNulty12 , M. Meissner11 , M. Merk23 , J. Merkel9 , R. Messi21,k , S. Miglioranzi37 , D.A. Milanes13,37 , M.-N. Minard4 , J. Molina Rodriguez54 , S. Monteil5 , D. Moran12 , P. Morawski25 , R. Mountain52 , I. Mous23 , F. Muheim46 , K. M uller39 , R. Muresan28,38 , B. Muryn26 , B. Muster38 , M. Musy35 , J. Mylroie-Smith48 , 42 38 P. Naik , T. Nakada , R. Nandakumar45 , I. Nasteva1 , M. Nedos9 , M. Needham46 , N. Neufeld37 , C. Nguyen-Mau38,o , M. Nicol7 , V. Niess5 , N. Nikitin31 , A. Nomerotski51 , A. Novoselov34 , A. Oblakowska-Mucha26 , V. Obraztsov34 , S. Oggero23 , S. Ogilvy47 , O. Okhrimenko41 , R. Oldeman15,d , M. Orlandea28 , J.M. Otalora Goicochea2 , P. Owen49 , K. Pal52 , J. Palacios39 , A. Palano13,b , M. Palutan18 , J. Panman37 , A. Papanestis45 , M. Pappagallo47 , C. Parkes50,37 , C.J. Parkinson49 , G. Passaleva17 , G.D. Patel48 , M. Patel49 , S.K. Paterson49 , G.N. Patrick45 , C. Patrignani19,i , C. Pavel-Nicorescu28 , A. Pazos Alvarez36 , A. Pellegrino23 , G. Penso22,l , M. Pepe Altarelli37 , S. Perazzini14,c , D.L. Perego20,j , E. Perez Trigo36 , A. P erez-Calero Yzquierdo35 , 5 6 20 16,37 19,i 52 P. Perret , M. Perrin-Terrin , G. Pessina , A. Petrella , A. Petrolini , A. Phan , E. Picatoste Olloqui35 , 35 4 44 22 B. Pie Valls , B. Pietrzyk , T. Pila r , D. Pinci , R. Plackett47 , S. Playfer46 , M. Plo Casasus36 , G. Polok25 , 44,33 2 A. Poluektov , E. Polycarpo , D. Popov10 , B. Popovici28 , C. Potterat35 , A. Powell51 , J. Prisciandaro38 , 41 V. Pugatch , A. Puig Navarro35 , W. Qian52 , J.H. Rademacker42 , B. Rakotomiaramanana38 , M.S. Rangel2 , I. Raniuk40 , G. Raven24 , S. Redford51 , M.M. Reid44 , A.C. dos Reis1 , S. Ricciardi45 , K. Rinnert48 , D.A. Roa Romero5 , P. Robbe7 , E. Rodrigues47,50 , F. Rodrigues2 , P. Rodriguez Perez36 , G.J. Rogers43 , S. Roiser37 , V. Romanovsky34 , M. Rosello35,n , J. Rouvinet38 , T. Ruf37 , H. Ruiz35 , G. Sabatino21,k , J.J. Saborido Silva36 , N. Sagidova29 , P. Sail47 , B. Saitta15,d , C. Salzmann39 , M. Sannino19,i , R. Santacesaria22 , C. Santamarina Rios36 , R. Santinelli37 , E. Santovetti21,k , M. Sapunov6 , A. Sarti18,l , C. Satriano22,m , A. Satta21 , M. Savrie16,e , D. Savrina30 , P. Schaack49 , M. Schiller24 , S. Schleich9 , M. Schlupp9 , M. Schmelling10 , B. Schmidt37 , O. Schneider38 , A. Schopper37 , M.-H. Schune7 , R. Schwemmer37 , B. Sciascia18 , A. Sciubba18,l , M. Seco36 , A. Semennikov30 , K. Senderowska26 , I. Sepp49 , N. Serra39 , J. Serrano6 , P. Seyfert11 , M. Shapkin34 , I. Shapoval40,37 , P. Shatalov30 , Y. Shcheglov29 , T. Shears48 , L. Shekhtman33 , O. Shevchenko40 , V. Shevchenko30 , A. Shires49 , R. Silva Coutinho44 , T. Skwarnicki52 , A.C. Smith37 , N.A. Smith48 , E. Smith51,45 , K. Sobczak5 , F.J.P. Soler47 , A. Solomin42 , F. Soomro18 , B. Souza De Paula2 , B. Spaan9 , A. Sparkes46 , P. Spradlin47 , F. Stagni37 , S. Stahl11 , O. Steinkamp39 , S. Stoica28 , S. Stone52,37 , B. Storaci23 , M. Straticiuc28 , U. Straumann39 , V.K. Subbiah37 , S. Swientek9 , M. Szczekowski27 , P. Szczypka38 , T. Szumlak26 , S. TJampens4 , E. Teodorescu28 , F. Teubert37 , C. Thomas51 , E. Thomas37 , J. van Tilburg11 , V. Tisserand4 , M. Tobin39 , S. Topp-Joergensen51 , N. Torr51 , E. Tourneer4,49 , M.T. Tran38 , A. Tsaregorodtsev6 , N. Tuning23 , M. Ubeda Garcia37 , A. Ukleja27 , P. Urquijo52 , U. Uwer11 , V. Vagnoni14 , G. Valenti14 , R. Vazquez Gomez35 , P. Vazquez Regueiro36 , S. Vecchi16 , J.J. Velthuis42 , M. Veltri17,g , B. Viaud7 , I. Videau7 , X. Vilasis-Cardona35,n , J. Visniakov36 , A. Vollhardt39 , D. Volyanskyy10 , D. Voong42 , A. Vorobyev29 , H. Voss10 , S. Wandernoth11 , J. Wang52 , D.R. Ward43 , N.K. Watson55 , A.D. Webber50 , D. Websdale49 , M. Whitehead44 , D. Wiedner11 , L. Wiggers23 , G. Wilkinson51 , M.P. Williams44,45 , M. Williams49 , F.F. Wilson45 , J. Wishahi9 , M. Witek25 , W. Witzeling37 , S.A. Wotton43 , K. Wyllie37 , Y. Xie46 , F. Xing51 , Z. Xing52 , Z. Yang3 , R. Young46 , O. Yushchenko34 , M. Zavertyaev10,a , F. Zhang3 , L. Zhang52 , W.C. Zhang12 , Y. Zhang3 , A. Zhelezov11 , L. Zhong3 , E. Zverev31 , A. Zvyagin37 .
1 Centro

