Measurement of the direct CP-violating parameter \bm{A_{\text{CP}}} in the decay \bm{D^{+}\to K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{+}}

Measurement of the direct CP-violating parameter in the decay

V.M. Abazov Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia    B. Abbott University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA    B.S. Acharya Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India    M. Adams University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA    T. Adams Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA    J.P. Agnew The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    G.D. Alexeev Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia    G. Alkhazov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia    A. Alton University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA    A. Askew Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA    S. Atkins Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana 71272, USA    K. Augsten Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic    C. Avila Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia    F. Badaud LPC, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, Clermont, France    L. Bagby Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    B. Baldin Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    D.V. Bandurin University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, USA    S. Banerjee Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India    E. Barberis Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA    P. Baringer University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA    J.F. Bartlett Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    U. Bassler CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    V. Bazterra University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA    A. Bean University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA    M. Begalli Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil    L. Bellantoni Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    S.B. Beri Panjab University, Chandigarh, India    G. Bernardi LPNHE, Universités Paris VI and VII, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France    R. Bernhard Physikalisches Institut, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany    I. Bertram Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, United Kingdom    M. Besançon CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    R. Beuselinck Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom    P.C. Bhat Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    S. Bhatia University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA    V. Bhatnagar Panjab University, Chandigarh, India    G. Blazey Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA    S. Blessing Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA    K. Bloom University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA    A. Boehnlein Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    D. Boline State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA    E.E. Boos Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia    G. Borissov Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, United Kingdom    M. Borysova Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kiev, Ukraine    A. Brandt University of Texas, Arlington, Texas 76019, USA    O. Brandt II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany    R. Brock Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA    A. Bross Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    D. Brown LPNHE, Universités Paris VI and VII, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France    X.B. Bu Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    M. Buehler Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    V. Buescher Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany    V. Bunichev Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia    S. Burdin Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, United Kingdom    C.P. Buszello Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden    E. Camacho-Pérez CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico    B.C.K. Casey Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    H. Castilla-Valdez CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico    S. Caughron Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA    S. Chakrabarti State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA    K.M. Chan University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA    A. Chandra Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA    E. Chapon CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    G. Chen University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA    S.W. Cho Korea Detector Laboratory, Korea University, Seoul, Korea    S. Choi Korea Detector Laboratory, Korea University, Seoul, Korea    B. Choudhary Delhi University, Delhi, India    S. Cihangir Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    D. Claes University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA    J. Clutter University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA    M. Cooke Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    W.E. Cooper Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    M. Corcoran Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA    F. Couderc CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    M.-C. Cousinou CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France    D. Cutts Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA    A. Das University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA    G. Davies Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom    S.J. de Jong Nikhef, Science Park, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands    E. De La Cruz-Burelo CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico    F. Déliot CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    R. Demina University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA    D. Denisov Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    S.P. Denisov Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia    S. Desai Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    C. Deterre II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany    K. DeVaughan University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA    H.T. Diehl Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    M. Diesburg Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    P.F. Ding The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    A. Dominguez University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA    A. Dubey Delhi University, Delhi, India    L.V. Dudko Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia    A. Duperrin CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France    S. Dutt Panjab University, Chandigarh, India    M. Eads Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA    D. Edmunds Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA    J. Ellison University of California Riverside, Riverside, California 92521, USA    V.D. Elvira Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    Y. Enari LPNHE, Universités Paris VI and VII, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France    H. Evans Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA    V.N. Evdokimov Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia    A. Fauré CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    L. Feng Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA    T. Ferbel University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA    F. Fiedler Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany    F. Filthaut Nikhef, Science Park, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands    W. Fisher Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA    H.E. Fisk Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    M. Fortner Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA    H. Fox Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, United Kingdom    S. Fuess Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    P.H. Garbincius Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    A. Garcia-Bellido University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA    J.A. García-González CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico    V. Gavrilov Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia    W. Geng CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA    C.E. Gerber University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA    Y. Gershtein Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855, USA    G. Ginther Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA    O. Gogota Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kiev, Ukraine    G. Golovanov Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia    P.D. Grannis State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA    S. Greder IPHC, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS/IN2P3, Strasbourg, France    H. Greenlee Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    G. Grenier IPNL, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France and Université de Lyon, Lyon, France    Ph. Gris LPC, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, Clermont, France    J.