EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

 CERN-PH-EP-2012-113 LHCb-PAPER-2012-010 4 May 2012

Measurement of relative branching fractions of $B$ decays to $\psi(2S)$ and
${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons

The LHCb collaboration †††Authors are listed on the following pages.

The relative rates of $B$-meson decays into
${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and $\psi(2S)$ mesons are
measured for the three decay modes in $pp$ collisions recorded with the LHCb
detector. The ratios of branching fractions ($\cal B$) are measured to be

$\begin{array}[]{lll}\frac{{\cal B}(B^{+}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{+})}{{\cal
B}(B^{+}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}K^{+})}&=&0.594\pm 0.006\,(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.016\,(\mathrm{syst})\pm
0.015\,(R_{\psi}),\\\ \vskip 3.0pt\cr\frac{{\cal
B}(B^{0}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{*0})}{{\cal
B}(B^{0}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}K^{*0})}&=&0.476\pm 0.014\,(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.010\,(\mathrm{syst})\pm
0.012\,(R_{\psi}),\\\ \vskip 3.0pt\cr\frac{{\cal
B}(B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow\psi(2S)\phi)}{{\cal
B}(B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}\phi)}&=&0.489\pm 0.026\,(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.021\,(\mathrm{syst})\pm
0.012\,(R_{\psi}),\end{array}$

where the third uncertainty is from the ratio of the $\psi(2S)$ and
${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ branching fractions to
$\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$.

Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C

LHCb collaboration

R. Aaij38, C. Abellan Beteta33,n, A. Adametz11, B. Adeva34, M. Adinolfi43, C.
Adrover6, A. Affolder49, Z. Ajaltouni5, J. Albrecht35, F. Alessio35, M.
Alexander48, S. Ali38, G. Alkhazov27, P. Alvarez Cartelle34, A.A. Alves Jr22,
S. Amato2, Y. Amhis36, J. Anderson37, R.B. Appleby51, O. Aquines Gutierrez10,
F. Archilli18,35, A. Artamonov 32, M. Artuso53,35, E. Aslanides6, G.
Auriemma22,m, S. Bachmann11, J.J. Back45, V. Balagura28,35, W. Baldini16, R.J.
Barlow51, C. Barschel35, S. Barsuk7, W. Barter44, A. Bates48, C. Bauer10, Th.
Bauer38, A. Bay36, J. Beddow48, I. Bediaga1, S. Belogurov28, K. Belous32, I.
Belyaev28, E. Ben-Haim8, M. Benayoun8, G. Bencivenni18, S. Benson47, J.
Benton43, R. Bernet37, M.-O. Bettler17, M. van Beuzekom38, A. Bien11, S.
Bifani12, T. Bird51, A. Bizzeti17,h, P.M. Bjørnstad51, T. Blake35, F. Blanc36,
C. Blanks50, J. Blouw11, S. Blusk53, A. Bobrov31, V. Bocci22, A. Bondar31, N.
Bondar27, W. Bonivento15, S. Borghi48,51, A. Borgia53, T.J.V. Bowcock49, C.
Bozzi16, T. Brambach9, J. van den Brand39, J. Bressieux36, D. Brett51, M.
Britsch10, T. Britton53, N.H. Brook43, H. Brown49, A. Büchler-Germann37, I.
Burducea26, A. Bursche37, J. Buytaert35, S. Cadeddu15, O. Callot7, M.
Calvi20,j, M. Calvo Gomez33,n, A. Camboni33, P. Campana18,35, A. Carbone14, G.
Carboni21,k, R. Cardinale19,i,35, A. Cardini15, L. Carson50, K. Carvalho
Akiba2, G. Casse49, M. Cattaneo35, Ch. Cauet9, M. Charles52, Ph.
Charpentier35, N. Chiapolini37, M. Chrzaszcz 23, K. Ciba35, X. Cid Vidal34, G.
Ciezarek50, P.E.L. Clarke47, M. Clemencic35, H.V. Cliff44, J. Closier35, C.
Coca26, V. Coco38, J. Cogan6, E. Cogneras5, P. Collins35, A. Comerma-
Montells33, A. Contu52, A. Cook43, M. Coombes43, G. Corti35, B. Couturier35,
G.A. Cowan36, R. Currie47, C. D’Ambrosio35, P. David8, P.N.Y. David38, I. De
Bonis4, K. De Bruyn38, S. De Capua21,k, M. De Cian37, J.M. De Miranda1, L. De
Paula2, P. De Simone18, D. Decamp4, M. Deckenhoff9, H. Degaudenzi36,35, L. Del
Buono8, C. Deplano15, D. Derkach14,35, O. Deschamps5, F. Dettori39, J.
Dickens44, H. Dijkstra35, P. Diniz Batista1, F. Domingo Bonal33,n, S.
Donleavy49, F. Dordei11, A. Dosil Suárez34, D. Dossett45, A. Dovbnya40, F.
Dupertuis36, R. Dzhelyadin32, A. Dziurda23, A. Dzyuba27, S. Easo46, U.
Egede50, V. Egorychev28, S. Eidelman31, D. van Eijk38, F. Eisele11, S.
Eisenhardt47, R. Ekelhof9, L. Eklund48, Ch. Elsasser37, D. Elsby42, D.
Esperante Pereira34, A. Falabella16,e,14, C. Färber11, G. Fardell47, C.
Farinelli38, S. Farry12, V. Fave36, V. Fernandez Albor34, M. Ferro-Luzzi35, S.
Filippov30, C. Fitzpatrick47, M. Fontana10, F. Fontanelli19,i, R. Forty35, O.
Francisco2, M. Frank35, C. Frei35, M. Frosini17,f, S. Furcas20, A. Gallas
Torreira34, D. Galli14,c, M. Gandelman2, P. Gandini52, Y. Gao3, J-C.
Garnier35, J. Garofoli53, J. Garra Tico44, L. Garrido33, D. Gascon33, C.
Gaspar35, R. Gauld52, N. Gauvin36, M. Gersabeck35, T. Gershon45,35, Ph. Ghez4,
V. Gibson44, V.V. Gligorov35, C. Göbel54, D. Golubkov28, A. Golutvin50,28,35,
A. Gomes2, H. Gordon52, M. Grabalosa Gándara33, R. Graciani Diaz33, L.A.
Granado Cardoso35, E. Graugés33, G. Graziani17, A. Grecu26, E. Greening52, S.
Gregson44, O. Grünberg55, B. Gui53, E. Gushchin30, Yu. Guz32, T. Gys35, C.
Hadjivasiliou53, G. Haefeli36, C. Haen35, S.C. Haines44, T. Hampson43, S.
Hansmann-Menzemer11, N. Harnew52, J. Harrison51, P.F. Harrison45, T.
Hartmann55, J. He7, V. Heijne38, K. Hennessy49, P. Henrard5, J.A. Hernando
Morata34, E. van Herwijnen35, E. Hicks49, P. Hopchev4, W. Hulsbergen38, P.
Hunt52, T. Huse49, R.S. Huston12, D. Hutchcroft49, D. Hynds48, V. Iakovenko41,
P. Ilten12, J. Imong43, R. Jacobsson35, A. Jaeger11, M. Jahjah Hussein5, E.
Jans38, F. Jansen38, P. Jaton36, B. Jean-Marie7, F. Jing3, M. John52, D.
Johnson52, C.R. Jones44, B. Jost35, M. Kaballo9, S. Kandybei40, M. Karacson35,
T.M. Karbach9, J. Keaveney12, I.R. Kenyon42, U. Kerzel35, T. Ketel39, A.
Keune36, B. Khanji6, Y.M. Kim47, M. Knecht36, I. Komarov29, R.F. Koopman39, P.
Koppenburg38, M. Korolev29, A. Kozlinskiy38, L. Kravchuk30, K. Kreplin11, M.
Kreps45, G. Krocker11, P. Krokovny31, F. Kruse9, K. Kruzelecki35, M.
Kucharczyk20,23,35,j, V. Kudryavtsev31, T. Kvaratskheliya28,35, V.N. La Thi36,
D. Lacarrere35, G. Lafferty51, A. Lai15, D. Lambert47, R.W. Lambert39, E.
Lanciotti35, G. Lanfranchi18, C. Langenbruch35, T. Latham45, C. Lazzeroni42,
R. Le Gac6, J. van Leerdam38, J.-P. Lees4, R. Lefèvre5, A. Leflat29,35, J.
Lefrançois7, O. Leroy6, T. Lesiak23, L. Li3, Y. Li3, L. Li Gioi5, M. Lieng9,