Brasileiro de Pesquisas F sicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 3 Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China 4 LAPP, Universit e de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France 5 Clermont Universit e, Universit e Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France 6 CPPM, Aix-Marseille Universit e, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
2 Universidade

iii
7 LAL,

Universit e Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France Universit e Pierre et Marie Curie, Universit e Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France 9 Fakult at Physik, Technische Universit at Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany 10 Max-Planck-Institut f ur Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany 11 Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universit at Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 12 School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland 13 Sezione INFN di Bari, Bari, Italy 14 Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy 15 Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy 16 Sezione INFN di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy 17 Sezione INFN di Firenze, Firenze, Italy 18 Laboratori Nazionali dellINFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy 19 Sezione INFN di Genova, Genova, Italy 20 Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy 21 Sezione INFN di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy 22 Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy 23 Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 24 Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 25 Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krac ow, Poland 26 AGH University of Science and Technology, Krac ow, Poland 27 Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland 28 Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania 29 Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), Gatchina, Russia 30 Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia 31 Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University (SINP MSU), Moscow, Russia 32 Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INR RAN), Moscow, Russia 33 Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS) and Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia 34 Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia 35 Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain 36 Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain 37 European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland 38 Ecole Polytechnique F ed erale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland 39 Physik-Institut, Universit at Z urich, Z urich, Switzerland 40 NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine 41 Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR), Kyiv, Ukraine 42 H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom 43 Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom 44 Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom 45 STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom 46 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom 47 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom 48 Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom 49 Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom 50 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom 51 Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom 52 Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States 53 CC-IN2P3, CNRS/IN2P3, Lyon-Villeurbanne, France, associated member 54 Pontif cia Universidade Cat olica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, associated to 2 55 University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom 56 Physikalisches Institut, Universit at Rostock, Rostock, Germany, associated to 11
8 LPNHE, a P.N.

Lebedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Science (LPI RAS), Moscow, Russia di Bari, Bari, Italy c Universit` a di Bologna, Bologna, Italy d Universit` a di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy e Universit` a di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy f Universit` a di Firenze, Firenze, Italy g Universit` a di Urbino, Urbino, Italy h Universit` a di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy i Universit` a di Genova, Genova, Italy j Universit` a di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy k Universit` a di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy l Universit` a di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy m Universit` a della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy n LIFAELS, La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain o Hanoi University of Science, Hanoi, Viet Nam
b Universit` a

0 We present a measurement of the time-dependent CP -violating asymmetry in Bs J/ decays, 0 using data collected with the LHCb detector at the LHC. The decay time distribution of Bs J/ 0 is characterized by the decay widths H and L of the heavy and light mass eigenstates of the Bs -B 0 s 0 system and by a CP -violating phase s . In a sample of about 8500 Bs J/ events isolated from 0.37 fb1 of pp collisions at s = 7 TeV we measure s = 0.15 0.18 (stat) 0.06 (syst) rad. We 0 also nd an average Bs decay width s (L + H )/2 = 0.657 0.009 (stat) 0.008 (syst) ps1 and a decay width dierence s L H = 0.123 0.029 (stat) 0.011 (syst) ps1 . Our measurement is insensitive to the transformation (s , s ) ( s , s ).

To be submitted to Physical Review Letters

In the Standard Model (SM) CP violation arises through a single phase in the CKM quark mixing matrix [1]. In neutral B meson decays to a nal state which is accessible to both B and B mesons, the interference between the amplitude for the direct decay and the amplitude for decay after oscillation, leads to a time-dependent CP -violating asymmetry between the decay time distri0 J/ butions of B and B mesons. The decay Bs allows the measurement of such an asymmetry, which can be expressed in terms of the decay width dier0 mass eigenence of the heavy (H) and light (L) Bs states s L H and a single phase s [2]. In = 0.087 the SM, the decay width dierence is SM s 0.021 ps1 [3], while the phase is predicted to be small, SM = 2 arg (Vts Vtb /Vcs Vcb ) = 0.036 0.002 rad [4]. s This value ignores a possible contribution from subleading decay amplitudes [5]. Contributions from physics beyond the SM could lead to much larger values of s [6]. In this Letter we present measurements of s , s and the average decay width s (L + H )/2. Previous measurements of these quantities have been reported by the CDF and D collaborations [7]. We use an integrated luminosity of 0.37 fb1 of pp collision data recorded at a centre-of-mass energy s = 7 TeV by the LHCb experiment during the rst half of 2011. The LHCb detector is a forward spectrometer at the Large Hadron Collider and is described in detail in Ref. [8]. 0 We look for Bs J/ candidates in decays to + J/ and K + K . Events are selected by a trigger system consisting of a hardware trigger, which selects muon or hadron candidates with high transverse momentum with respect to the beam direction (pT ), followed by a two stage software trigger. In the rst stage a simplied event reconstruction is applied. Events are required to either have two well-identied muons with invariant mass above 2.7 GeV, or at least one muon or one high-pT track with a large impact parameter to any primary vertex. In the second stage a full event reconstruction is performed and only events with a muon candidate pair with invariant mass within 120 MeV of the nominal J/ mass [9] are retained. We adopt units such that c = 1 and = 1. For the nal event selection muon candidates are required to have pT > 0.5 GeV. J/ candidates are cre-