-F. Grivaz LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France    A. Grohsjean CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    S. Grünendahl Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    M.W. Grünewald University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland    T. Guillemin LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France    G. Gutierrez Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    P. Gutierrez University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA    J. Haley Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA    L. Han University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, People’s Republic of China    K. Harder The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    A. Harel University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA    J.M. Hauptman Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA    J. Hays Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom    T. Head The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    T. Hebbeker III. Physikalisches Institut A, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany    D. Hedin Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA    H. Hegab Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA    A.P. Heinson University of California Riverside, Riverside, California 92521, USA    U. Heintz Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA    C. Hensel LAFEX, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil    I. Heredia-De La Cruz CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico    K. Herner Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    G. Hesketh The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    M.D. Hildreth University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA    R. Hirosky University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, USA    T. Hoang Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA    J.D. Hobbs State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA    B. Hoeneisen Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador    J. Hogan Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA    M. Hohlfeld Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany    J.L. Holzbauer University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA    I. Howley University of Texas, Arlington, Texas 76019, USA    Z. Hubacek Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    V. Hynek Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic    I. Iashvili State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260, USA    Y. Ilchenko Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA    R. Illingworth Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    A.S. Ito Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    S. Jabeen Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    M. Jaffré LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France    A. Jayasinghe University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA    M.S. Jeong Korea Detector Laboratory, Korea University, Seoul, Korea    R. Jesik Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom    P. Jiang University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, People’s Republic of China    K. Johns University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA    E. Johnson Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA    M. Johnson Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    A. Jonckheere Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    P. Jonsson Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom    J. Joshi University of California Riverside, Riverside, California 92521, USA    A.W. Jung Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    A. Juste Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA) and Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), Barcelona, Spain    E. Kajfasz CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France    D. Karmanov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia    I. Katsanos University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA    M. Kaur Panjab University, Chandigarh, India    R. Kehoe Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA    S. Kermiche CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France    N. Khalatyan Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    A. Khanov Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA    A. Kharchilava State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260, USA    Y.N. Kharzheev Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia    I. Kiselevich Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia    J.M. Kohli Panjab University, Chandigarh, India    A.V. Kozelov Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia    J. Kraus University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA    A. Kumar State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260, USA    A. Kupco Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic    T. Kurča IPNL, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France and Université de Lyon, Lyon, France    V.A. Kuzmin Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia    S. Lammers Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA    P. Lebrun IPNL, Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France and Université de Lyon, Lyon, France    H.S. Lee Korea Detector Laboratory, Korea University, Seoul, Korea    S.W. Lee Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA    W.M. Lee Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    X. Lei University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA    J. Lellouch LPNHE, Universités Paris VI and VII, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France    D. Li LPNHE, Universités Paris VI and VII, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France    H. Li University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, USA    L. Li University of California Riverside, Riverside, California 92521, USA    Q.Z. Li Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    J.K. Lim Korea Detector Laboratory, Korea University, Seoul, Korea    D. Lincoln Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    J. Linnemann Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA    V.V. Lipaev Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia    R. Lipton Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    H. Liu Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA    Y. Liu University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, People’s Republic of China    A. Lobodenko Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia    M. Lokajicek Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic    R. Lopes de Sa Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    R. Luna-Garcia CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico    A.L. Lyon Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    A.K.A. Maciel LAFEX, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil    R. Madar Physikalisches Institut, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany    R. Magaña-Villalba CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico    S. Malik University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA    V.L. Malyshev Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia    J. Mansour II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany    J. Martínez-Ortega CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico    R. McCarthy State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA    C.L. McGivern The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    M.M. Meijer Nikhef, Science Park, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands    A. Melnitchouk Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    D. Menezes Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA    P.G. Mercadante Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo André, Brazil    M. Merkin Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia    A. Meyer III. Physikalisches Institut A, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany    J. Meyer II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany    F. Miconi IPHC, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS/IN2P3, Strasbourg, France    N.K. Mondal Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India    M. Mulhearn University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, USA    E. Nagy CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France    M. Narain Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA    R. Nayyar University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA    H.A. Neal University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA    J.P. Negret Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia    P. Neustroev Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia    H.T. Nguyen University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, USA    T. Nunnemann Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany    J. Orduna Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA    N. Osman CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France    J. Osta University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA    A. Pal University of Texas, Arlington, Texas 76019, USA    N. Parashar Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana 46323, USA    V. Parihar Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA    S.K. Park Korea Detector Laboratory, Korea University, Seoul, Korea    R. Partridge Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA    N. Parua Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA    A. Patwa Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA    B. Penning Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    M. Perfilov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia    Y. Peters The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    K. Petridis The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    G. Petrillo University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA    P. Pétroff LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France    M.-A. Pleier Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA    V.M. Podstavkov Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    A.V. Popov Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia    M. Prewitt Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA    D. Price The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    N. Prokopenko Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia    J. Qian University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA    A. Quadt II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany    B. Quinn University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA    P.N. Ratoff Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, United Kingdom    I. Razumov Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia    I. Ripp-Baudot IPHC, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS/IN2P3, Strasbourg, France    F. Rizatdinova Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA    M. Rominsky Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    A. Ross Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, United Kingdom    C. Royon CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    P. Rubinov Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    R. Ruchti University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA    G. Sajot LPSC, Université Joseph Fourier Grenoble 1, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, Grenoble, France    A. Sánchez-Hernández CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico    M.P. Sanders Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany    A.S. Santos LAFEX, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil    G. Savage Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    M. Savitskyi Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kiev, Ukraine    L. Sawyer Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana 71272, USA    T. Scanlon Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom    R.D. Schamberger State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA    Y. Scheglov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia    H. Schellman Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA    C. Schwanenberger The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    R. Schwienhorst Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA    J. Sekaric University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA    H. Severini University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA    E. Shabalina II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany    V. Shary CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    S. Shaw The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    A.A. Shchukin Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia    V. Simak Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic    P. Skubic University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA    P. Slattery University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA    D. Smirnov University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA    G.R. Snow University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA    J. Snow Langston University, Langston, Oklahoma 73050, USA    S. Snyder Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA    S. Söldner-Rembold The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    L. Sonnenschein III. Physikalisches Institut A, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany    K. Soustruznik Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Center for Particle Physics, Prague, Czech Republic    J. Stark LPSC, Université Joseph Fourier Grenoble 1, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, Grenoble, France    D.A. Stoyanova Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia    M. Strauss University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA    L. Suter The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    P. Svoisky University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA    M. Titov CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    V.V. Tokmenin Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia    Y.-T. Tsai University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA    D. Tsybychev State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA    B. Tuchming CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    C. Tully Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA    L. Uvarov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia    S. Uvarov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia    S. Uzunyan Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA    R. Van Kooten Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA    W.M. van Leeuwen Nikhef, Science Park, Amsterdam, the Netherlands    N. Varelas University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA    E.W. Varnes University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA    I.A. Vasilyev Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia    A.Y. Verkheev Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia    L.S. Vertogradov Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia    M. Verzocchi Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    M. Vesterinen The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    D. Vilanova CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France    P. Vokac Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic    H.D. Wahl Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA    M.H.L.S. Wang Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    J. Warchol University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA    G. Watts University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA    M. Wayne University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA    J. Weichert Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany    L. Welty-Rieger Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA    M.R.J. Williams Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA    G.W. Wilson University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA    M. Wobisch Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana 71272, USA    D.R. Wood Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA    T.R. Wyatt The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    Y. Xie Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    R. Yamada Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    S. Yang University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, People’s Republic of China    T. Yasuda Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    Y.A. Yatsunenko Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia    W. Ye State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA    Z. Ye Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    H. Yin Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    K. Yip Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA    S.W. Youn Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA    J.M. Yu University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA    J. Zennamo State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260, USA    T.G. Zhao The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    B. Zhou University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA    J. Zhu University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA    M. Zielinski University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA    D. Zieminska Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA    L. Zivkovic LPNHE, Universités Paris VI and VII, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
August 28, 2014
Abstract