M. Liles49, R. Lindner35, C. Linn11, B. Liu3, G. Liu35, J. von Loeben20, J.H.
Lopes2, E. Lopez Asamar33, N. Lopez-March36, H. Lu3, J. Luisier36, A. Mac
Raighne48, F. Machefert7, I.V. Machikhiliyan4,28, F. Maciuc10, O. Maev27,35,
J. Magnin1, S. Malde52, R.M.D. Mamunur35, G. Manca15,d, G. Mancinelli6, N.
Mangiafave44, U. Marconi14, R. Märki36, J. Marks11, G. Martellotti22, A.
Martens8, L. Martin52, A. Martín Sánchez7, M. Martinelli38, D. Martinez
Santos35, A. Massafferri1, Z. Mathe12, C. Matteuzzi20, M. Matveev27, E.
Maurice6, B. Maynard53, A. Mazurov16,30,35, G. McGregor51, R. McNulty12, M.
Meissner11, M. Merk38, J. Merkel9, S. Miglioranzi35, D.A. Milanes13, M.-N.
Minard4, J. Molina Rodriguez54, S. Monteil5, D. Moran12, P. Morawski23, R.
Mountain53, I. Mous38, F. Muheim47, K. Müller37, R. Muresan26, B. Muryn24, B.
Muster36, J. Mylroie-Smith49, P. Naik43, T. Nakada36, R. Nandakumar46, I.
Nasteva1, M. Needham47, N. Neufeld35, A.D. Nguyen36, C. Nguyen-Mau36,o, M.
Nicol7, V. Niess5, N. Nikitin29, T. Nikodem11, A. Nomerotski52,35, A.
Novoselov32, A. Oblakowska-Mucha24, V. Obraztsov32, S. Oggero38, S. Ogilvy48,
O. Okhrimenko41, R. Oldeman15,d,35, M. Orlandea26, J.M. Otalora Goicochea2, P.
Owen50, B.K. Pal53, J. Palacios37, A. Palano13,b, M. Palutan18, J. Panman35,
A. Papanestis46, M. Pappagallo48, C. Parkes51, C.J. Parkinson50, G.
Passaleva17, G.D. Patel49, M. Patel50, S.K. Paterson50, G.N. Patrick46, C.
Patrignani19,i, C. Pavel-Nicorescu26, A. Pazos Alvarez34, A. Pellegrino38, G.
Penso22,l, M. Pepe Altarelli35, S. Perazzini14,c, D.L. Perego20,j, E. Perez
Trigo34, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo33, P. Perret5, M. Perrin-Terrin6, G.
Pessina20, A. Petrolini19,i, A. Phan53, E. Picatoste Olloqui33, B. Pie
Valls33, B. Pietrzyk4, T. Pilař45, D. Pinci22, R. Plackett48, S. Playfer47, M.
Plo Casasus34, G. Polok23, A. Poluektov45,31, I. Polyakov28, E. Polycarpo2, D.
Popov10, B. Popovici26, C. Potterat33, A. Powell52, J. Prisciandaro36, V.
Pugatch41, A. Puig Navarro33, W. Qian53, J.H. Rademacker43, B.
Rakotomiaramanana36, M.S. Rangel2, I. Raniuk40, G. Raven39, S. Redford52, M.M.
Reid45, A.C. dos Reis1, S. Ricciardi46, A. Richards50, K. Rinnert49, D.A. Roa
Romero5, P. Robbe7, E. Rodrigues48,51, F. Rodrigues2, P. Rodriguez Perez34,
G.J. Rogers44, S. Roiser35, V. Romanovsky32, M. Rosello33,n, J. Rouvinet36, T.
Ruf35, H. Ruiz33, G. Sabatino21,k, J.J. Saborido Silva34, N. Sagidova27, P.
Sail48, B. Saitta15,d, C. Salzmann37, M. Sannino19,i, R. Santacesaria22, C.
Santamarina Rios34, R. Santinelli35, E. Santovetti21,k, M. Sapunov6, A.
Sarti18,l, C. Satriano22,m, A. Satta21, M. Savrie16,e, D. Savrina28, P.
Schaack50, M. Schiller39, H. Schindler35, S. Schleich9, M. Schlupp9, M.
Schmelling10, B. Schmidt35, O. Schneider36, A. Schopper35, M.-H. Schune7, R.
Schwemmer35, B. Sciascia18, A. Sciubba18,l, M. Seco34, A. Semennikov28, K.
Senderowska24, I. Sepp50, N. Serra37, J. Serrano6, P. Seyfert11, M. Shapkin32,
I. Shapoval40,35, P. Shatalov28, Y. Shcheglov27, T. Shears49, L. Shekhtman31,
O. Shevchenko40, V. Shevchenko28, A. Shires50, R. Silva Coutinho45, T.
Skwarnicki53, N.A. Smith49, E. Smith52,46, M. Smith51, K. Sobczak5, F.J.P.
Soler48, A. Solomin43, F. Soomro18,35, B. Souza De Paula2, B. Spaan9, A.
Sparkes47, P. Spradlin48, F. Stagni35, S. Stahl11, O. Steinkamp37, S.
Stoica26, S. Stone53,35, B. Storaci38, M. Straticiuc26, U. Straumann37, V.K.
Subbiah35, S. Swientek9, M. Szczekowski25, P. Szczypka36, T. Szumlak24, S.
T’Jampens4, E. Teodorescu26, F. Teubert35, C. Thomas52, E. Thomas35, J. van
Tilburg11, V. Tisserand4, M. Tobin37, S. Tolk39, S. Topp-Joergensen52, N.
Torr52, E. Tournefier4,50, S. Tourneur36, M.T. Tran36, A. Tsaregorodtsev6, N.
Tuning38, M. Ubeda Garcia35, A. Ukleja25, U. Uwer11, V. Vagnoni14, G.
Valenti14, R. Vazquez Gomez33, P. Vazquez Regueiro34, S. Vecchi16, J.J.
Velthuis43, M. Veltri17,g, B. Viaud7, I. Videau7, D. Vieira2, X. Vilasis-
Cardona33,n, J. Visniakov34, A. Vollhardt37, D. Volyanskyy10, D. Voong43, A.
Vorobyev27, V. Vorobyev31, C. Voß55, H. Voss10, R. Waldi55, R. Wallace12, S.
Wandernoth11, J. Wang53, D.R. Ward44, N.K. Watson42, A.D. Webber51, D.
Websdale50, M. Whitehead45, J. Wicht35, D. Wiedner11, L. Wiggers38, G.
Wilkinson52, M.P. Williams45,46, M. Williams50, F.F. Wilson46, J. Wishahi9, M.
Witek23, W. Witzeling35, S.A. Wotton44, S. Wright44, S. Wu3, K. Wyllie35, Y.
Xie47, F. Xing52, Z. Xing53, Z. Yang3, R. Young47, X. Yuan3, O. Yushchenko32,
M. Zangoli14, M. Zavertyaev10,a, F. Zhang3, L. Zhang53, W.C. Zhang12, Y.
Zhang3, A. Zhelezov11, L. Zhong3, A. Zvyagin35.

1Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
4LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
5Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-
Ferrand, France
6CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
7LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
8LPNHE, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris Diderot,
CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
9Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
10Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
11Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg,
Germany
12School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
13Sezione INFN di Bari, Bari, Italy
14Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
15Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
16Sezione INFN di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
17Sezione INFN di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
18Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
19Sezione INFN di Genova, Genova, Italy
20Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
21Sezione INFN di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
22Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
23Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of
Sciences, Kraków, Poland
24AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland
25Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland
26Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering,
Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
27Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), Gatchina, Russia
28Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
29Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University (SINP MSU), Moscow,
Russia
30Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INR RAN),
Moscow, Russia
31Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS) and Novosibirsk State
University, Novosibirsk, Russia
32Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia
33Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
34Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
35European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
36Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
37Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
38Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
39Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and VU University Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
40NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine
41Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR),
Kyiv, Ukraine
42University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
43H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United
Kingdom
44Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
45Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
46STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
47School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United
Kingdom
48School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United
Kingdom
49Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
50Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
51School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester,
United Kingdom
52Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
53Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States
54Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, associated to 2
55Institut für Physik, Universität Rostock, Rostock, Germany, associated to 11

aP.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Science (LPI RAS),
Moscow, Russia
bUniversità di Bari, Bari, Italy
cUniversità di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
dUniversità di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
eUniversità di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
fUniversità di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
gUniversità di Urbino, Urbino, Italy
hUniversità di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
iUniversità di Genova, Genova, Italy
jUniversità di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
kUniversità di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
lUniversità di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
mUniversità della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy
nLIFAELS, La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain
oHanoi University of Science, Hanoi, Viet Nam

##  1 Introduction

Decays of $B$ mesons to two-body final states containing a charmonium
resonance such as a ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ or
$\psi(2S)$ offer a powerful way of studying electroweak transitions. Such
decays probe charmonium properties and play a role in the study of $C\\!P$
violation and mixing in the neutral $B$ system [1].