ated from pairs of oppositely charged muons that have a common vertex and an invariant mass in the range 3030 3150 MeV. The latter corresponds to about eight times the + invariant mass resolution and covers part of the J/ radiative tail. The selection requires two oppositely charged particles that are identied as kaons, form a common vertex and have an invariant mass within 12 MeV of the nominal mass [9]. The pT of the candidate is required to exceed 1 GeV. The mass window covers approximately 90% of the K + K lineshape. 0 candidates from combinations of a J/ We select Bs and a with invariant mass mB in the range 5200 5550 MeV. The latter is computed with the invariant mass of the + pair constrained to the nominal J/ 0 is obtained from a vermass. The decay time t of the Bs 0 tex t that constrains the Bs + K + K candidate to originate from the primary vertex [10]. The 2 of the t, which has 7 degrees of freedom, is required to be less than 35. In the small fraction of events with more than one candidate, only the candidate with the smallest 2 0 candidates are required to have a decay time is kept. Bs within the range 0.3 < t < 14.0 ps. Applying a lower bound on the decay time suppresses a large fraction of the prompt combinatorial background whilst having a small eect on the sensitivity to s . From a t to the mB distribution, shown in Fig. 1, we extract a signal of 8492 97 events. 0 J/ + K + K decay proceeds via The Bs two intermediate spin-1 particles (i.e. with the K + K pair in a P-wave). The nal state can be CP -even or CP -odd depending upon the relative orbital angular momentum between the J/ and the . The same nal state can also be produced with K + K pairs with zero relative orbital angular momentum (S-wave) [11] . This S-wave nal state is CP -odd. In order to measure s it is necessary to disentangle the CP -even and CP -odd components. This is achieved by analysing the distribution of the reconstructed decay angles = (, , ) in the transversity basis [12, 13]. In the J/ rest frame we dene a right-handed coordinate system such that the x axis is parallel to the direction of the momentum and the z axis is parallel to the cross-product of the K and K + momenta. In this frame and are the azimuthal and polar angles of the + . The angle is the angle

1000

LHCb

data signal background sum

500

0 5300

5350

5400

fraction of the second Gaussian and its width relative to the narrow Gaussian are xed to values obtained from simulated events. The mB distribution for the combinatorial background is described by an exponential function with a slope determined by the t. Possible peaking background from decays with similar nal states such as B 0 J/ K 0 is found to be negligible from studies using simulated events. The distribution of the signal decay time and angles is described by a sum of ten terms, corresponding to the four polarization amplitudes and their interference terms. Each of these is the product of a time-dependent function and an angular function [12]
+

Events / 2 MeV

mB [MeV]
FIG. 1. Invariant mass distribution for K K candidates with the mass of the + pair constrained to the nominal J/ mass. Curves for tted contributions from signal (dashed), background (dotted) and their sum (solid) are overlaid.
0 Bs +

0 d4 (Bs J/ ) dt d

10

hk (t) fk () .
k=1

(1)

The time-dependent functions hk (t) can be written as hk (t) = Nk es t [ck cos(ms t) + dk sin(ms t)

between the K momentum and the J/ momentum in the rest frame of the . We perform an unbinned maximum likelihood t to the invariant mass mB , the decay time t, and the three decay angles . The probability density function (PDF) used in the t consists of signal and background components which include detector resolution and acceptance eects. The PDFs are factorised into separate components for the mass and for the remaining observables. The signal mB distribution is described by two Gaussian functions with a common mean. The mean and width of the narrow Gaussian are t parameters. The

+ak cosh

1 2 s t

+ bk sinh

1 2 s t

. (2)