We measure the direct CP-violating parameter for the decay of the charged charm meson, (and charge conjugate), using the full 10.4 fb sample of collisions at  TeV collected by the D0 detector at the Fermilab Tevatron collider. We extract the raw reconstructed charge asymmetry by fitting the invariant mass distributions for the sum and difference of charge-specific samples. This quantity is then corrected for detector-related asymmetries using data-driven methods and for possible physics asymmetries (from processes) using input from Monte Carlo simulation. We measure , which is consistent with zero, as expected from the standard model prediction of CP conservation, and is the most precise measurement of this quantity to date.

pacs:
13.25.Ft 11.30.Er

Fermilab-Pub-14/309-E

The D0 Collaboration111with visitors from Augustana College, Sioux Falls, SD, USA, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, DESY, Hamburg, Germany, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Morelia, Mexico SLAC, Menlo Park, CA, USA, University College London, London, UK, Centro de Investigacion en Computacion - IPN, Mexico City, Mexico, Universidade Estadual Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) - Steinbuch Centre for Computing (SCC), D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 20585, USA, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. 20005, USA, Kiev Institute for Nuclear Research, Kiev, Ukraine, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA and European Orgnaization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

The violation of CP symmetry in the fundamental interactions of particle physics is required to explain the matter dominance of the universe sakharov (); theo1 (); theo2 (). The standard model (SM) describes CP violation in the quark sector through the presence of a single complex phase in the CKM matrix. This matrix dictates the strength of flavor transitions through the weak interaction. All experimental observations to date are consistent with a single complex phase pdg (), with the exception of a small number of discrepancies at the 3 level, most notably the anomalously large same-charge dimuon asymmetry measurement from the D0 experiment dimuon2014 (). However, the degree of CP violation in the SM is insufficient to explain the cosmological matter dominance huet (). It is therefore important to continue searching for sources of CP violation beyond those predicted by the SM.

Decays of heavy-flavor hadrons provide a natural testing ground for these searches. In particular, decays proceeding through box or penguin diagrams are highly sensitive to possible CP violation contributions from processes beyond the SM induced by additional particles in the loops. However, due to the difficulty in simultaneously extracting production, detection and physics asymmetries, these searches for anomalous CP violation typically measure the difference in charge asymmetries between the channel of interest and a Cabibbo-favored reference channel, which is then assumed to be CP symmetric acpbplus_lhcb (); assl (); assl_lhcb (); adsl (); lhcb_deltaacp (). Performing high-precision measurements of CP violation parameters in these Cabibbo-favored decays is therefore crucial in order to establish an experimental basis for these assumptions, thus reducing dependence on theoretical predictions. The data set collected by the D0 experiment at the Tevatron collider is uniquely suited to perform such measurements, having a CP-symmetric initial state, a charge-symmetric tracking detector, and almost equal beam exposure in all four combinations of solenoid and toroid magnet polarities.

In this Letter, we describe the measurement of the direct CP violation parameter in the Cabibbo-favored decay (charge conjugate states are implied throughout this paper), defined as

(1)

and hereafter denoted . Currently this parameter has only been measured by the CLEO collaboration cleo_2014 (): . We use the complete sample of collisions generated by the Tevatron accelerator at  TeV and collected by the D0 detector. This corresponds to approximately  fb of integrated luminosity.

CP violation can only occur if there is interference between two amplitudes with different strong and weak phases. For the decay mode being investigated, this requirement is not satisfied, with two tree-level amplitudes both proportional to the product of CKM matrix elements and no contribution from Cabibbo-supressed diagrams. The SM therefore predicts negligible CP violation with respect to the experimental uncertainties. Any significant deviation of from zero would thus constitute evidence for new physics contributions silva ().

Experimentally, the CP asymmetry parameter is determined by measuring a raw charge asymmetry () and applying corrections to account for differences in the detection of the final state particles () and in the production rates of and mesons (), i.e.,

(2)

The raw quantity is the asymmetry in the number of versus mesons reconstructed in the described decay mode and passing all selection requirements. It is extracted by simultaneously fitting the invariant mass distributions for the sum of all candidates and for the difference . The detector asymmetry accounts for differences in the reconstruction efficiency for positive and negative kaons, pions, and muons and is determined using methods based on data in dedicated independent channels. The physics asymmetry accounts for possible charge-asymmetric production of mesons arising through the decay of hadrons. For each possible source, the contribution to is the product of the relevant CP asymmetry (taken from the world-average of experimental results) and the fraction of mesons arising from this source (determined from simulation). In practice the value of is small compared to the precision of the final measurement, while the detector correction is significant. For simplicity, we use to collectively denote mesons throughout this paper. In cases where distinguishing the charge is important we explicitly include it.