The relative branching fractions of $B^{+}$, $B^{0}$ and $B^{0}_{s}$ mesons
into ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and $\psi(2S)$ mesons have
previously been studied by both the CDF and D0 collaborations [2, 3, 4]. Since
the current experimental results for the study of $C\\!P$ violation in
$B^{0}_{s}$ mixing using the
$B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}\phi$ decay
[5, 6, 7] are statistically limited, it is important to establish other
channels where this analysis can be done. One such channel is the
$B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow\psi(2S)\phi$ decay.

In this paper, measurements of the ratios of the branching fractions of $B$
mesons decaying to $\psi(2S)X$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}X$ are reported, where $B$ denotes a $B^{+}$, $B^{0}$ or $B^{0}_{s}$
meson (charge conjugate decays are implicitly included) and $X$ denotes a
$K^{+}$, $K^{*0}$ or $\phi$ meson. The data were collected by the LHCb
experiment in $pp$ collisions at the centre-of-mass energy
$\sqrt{s}=7\mathrm{\,Te\kern-1.00006ptV}$ during 2011 and correspond to an
integrated luminosity of 0.37$\mbox{\,fb}^{-1}$.

##  2 Detector description

The LHCb detector [8] is a single-arm forward spectrometer covering the
pseudorapidity range $2<\eta<5$, designed for the study of $b$\- and
$c$-hadrons. The detector includes a high precision tracking system consisting
of a silicon-strip vertex detector surrounding the $pp$ interaction region, a
large-area silicon-strip detector located upstream of a dipole magnet with a
bending power of about $4{\rm\,Tm}$, and three stations of silicon-strip
detectors and straw drift-tubes placed downstream. The combined tracking
system has a momentum resolution $\Delta p/p$ that varies from 0.4% at
5${\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c}$ to 0.6% at
100${\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c}$, and an impact parameter resolution
of 20$\,\upmu\rm m$ for tracks with high transverse momentum. Data were taken
with both magnet polarities to reduce systematic effects due to detector
asymmetries. Charged hadrons are identified using two ring-imaging Cherenkov
(RICH) detectors. Photon, electron and hadron candidates are identified by a
calorimeter system consisting of scintillating-pad and pre-shower detectors,
and electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters. Muons are identified by a muon
system composed of alternating layers of iron and multiwire proportional
chambers. The trigger consists of a hardware stage based on information from
the calorimeter and muon systems, followed by a software stage which applies a
full event reconstruction.

Events with a ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ final state are triggered using two hardware
trigger decisions: the single-muon decision, which requires one muon candidate
with a transverse momentum $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ larger than 1.5 $\mathrm{GeV}/c$,
and the di-muon decision, which requires two muon candidates with transverse
momenta $p_{\mathrm{T}_{1}}$ and $p_{\mathrm{T}_{2}}$ satisfying the relation
$\sqrt{p_{\mathrm{T}_{1}}\cdot p_{\mathrm{T}_{2}}}>1.3~{}\mathrm{GeV}/c$. The
di-muon trigger decision in the software trigger requires muon pairs of
opposite charge with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>500~{}\mathrm{MeV}/c$, forming a common
vertex and with an invariant mass in excess of $2.9~{}\mathrm{GeV}/c^{2}$.

##  3 Event selection

In this analysis, the decays $B^{+}\rightarrow\psi
K^{+}$($B^{0}\rightarrow\psi K^{*0}$, $B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow\psi\phi$) are
reconstructed, where $\psi$ represents $\psi(2S)$ or
${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$, reconstructed in the
$\psi\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay modes. A $K^{+}$($K^{*0}$, $\phi$)
candidate is added to the di-muon pair to form a $B^{+}$($B^{0}$, $B^{0}_{s}$
) candidate.

The starting point of the analysis is the reconstruction of either a
${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ or $\psi(2S)$ meson decaying
into a di-muon pair. Candidates are formed from pairs of opposite sign tracks
that both have a transverse momentum larger than
500${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c}$. Good reconstruction quality is
assured by requiring the $\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom of the track fit to
satisfy $\chi^{2}/\rm{ndf}<5$. Both tracks must be identified as muons. This
is achieved by requiring the muon identification variable, the difference in
logarithm of the likelihood of the muon and hadron hypotheses [9] provided by
the muon detection system, to satisfy $\Delta\log\mathcal{L}^{\mu-h}>-5$. The
muons are required to form a common vertex of good quality
($\mathrm{\chi^{2}_{vtx}}<20$). The resulting di-muon candidate is required to
have decay length significance from its associated primary vertex greater than
5 and have an invariant mass between 3020 and
3135${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$ in the case of a
${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ candidate or between 3597 and
3730${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$ for a $\psi(2S)$ candidate.
These correspond to [$-5\sigma$; $3\sigma$] windows around the nominal mass.
The asymmetric window allows for the QED radiative tail.