0 where ms is the Bs oscillation frequency. The coecients Nk and ak , . . . , dk can be expressed in terms of s and four complex transversity amplitudes Ai at t = 0. The label i takes the values {, , 0} for the three Pwave amplitudes and S for the S-wave amplitude. In the t we parameterize each Ai (0) by its magnitude squared |Ai (0)|2 and its phase i , and adopt the convention 0 = 0 0 and |Ai (0)|2 = 1. For a particle produced in a Bs avour eigenstate the coecients in Eq. 2 and the angular functions fk () are then, see [13, 14], given by

k fk (, , ) 2 1 2 cos 1 sin2 cos2 2 sin2 1 sin2 sin2 sin2 sin2 3 4 sin2 sin 2 sin 1 5 2 sin 2 sin2 sin 2 2 1 6 2 2 sin 2 sin 2 cos 2 2 2 7 3 (1 sin cos ) 2 1 8 6 sin sin sin 2 3 1 9 6 sin sin 2 cos 3 4 10 3 3 cos (1 sin2 cos2 )

Nk ak 2 |A0 (0)| 1 |A (0)|2 1 2 |A (0)| 1 |A (0)A (0)| 0 |A0 (0)A (0)| cos( 0 ) |A0 (0)A (0)| 0 2 |AS (0)| 1 |AS (0)A (0)| 0 |AS (0)A (0)| sin( S ) |AS (0)A0 (0)| 0

bk cos s cos s cos s cos( ) sin s cos( 0 ) cos s cos( 0 ) sin s cos s sin( S ) sin s sin( S ) cos s sin(0 S ) sin s

ck 0 0 0 sin( ) 0 sin( 0 ) 0 cos( S ) 0 cos(0 S )

dk sin s sin s sin s cos( ) cos s cos( 0 ) sin s cos( 0 ) cos s sin s sin( S ) cos s sin( S ) sin s sin(0 S ) cos s

We neglect CP violation in mixing and in the decay amplitudes. The dierential decay rates for a B 0 s meson produced at time t = 0 are obtained by changing the sign of s , A (0) and AS (0), or, equivalently, the sign

of ck and dk in the expressions above. The PDF is invariant under the transformation (s , s , , , S ) ( s , s , , , S ) which gives rise to a two-fold ambiguity in the results.

We have veried that correlations between decay time and decay angles in the background are small enough to be ignored. Using the data in the mB sidebands, which we dene as selected events with mB outside the range 5311 5411 MeV, we determine that the background decay time distribution can be modelled by a sum of two exponential functions. The lifetime parameters and the relative fraction are determined by the t. The decay angle distribution is modelled using a histogram obtained from the data in the mB sidebands. The normalisation of the background with respect to the signal is determined by the t. The measurement of s requires knowledge of the 0 avour of the Bs meson at production. We exploit the following avour specic features of the accompanying 0 (non-signal) b-hadron decay to tag the Bs avour: the charge of a muon or an electron with large transverse momentum produced by semileptonic decays, the charge of a kaon from a subsequent charmed hadron decay and the momentum-weighted charge of all tracks included in the inclusively reconstructed decay vertex. These signatures are combined using a neural network to estimate a perevent mistag probability, , which is calibrated with data from control channels [15]. The fraction of tagged events in the signal sample is tag = (24.9 0.5)%. The dilution of the CP asymmetry due to the mistag probability is D = 1 2 . The eective dilution in our signal sample is D = 0.277 0.006 (stat) 0.016 (syst), resulting in an eective tagging eciency of tag D2 = (1.91 0.23)%. The uncertainty in is taken into account by allowing calibration parameters described in Ref. [15] to vary in the t with Gaussian constraints given by their estimated uncertainties. Both tagged and untagged events are used in the t. The untagged events dominate the sensitivity to the lifetimes and amplitudes. To account for the decay time resolution, the PDF is convolved with a sum of three Gaussian functions with a common mean and dierent widths. Studies on simulated data have shown that selected prompt J/ K + K combinations have nearly identical resolution to signal events. Consequently, we determine the parameters of the resolution model from a t to the decay time distribution of such prompt combinations in the data, after subtracting non-J/ events with the sPlot method [16] using the + invariant mass as discriminating variable. The resulting dilution is equivalent to that of a single Gaussian with a width of 50 fs. The uncertainty on the decay time resolution is estimated to be 4% by varying the selection of events and by comparing in the simulation the reso0 lutions obtained for prompt combinations and Bs signal events. This uncertainty is accounted for by scaling the widths of the three Gaussians by a common factor of 1.00 0.04, which is varied in the t subject to a Gaussian constraint. In similar fashion the uncertainty on the mixing frequency is taken into account by varying it within the constraint imposed by the LHCb measurement 3