The D0 detector is described in detail elsewhere d0det1 (); d0det2 (). The most important components for this analysis are the central tracking detector, the muon system, and the magnets. The central tracking system comprises a silicon microstrip tracker (SMT) closest to the beampipe, surrounded by a central fiber tracker (CFT), with the entire system located within a 1.9 T solenoidal field. The SMT (CFT) has polar acceptance (), where the pseudorapidity is defined as ], and is the polar angle with respect to the positive axis along the proton beam direction. The muon system (covering ) comprises a layer of tracking detectors and scintillation trigger counters in front of 1.8 T toroid magnets, followed by two similar layers after the toroids. The polarities of both the solenoid and toroid magnets were regularly reversed approximately every two weeks during data collection to give near equal exposure in all four configurations. The magnet reversal ensures that the main detector asymmetries cancel to first order by symmetrizing the detector acceptance for positive and negative particles. The residual deviations from equal exposure (typically less than 5%) are removed by weighting events according to their polarity to force equal contributions from all four polarity configurations.

In the absence of a dedicated trigger for hadronic decays of heavy-flavor hadrons, we use a suite of single muon and dimuon triggers to select the data sample, along with an offline single muon filter. Events that exclusively satisfy triggers using track impact parameter information are removed to avoid lifetime biases which influence the meson parentage, and which are challenging to model in simulation. The muon trigger and offline requirements can bias the composition of the data in favor of semileptonic decays of charm and bottom hadrons. In particular, the fraction of mesons arising from semileptonic decays of mesons will be enhanced. These requirements must be taken into account when determining both detector and physics asymmetry corrections. To facilitate this process, the analysis places particular requirements on the muon quality and kinematic variables, to match those used when determining kaon, pion, and muon reconstruction asymmetries. The muon must produce hits in the muon tracking layers both inside and outside the toroid, and must be spatially-matched to a central track with total momentum  GeV/ and transverse momentum  GeV/. The selected muon is not used in the subsequent reconstruction of meson signal candidates. In particular, no further requirements are imposed which use the muon information (for example, charge, or spatial origin with respect to the meson candidate).

For events passing the muon selection, candidates are reconstructed from all possible three-track combinations that have total charge and that are consistent with arising from a common vertex. The three tracks must satisfy quality requirements and each track must have  GeV/. The two like-charge tracks are assigned the charged pion mass, and the third track is assigned the charged kaon mass pdg (). The resulting invariant mass of the candidate must lie within  GeV/, and the momentum and displacement vectors of the reconstructed meson must point in the same hemisphere. Additionally, the transverse decay length of the candidate must exceed three times its uncertainty, . The transverse decay length is defined as the displacement between the primary interaction vertex and the reconstructed meson decay vertex, projected onto the plane perpendicular to the beam direction.

The final selection of events uses a log-likelihood ratio (LLR) method to combine twelve individual variables into a single multivariate discriminant, using a similar approach to that described in Ref. adsl (). The input variables are as follows: the transverse momenta of the three final-state hadrons and their track isolations, the transverse decay length of the meson and its significance , the of the vertex fit of the three tracks, the angular separations of the kaon and lowest- pion and of the two pions, and the cosine of the angle between the momentum and displacement vectors of the meson candidate. The angular separation of two tracks is defined as , where and are the track separations in the azimuthal angle and pseudorapidity, respectively. The track isolation is the momentum of a particle divided by the sum of the momenta of all tracks contained in a cone of size around the particle. Tracks corresponding to the other two final state particles for this candidate are excluded from the sum.

The background distributions used to construct the LLR discriminant are populated using 1% of the data, chosen by randomly sampling the candidates following all requirements except for the LLR. This sample has a small signal contamination (around 0.4%), but it is found to provide the best overall discriminant performance. No correction is applied to account for the negligible effect of real signal events in this sample. The signal distributions are modeled using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of inclusive events, without any constraints on their origin. The final requirement on the LLR output is chosen to maximize the signal significance in the 1% random data sample (scaling-up to extrapolate to the full sample). Ensemble studies confirm that this corresponds to the minimum uncertainty on the final asymmetry measurement.

For all simulated samples, events are generated using pythia version 6.409 pythia () interfaced with evtgen evtgen () to model the decays of particles containing and quarks. The generation model includes all quark flavors, ensuring that charm and bottom quarks from gluon splitting are properly included in the final sample. Generated events are processed by a geant-based detector simulation geant (), overlaid with data from randomly collected bunch crossings to simulate pile-up from multiple interactions, and reconstructed using the same software as used for data.