The selected ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and $\psi(2S)$
candidates are then combined with a $K^{+}$, $K^{*0}$ or $\phi$ to create $B$
meson candidates. Only the $K^{*0}\rightarrow K^{+}\pi^{-}$ and
$\phi\rightarrow K^{+}K^{-}$ decay modes are considered. Pion-kaon separation
is provided by the ring-imaging Cherenkov detectors. To identify kaons the
difference in logarithm of the likelihood of the kaon and pion hypotheses [9]
is required to satisfy $\Delta\log\mathcal{L}^{K-\pi}>-5$. In the case of
pions the difference in logarithm of the likelihood of the pion and kaon
hypotheses [9] is required to satisfy $\Delta\log\mathcal{L}^{\pi-K}>-5$. As
in the case of muons, a cut is applied on the track $\mathrm{\chi^{2}/ndf}$
provided by the track fit at 5. The kaons and pions are required to have a
transverse momentum larger than 250${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c}$ and
to have an impact parameter significance with respect to any primary vertex
larger than 2. In the $B^{0}$ channel, the mass of the kaon and pion system is
required to be
$842<M_{K^{+}\pi^{-}}<942{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$ and in the
$B^{0}_{s}$ channel the mass of the kaon pair is required to be
$1010<M_{K^{+}K^{-}}<1030{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$.

In addition, we require the decay time of the $B$ candidate ($c\tau$) to be
larger than 100$\,\upmu\rm m$ to reduce the large combinatorial background
from particles produced in the primary $pp$ interaction. A global refit of the
three-prong (four-prong) combination is performed with a primary vertex
constraint and with the di-muon pair mass constrained to the nominal value
[10] using the Decay Tree Fit (DTF) procedure [11]. The reduced $\chi^{2}$ of
this fit ($\mathrm{\chi^{2}_{DTF}/ndf}$) is required to be less than 5, where
the DTF algorithm takes into account the number of decay products to determine
the number of degrees of freedom. The $B^{+}$ candidates, where a muon from
the $\psi(2S)\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay is reconstructed as both muon
and kaon, are removed by requiring the angle between the same sign muon and
kaon to be greater than 3 mrad.

LHCbLHCbLHCbLHCbLHCbLHCb(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)$\mathrm{M}_{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}K^{+}K^{-}}~{}[{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}]$$\mathrm{M}_{\psi(2S)K^{+}K^{-}}~{}[{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}]$$\mathrm{M}_{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}K^{+}\pi^{-}}~{}[{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}]$$\mathrm{M}_{\psi(2S)K^{+}\pi^{-}}~{}[{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}]$$\mathrm{M}_{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}K^{+}}~{}[{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}]$$\mathrm{M}_{\psi(2S)K^{+}}~{}[{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}]$

Candidates/(4 ${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$)Candidates/(4
${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$)Candidates/(5
${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$)Candidates/(5
${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$)Candidates/(4
${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$)Candidates/(4
${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-0.80005ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$)

Figure 1: Mass distributions of (a)
$B^{+}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}K^{+}$, (b)
$B^{+}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{+}$, (c)
$B^{0}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}K^{+}\pi^{-}$,
(d) $B^{0}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{+}\pi^{-}$, (e)
$B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}K^{+}K^{-}$
and (f) $B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{+}K^{-}$. The total fitted function
(solid) and the combinatorial background (dashed) are shown. The variation in
resolution of the different modes is fully consistent with the energy released
in the decays and in agreement with simulation.