ms = 17.63 0.11 (stat) 0.02 (syst) ps1 [17]. The decay time distribution is aected by two acceptance eects. First, the eciency decreases approximately linearly with decay time due to ineciencies in the reconstruction of tracks far from the central axis of the detector. This eect is parameterized as (t) (1 t) where the factor = 0.016 ps1 is determined from simulated events. Second, a fraction of approximately 14% of the events has been selected exclusively by a trigger path that exploits large impact parameters of the decay products, leading to a drop in eciency at small decay times. This eect is described by the empirical acceptance function (t) (at)c / [1 + (at)c ], applied only to these events. The parameters a and c are determined in the t. As a result, the events selected with impact parameter cuts do eectively not contribute to the measurement of s . The uncertainty on the reconstructed decay angles is small and is neglected in the t. The decay angle acceptance is determined using simulated events. The deviation from a at acceptance is due to the LHCb forward geometry and selection requirements on the momenta of nal state particles. The acceptance varies by less than 5% over the full range for all three angles. The results of the t for the main observables are shown in Table I. The likelihood prole for is not parabolic and we therefore quote the 68% condence level (CL) range 3.0 < < 3.5. The correlation coecients for the statistical uncertainties are (s , s ) = 0.30, (s , s ) = 0.12 and (s , s ) = 0.08. Figure 2 shows the data distribution for decay time and angles with the projections of the best t PDF overlaid. To assess the overall agreement of the PDF with the data we calculate the goodness of t based on the point-to-point dissimilarity test [18]. The p-value obtained is 0.68. Figure 3 shows the 68%, 90% and 95% CL contours in the s -s plane. These contours are obtained from the likelihood prole after including systematic uncertainties, and correspond to decreases in the natural logarithm of the likelihood, with respect to its maximum, of 1.15, 2.30 and 3.00 respectively.
TABLE I. Fit results for the solution with s > 0 with statistical and systematic uncertainties. parameter s [ps ] s [ps1 ] |A (0)|2 |A0 (0)|2 |AS (0)|2 [rad] S [rad] s [rad]
1

value 0.657 0.123 0.237 0.497 0.042 2.95 2.98 0.15

stat. 0.009 0.029 0.015 0.013 0.015 0.37 0.36 0.18

syst. 0.008 0.011 0.012 0.030 0.018 0.12 0.12 0.06

Events / 0.2 ps

Events / 0.1

103 10
2

LHCb

s [ ps-1 ]

600 400 200 0 -1

LHCb

0.2

LHCb

10 1 2
LHCb

0.1

best fit 68% CL 90% CL 95% CL Standard Model

4 6 8 decay time [ps] Events / 0.31 rad

-0.5
LHCb

0.5 1 cos

Events / 0.1

600 400

600 400 200 0 -1

-0.1

-0.2 0 2

200 0

s [rad]

-0.5

0.5 1 cos

-2

2 [rad]

FIG. 2. Projections for the decay time and transversity angle distributions for events with mB in a 20 MeV range around 0 the Bs mass. The points are the data. The dashed, dotted and solid lines represent the tted contributions from signal, background and their sum. The remaining curves correspond to dierent contributions to the signal, namely the CP -even P-wave (dashed with single dot), the CP -odd P-wave (dashed with double dot) and the S-wave (dashed with triple dot).