The distribution of candidates passing all selection requirements is shown in Fig. 1, along with the results of a fit to the data (described later). A total of approximately 31 million candidates is found, of which are assigned as signal in the fit. The effective statistical loss caused by the magnet polarity weighting, included in this number, is 3.2%.

The raw asymmetry is extracted through a simultaneous binned minimum- fit of the sum distribution (in Fig. 1) and the difference distribution (in Fig. 2). The method is the same as described in Ref. adsl (), with the only difference being a slight simplification of the combinatorial background model, enabled by the updated event selection criteria. The fit includes three components, each set to have the same shape in the sum and difference distributions, with only their relative normalizations differing in the two cases. The signal is parametrized by two Gaussian functions constrained to have the same mean value, to model the effect of the detector mass resolution. A hyperbolic tangent function is used to model the effect of a range of multi-body physics backgrounds, including both partially reconstructed decays of mesons, and reflections where the final-state hadrons are assigned the wrong mass. The main contributions are from decays to , , and ; decays to ; decays to four charged hadrons; and decays of , with , where in all cases the is not reconstructed. The hyperbolic tangent parametrization is chosen based on studies of decay-specific and inclusive simulated samples and is the same as used in Ref. adsl (). The inflection-point is fixed for the nominal fit, based on simulation, but is allowed to vary when assigning a systematic uncertainty to the choice of fitting model. The steepness of the slope is constrained based on the resolution of the Gaussian peak in data adsl (), which is also well-motivated by simulation. Finally, the smooth combinatorial background is modeled by a polynomial with constant, linear, and cubic terms. The quadratic term is excluded since it does not improve the goodness-of-fit. For the fit to the difference distribution, the relative contributions of the three components are quantified through asymmetry parameters, including the raw asymmetry for the signal and corresponding asymmetries and for the multi-body and combinatorial components, respectively. Hence the models used to fit the sum () and difference () distributions can be summarized as:

(3)

where, for instance, is the function used to model the signal component.

The total number of candidates and the difference between the positive and negative candidate counts are used as constraints to reduce the number of free parameters by two, giving improved fit stability. The final fit has ten free parameters, six for the signal (signal yield , invariant mass , the widths of the two Gaussian functions, the fraction of signal in the wider Gaussian, and the raw asymmetry) and four for the background (fraction of background in multi-body component, first- and third-order polynomial coefficients, and ). The final two variables, and the constant term in the polynomial function, are completely defined by the set of ten free parameters and the two external constraints.

The corresponding distribution and fit for the difference is shown in Fig. 2. A significant negative raw asymmetry is observed, %, consistent with the value expected from known detector asymmetries. The two background asymmetries are % and %. The main source of charge asymmetry in both background components is the kaon reconstruction asymmetry, which is around and is described later. The sign and magnitude of both and are consistent with expectations from this kaon asymmetry alone. The main processes contributing to the multi-body component, and including a single charged kaon in the final state, are from the Cabibbo-favored transition . This results in a negative correlation between the kaon and charge, so we expect to be negative, with a magnitude somewhat less than 1.1% due to dilution from processes without a single charged kaon. In contrast, the combinatorial background component models the contribution of random three-track combinations: the kaon asymmetry leads to an overall excess of positive tracks, and so is expected to be positive, with a magnitude driven by the relative abundance of kaons in the track sample. The full fit to both distributions has a of 209 for 190 degrees-of-freedom, with no visible structures in the fit residuals and pull plots consistent with unit-width Gaussians.

Figure 1: (a) Invariant mass distribution after all selections have been applied (data markers). Also shown is the result of the fit to the data, as described in the text (solid line). To illustrate the contributions of the three separate components, the total background (dashed line) and polynomial function (dot-dashed line) are shown separately. (b) Fit residuals , demonstrating the agreement between the data and the fit model.
Figure 2: Invariant mass distribution for the difference (data markers). Also shown are the result of the fit to the data (solid line) and the overall background contribution (dashed line).