##  4  Measurement of
$\boldsymbol{N_{\psi(2S)X}/N_{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}X}}$

The mass distributions for selected candidates are shown in Fig. 1. The number
of the $B^{+}\rightarrow\psi K^{+}$ candidates is estimated by performing an
unbinned maximum likelihood fit. The same procedure is used to determine the
number of the $B^{0}\rightarrow\psi K^{+}\pi^{-}$ candidates in a
$842~{}<~{}M_{K^{+}\pi^{-}}~{}<~{}942{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$
mass window and the number of the $B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow\psi K^{+}K^{-}$
candidates in a
$1010~{}<~{}M_{K^{+}K^{-}}~{}<~{}1030{\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$
mass window. The number of signal candidates is determined by fitting a
double-sided Crystal Ball function [12, 13] for signal together with an
exponential function to model the background. The tail parameters of the
Crystal Ball function are fixed to values determined from simulation.

The $B^{0}$ mass distributions include the contributions from resonant decays
($B^{0}\rightarrow\psi K^{*0}$), non-resonant decays ($B^{0}\rightarrow\psi
K^{+}\pi^{-}$) and combinatorial background. The contributions from resonant
and non-resonant modes are separated with the sPlot technique [14]. The
$K^{+}\pi^{-}$ invariant mass is used as a discriminating variable to unfold
the $B^{0}$ mass distribution of non-$K^{*0}$ $K^{+}\pi^{-}$ combinations. A
fit is then performed to the unfolded $B^{0}$ distribution, which contains
both non-resonant $B^{0}\rightarrow\psi K^{+}\pi^{-}$ decays and background,
to determine the number of non-resonant decays. The final number of resonant
decays is calculated by subtracting the number of non-resonant decays from the
total number of decays. For the $B^{0}_{s}$ modes the number of non-resonant
decays are obtained by a similar procedure using the $K^{+}K^{-}$ invariant
mass as the discriminating variable. The signal yields and their ratios are
summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of the signal yields for the six $B$ modes considered and the ratios of the number of ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and $\psi(2S)$ decays: $N^{\rm{total}}$ is the summed signal yield for resonant and non-resonant modes, $N^{\rm{non-res}}$ is the signal yield for non-resonant modes only and $N^{\rm{res}}_{\psi X}$ is the signal yield for resonant decays (through $K^{*0}$ or $\phi$). The uncertainties are statistical only.  $B$ decay modes | $N^{\rm{total}}$ | $N^{\rm{non-res}}$ | $N^{\rm{res}}$ | $N^{\rm{res}}_{\psi(2S)X}/N^{\rm{res}}_{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}X}$
---|---|---|---|---
$B^{+}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}K^{+}$ | $141,769\pm 410$ | — | $141,769\pm 410$ | $0.0857\pm 0.0009$
$B^{+}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{+}$ |  $12,154\pm 130$ | — |  $12,154\pm 130$
$B^{0}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}K^{+}\pi^{-}$ |  $35,770\pm 207$ | $1,253\pm 30$ |  $34,517\pm 209$ | $0.0612\pm 0.0018$
$B^{0}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{+}\pi^{-}$ |  $2,223\pm 60$ |  $112\pm 12$ |  $2,111\pm 61$
$B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}K^{+}K^{-}$ |  $7,654\pm 92$ |  $66\pm 13$ |  $7,588\pm 93$ | $0.0652\pm 0.0034$
$B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{+}K^{-}$ |  $495\pm 25$ |  $0^{+1}_{-0}$ |  $495\pm 25$

##  5 Efficiencies and systematic uncertainties

The branching fraction ratio is calculated using

$\frac{{\cal B}(B\rightarrow\psi(2S)X)}{{\cal
B}(B\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}X)}=\frac{N^{\rm{res}}_{\psi(2S)X}}{N^{\rm{res}}_{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}X}}\times\frac{\varepsilon_{{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}X}}{\varepsilon_{\psi(2S)X}}\times\frac{{\cal
B}({J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-})}{{\cal
B}(\psi(2S)\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-})},$ (1)

where $N^{\mathrm{res}}$ is the number of signal candidates and $\varepsilon$
is the overall efficiency.

The overall efficiency is the product of the geometrical acceptance of the
detector, the combined reconstruction and selection efficiency, and the
trigger efficiency. The efficiency ratio is estimated using simulation for all
six modes. The simulation samples used are based on the Pythia 6.4 generator
[15] configured with the parameters detailed in Ref. [16]. Final state QED
radiative corrections are included using the Photos package [17]. The EvtGen
[18] and Geant4 [19] packages are used to generate hadron decays and simulate
interactions in the detector, respectively. The digitized output is passed
through a full simulation of both the hardware and software trigger and then
reconstructed in the same way as the data.