FIG. 3. Likelihood condence regions in the s -s plane. The black square and error bar corresponds to the Standard Model prediction [3, 4].

The sensitivity to s stems mainly from its appearance as the amplitude of the sin(ms t) term in Eq. 1, which is diluted by the decay time resolution and mistag probability. Systematic uncertainties from these sources and from the mixing frequency are absorbed in the statistical uncertainties as explained above. Other systematic uncertainties are determined as follows, and added in quadrature to give the values shown in Table I. To test our understanding of the decay angle acceptance we compare the rapidity and momentum distribu0 candidates tions of the kaons and muons of selected Bs in data and simulated events. Only in the kaon momentum distribution do we observe a signicant discrepancy. We reweight the simulated events to match the data, rederive the acceptance corrections and assign the resulting dierence in the t result as a systematic uncertainty. This is the dominant contribution to the systematic uncertainty on all parameters except s . The limited size of the simulated event sample leads to a small additional uncertainty. The systematic uncertainty due to the background decay angle modelling was found to be negligible by comparing with a t where the background was removed statistically using the sPlot method [16]. In the t each |Ai (0)|2 is constrained to be greater than zero, while their sum is constrained to unity. This can result in a bias if one or more of the amplitudes is small. This is the case for the S-wave amplitude, which is compatible with zero within 3.2 standard deviations. The resulting biases on the |Ai (0)|2 have been determined using simulations to be less than 0.010 and are included

as systematic uncertainties. Finally, a systematic uncertainty of 0.008 ps1 was assigned to the measurement of s due to the uncertainty in the decay time acceptance parameter . Other systematic uncertainties, such as those from the momentum scale and length scale of the detector, were found to be negligible. 1 In summary, in a sample of 0.37 fb of pp collisions at s = 7 TeV collected with the LHCb detector we ob0 J/ K + K events with K + K serve 8492 97 Bs invariant mass within 12 MeV of the mass. With these data we perform the most precise measurements 0 of s , s and s in Bs J/ decays, substantially improving upon previous measurements [7] and providing the rst direct evidence for a non-zero value of s . Two solutions with equal likelihood are obtained, related by the transformation (s , s ) ( s , s ). The solution with positive s is s = 0.15 0.18 (stat) 0.06 (syst) rad, s = 0.657 0.009 (stat) 0.008 (syst) ps1 , s = 0.123 0.029 (stat) 0.011 (syst) ps1 , and is in agreement with the Standard Model prediction [3, 4]. Values of s in the range 0.52 < s < 2.62 and 2.93 < s < 0.21 are excluded at 95% condence level. In a future publication we shall dierentiate between the two solutions by exploiting the dependence of the phase dierence between the P-wave and S-wave contributions on the K + K invariant mass [14].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We express our gratitude to our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of 4

the LHC. We thank the technical and administrative sta at CERN and at the LHCb institutes, and acknowledge support from the National Agencies: CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); CERN; NSFC (China); CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, HGF and MPG (Germany); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); FOM and NWO (The Netherlands); SCSR (Poland); ANCS (Romania); MinES of Russia and Rosatom (Russia); MICINN, XuntaGal and GENCAT (Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NAS Ukraine (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); NSF (USA). We also acknowledge the support received from the ERC under FP7 and the Region Auvergne.