To test the sensitivity and accuracy of the fitting procedure, the data are used to create ensembles of charge-randomized pseudoexperiments with a range of different input raw asymmetries. These confirm that the asymmetry extraction is unbiased and that the statistical uncertainty reported by the fit is consistent with the expected value (). Systematic uncertainties are evaluated for a range of sources by repeating the fit under several reasonable variations and examining the change in the extracted raw asymmetry. The contribution to the systematic uncertainty on from each source is taken as the RMS of the set of fit variants with respect to the nominal measurement. The upper and lower limits of the fitting range are independently varied by up to 50 MeV/; the bin width is varied from 2 to 10 MeV/; an alternative method is used to determine the magnet polarity weights, based on the number of fitted signal candidates (rather than the total yield) in each configuration; the combinatorial background model is varied, either by removing the cubic term, or by adding a quadratic term; and, finally, the inflection point of the hyperbolic tangent function is allowed to vary in the fit, rather than being fixed from simulation. The dominant systematic effect comes from varying the fitting range (), with bin width and fitting model contributing each, and the polarity weighting method an order of magnitude smaller. The final systematic uncertainty on , given by summing the individual contributions in quadrature, is , much smaller than the statistical uncertainty.

The detector asymmetry has one term for each final state particle, including the implicit muon requirement, , where is the reconstruction asymmetry for particle species . The factor of 2 accounts for the two pions in the final state, and the sign of each term reflects the charge with respect to the meson. The muon asymmetry coefficient is the charge correlation between the muon and meson, necessary because no explicit charge requirements are enforced in this analysis. This is extracted from the data, through separate fits of the two cases , yielding . Each of the three asymmetries is extracted from dedicated independent channels, and determined in appropriate kinematic bins to allow them to be applied to the signal channel by a weighted average over all bins. These input asymmetries have already been determined and documented adsl () and used in several previous D0 publications assl (); adsl (); acp_bplus (); acp_ds ().

The kaon asymmetry is at least 20 times larger than all other detector effects. It arises from the larger cross-section with detector material than for , leading to a higher reconstruction efficiency. This asymmetry is extracted from decays, in bins of absolute kaon pseudorapidity and momentum  adsl (). Applying these to the signal sample gives a total kaon asymmetry of %. The first uncertainty is statistical, from the finite sample size; the second uncertainty is systematic, based on variations of the fitting method. The pion asymmetry is investigated using and decays adsl (). No indication of any asymmetry is observed, and we assign a systematic uncertainty of to account for the limited precision of this measurement.

The muon asymmetry is extracted from decays, in bins of absolute muon pseudorapidity and transverse momentum  adsl (). After convoluting the kinematically binned muon asymmetry with the corresponding signal distributions, and multiplying by the charge correlation, the final correction is . The systematic uncertainty includes variations to the fitting procedure and to the kinematic binning scheme. The overall detector asymmetry is then , where statistical and systematic uncertainties from each source have been separately added in quadrature.

After correcting for detector asymmetries, we consider the asymmetry, , arising from different rates of and production. We assume that the direct production of mesons from (and mesons from ) is charge symmetric. We also assume that there is negligible CP violation in the decays containing of mesons, or neutral mesons that have not oscillated into their antiparticle. We allow possible CP violation for mesons arising from the decay of oscillated mesons, quantified by the mixing asymmetry parameters which are taken to be the current world averages and  pdg ().

To determine the fraction of mesons in our sample that originate from such decays, we use MC simulation, passed through the full data reconstruction and reweighted to match the data in five important variables: the muon multiplicity, , , , and the separation of the muon and meson along the beam direction (at their point of closest approach in the transverse plane). The simulation is of decays with the muon requirement only placed during simulation of the trigger and offline event selection, to ensure a representative mixture of muons from the initial hard scatter, from decays of heavy-flavor hadrons, and from decays of charged kaons and pions. A fraction % of mesons is found to originate from the decays of mesons, but only % from mesons that oscillated into their antiparticle prior to decay. For mesons, the corresponding fractions are % and %. Multiplying by the respective mixing asymmetries, the contributions to are % from and % from mesons. The uncertainties are dominated by the inputs, and are taken as systematic. All other reasonable variations to the method (modified reweighting, adjusted lifetimes, mixing frequencies, and branching fractions) give negligible shifts with respect to the precision. Adding these contributions, we obtain %. Of the remaining mesons, % arise from direct hadronization, % are from decay, and the remaining % are from baryons. For all cases, the uncertainties on the quoted fractions come from the limited statistics of the simulation.