[1] M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, CP Violation in the renormalizable theory of weak interaction, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652; N. Cabibbo, Unitary symmetry and leptonic decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 531. [2] A. B. Carter and A. Sanda, CP Violation in cascade decays of B mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 (1980) 952; A. B. Carter and A. Sanda, CP Violation in B meson decays, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 1567; I. I. Bigi and A. Sanda, Notes on the observability of CP violations in B decays, Nucl. Phys. B193 (1981) 85; I. I. Bigi and A. Sanda, CP Violation in heavy avor decays: predictions and search strategies, Nucl. Phys. B281 (1987) 41. 0 [3] A. Lenz and U. Nierste, Theoretical update of Bs -B 0 s mixing, JHEP 06 (2007) 072, arXiv:hep-ph/0612167; A. Badin, F. Gabbiani, and A. A. Petrov, Lifetime difference in Bs mixing: Standard model and beyond, Phys. Lett. B653 (2007) 230, arXiv:0707.0294; A. Lenz and U. Nierste, Numerical updates of lifetimes and mixing parameters of B mesons, arXiv:1102.4274. [4] J. Charles et al., Predictions of selected avour observables within the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 033005, arXiv:1106.4041. [5] S. Faller, R. Fleischer, and T. Mannel, Precision physics 0 with Bs J/ at the LHC: the quest for new physics, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 014005, arXiv:0810.4248. [6] For recent overviews see A. J. Buras, PoS EPS-HEP2009 (2009) 024 [arXiv:0910.1032] and C.-W. Chiang et al., JHEP 1004 (2010) 031 [arXiv:0910.2929] and references therein.

[7] CDF collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., First avor-tagged determination of bounds on mixing-induced CP viola0 tion in Bs J/ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 161802, arXiv:0712.2397; D collaboration, V. Abazov 0 et al., Measurement of Bs mixing parameters from the 0 avor-tagged decay Bs J/, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 241801, arXiv:0802.2255; D Collaboration, V. M. Abazov et al., Measurement of the CP -violating J/ 0 phase s using the avor-tagged decay Bs J/ 1 in 8 fb of pp collisions, arXiv:1109.3166; CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., Measurement of the CP 0 violating phase s in Bs J/ decays with the CDF II detector, arXiv:1112.1726. [8] LHCb collaboration, A. A. Alves et al., The LHCb detector at the LHC, JINST 3 (2008) S08005. [9] Particle Data Group, K. Nakamura et al., Review of particle physics, J. Phys. G37 (2010) 075021. [10] W. D. Hulsbergen, Decay chain tting with a Kalman lter, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A552 (2005) 566, arXiv:physics/0503191. [11] S. Stone and L. Zhang, S-waves and the measurement 0 of CP violating phases in Bs decays, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 074024, arXiv:0812.2832. [12] A. S. Dighe, I. Dunietz, H. J. Lipkin, and J. L. Rosner, Angular distributions and lifetime dierences 0 in Bs J/ decays, Phys. Lett. B369 (1996) 144, arXiv:hep-ph/9511363; A. S. Dighe, I. Dunietz, and R. Fleischer, Extracting CKM phases and 0 Bs -B 0 s mixing parameters from angular distributions of nonleptonic B decays, Eur. Phys. J. C6 (1999) 647, arXiv:hep-ph/9804253. [13] I. Dunietz, R. Fleischer, and U. Nierste, In pursuit of new 0 physics with Bs decays, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 114015, arXiv:hep-ph/0012219. [14] Y. Xie, P. Clarke, G. Cowan, and F. Muheim, Determination of 2s in Bs J/ K + K decays in the presence of a K + K S-Wave contribution, JHEP 09 (2009) 074, arXiv:0908.3627. [15] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Flavour tagging of B mesons at LHCb, LHCb-PAPER-2011-027. In preparation. To be submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C. [16] M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, sPlot: a statistical tool to unfold data distributions, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A555 (2005) 356, arXiv:physics/0402083. [17] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the 0 0 Bs - B0 s oscillation frequency ms in Bs Ds (3) decays, Phys. Lett. B709 (2012) 177, arXiv:1112.4311. [18] M. Williams, How good are your ts? Unbinned multivariate goodness-of- t tests in high energy physics, JINST 5 (2010) P09004, arXiv:1006.3019.