From Eq. (2), we obtain the final measurement

In this evaluation, only the statistical uncertainty on is included in the final statistical uncertainty on . All other uncertainties are taken to be systematic, since they are not directly related to the size of the signal sample. They are added in quadrature and treated as completely uncorrelated, with the detailed breakdown given in Table 1. This result is consistent with the standard model prediction of CP conservation.

Source (%)
Fit range ()
Fit model ()
Bin width ()
Polarity weighting method ()
Kaon asymmetry statistics ()
Kaon asymmetry method ()
Muon asymmetry statistics ()
Muon asymmetry method ()
Pion asymmetry ()
(dominates )
Total
Table 1: Breakdown of the different sources of systematic uncertainty on the final measurement, including contributions from the raw asymmetry , from the kaon, muon, and pion inputs to the detector correction , and from the physics asymmetry . All individual components are added in quadrature assuming zero correlations to obtain the total systematic uncertainty.

We perform a range of cross-checks to demonstrate the stability of the measurement by repeating the entire analysis for orthogonal sub-samples of the data, divided in important variables including the LLR discriminant output, positive and negative kaon pseudorapidity, , , , and the instantaneous luminosity. In total, 19 such samples are tested, and all measurements are consistent with the nominal value, with a of 13.6 for 12 degrees-of-freedom.

In conclusion, we have measured the direct CP-violating parameter in the Cabibbo-favored decay , finding an asymmetry consistent with the SM prediction of zero. The precision exceeds that of the previous best measurement by a factor of 2.5 and represents an important reference measurement for future studies of CP violation in charm and bottom hadron decays. In particular, it gives experimental confirmation of the assumptions used in measurements of CP violation in and mixing and decay adsl (); lhcb_deltaacp (), which is of special importance given the anomalously large asymmetry reported in same-charge dimuons dimuon2014 (), and for future searches for CP violation in bottom and charm hadrons.

We thank the staffs at Fermilab and collaborating institutions, and acknowledge support from the DOE and NSF (USA); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); MON, NRC KI and RFBR (Russia); CNPq, FAPERJ, FAPESP and FUNDUNESP (Brazil); DAE and DST (India); Colciencias (Colombia); CONACyT (Mexico); NRF (Korea); FOM (The Netherlands); STFC and the Royal Society (United Kingdom); MSMT and GACR (Czech Republic); BMBF and DFG (Germany); SFI (Ireland); The Swedish Research Council (Sweden); and CAS and CNSF (China).

References

  • (1) A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967) [JETP Lett. 5, 24 (1967)] [Sov. Phys. Usp. 34, 392 (1991)].
  • (2) M. S. Carena, J. M. Moreno, M. Quiros, M. Seco and C. E. M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B599, 158 (2001).
  • (3) W. S. Hou, Chin. J. Phys. 47, 134 (2009).
  • (4) J. Beringer et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012) and 2013 partial update for the 2014 edition http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/osc/PDG_2014/.
  • (5) V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 89, 012002 (2014).
  • (6) P. Huet and E. Sather, Phys. Rev. D 51, 379 (1995).
  • (7) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 85, 091105 (2012).
  • (8) V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 011801 (2013).
  • (9) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 728, 607 (2014).
  • (10) V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 86, 072009 (2012).
  • (11) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], JHEP 07 (2014) 041.
  • (12) G. Bonvicini et al. [CLEO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 89, 072002 (2014)
  • (13) G. C. Branco, L. Lavoura and J. P. Silva, CP Violation (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999).
  • (14) V.M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 565, 463 (2006).
  • (15) R. Angstadt et al. [D0 Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 622, 298 (2010).
  • (16) T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, JHEP 05 (2006) 026.
  • (17) D. J. Lange, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 462, 152 (2001).
  • (18) R. Brun and F. Carminati, CERN Program Library Long Writeup W5013, 1993 (unpublished); we use version v3.21.
  • (19) V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 241801 (2013).
  • (20) V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 111804 (2014).
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
""
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
   
Add comment
Cancel
Loading ...
184516
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
Upvote
Downvote
""
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
Submit
Cancel

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test
Test description