The overall efficiency ratio is $0.901\pm 0.016$, $1.011\pm 0.014$ and
$0.994\pm 0.014$ for the $B^{+}$, the $B^{0}$ and the $B^{0}_{s}$ channels
respectively. Since the selection criteria for
$B\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}X$ and
$B\rightarrow\psi(2S)X$ decays are identical, the ratio of efficiencies is
expected to be close to unity. The deviation of the overall efficiency ratio
from unity in the case of the $B^{+}\rightarrow\psi K^{+}$ decays is due to
the difference between the $p_{\rm{T}}$ spectra of muons for the
${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and $\psi(2S)$ decays. For the
$B^{0}$ and $B^{0}_{s}$ channels this difference is small. It has been checked
that the behaviour of the efficiencies of all selection criteria is consistent
in the data and simulation.

Since the decay products in each of the pairs of channels considered have
similar kinematics, most uncertainties cancel in the ratio. The different
contributions to the systematic uncertainties affecting this analysis are
discussed in the following and summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Systematic uncertainties (in %) on the relative branching fractions. Source |  $B^{+}$ channel |  $B^{0}$ channel |  $B^{0}_{s}$ channel
---|---|---|---
non-resonant decays | — | $1.5$ | $3.4$
data-simulation agreement | $1.7$ | $0.5$ | $2.0$
magnet polarity | $1.4$ | $0.6$ | $0.7$
finite simulation sample size | $0.3$ | $0.5$ | $0.6$
trigger | $1.1$ | $1.1$ | $1.1$
background shape | $0.6$ | $0.2$ | $0.2$
signal shape | $0.7$ | $0.8$ | $0.5$
angular distribution | — | $\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!<0.1$ | $0.6$
particle misidentification | $0.4$ | $\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!<0.1$ | $\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!<0.1$
Sum in quadrature | $2.7$ | $2.2$ | $4.3$

The dominant source of systematic uncertainty arises from the subtraction of
the non-resonant components in the $B^{0}$ and the $B^{0}_{s}$ decays. The
non-resonant background is studied with two alternative methods. First,
determining the number of $B^{0}_{(s)}\rightarrow\psi K^{*0}(\phi)$ decays
directly using the sPlot technique by unfolding and fitting the $B^{0}_{(s)}$
mass distribution of candidates containing genuine $K^{*0}(\phi)$ resonances.
Second, using the $B^{0}_{(s)}$ mass distribution as the discriminating
variable to unfold the $K^{+}\pi^{-}(K^{+}K^{-})$ mass distribution of genuine
$B^{0}_{(s)}$ candidates and fitting this distribution to determine the number
of non-resonant decays. The corresponding uncertainties are found to be 1.5%
in the $B^{0}$ channel and 3.4% in the $B^{0}_{s}$ channel.

The other important source of uncertainty arises from the estimation of the
efficiencies due to the potential disagreement between data and simulation.
This is studied by varying the selection criteria in data and simulation. The
corresponding uncertainties are found to be 1.7% in the $B^{+}$ channel, 0.5%
in the $B^{0}$ channel and 2.0% in the $B^{0}_{s}$ channel. The observed
difference in the efficiency ratios for the two magnet polarities is
conservatively taken as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty. This is
1.4% in the $B^{+}$ channel, 0.6% in the $B^{0}$ channel and 0.7% in the
$B^{0}_{s}$ channel.

The trigger is highly efficient in selecting $B$ meson decays with two muons
in the final state. For this analysis the di-muon pair is required to trigger
the event. Differences in the trigger efficiency between data and simulation
are studied in the data using events which were triggered independently on the
di-muon pair [20]. Based on these studies, an uncertainty of 1.1% is assigned.

A further uncertainty arises from the imperfect knowledge of the shape of the
signal and background in the $B$ meson mass distribution. To estimate this
effect, a linear and a quadratic function are considered as alternative models
for the background mass distribution. In addition, a double Gaussian shape and
a sum of double-sided Crystal Ball and Gaussian shapes are used as alternative
models for the signal shape. The maximum observed change in the ratio of
yields in the $\psi(2S)$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$
modes is taken as systematic uncertainty.

The central value of the relative efficiency is determined by assuming that
the angular distribution of the $B\rightarrow\psi(2S)X$ decay is the same as
that of the $B\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}X$. The
systematic uncertainty due to the unknown polarization of the $\psi(2S)$ in
the $B$ meson decays is estimated as follows. The simulation samples were re-
weighted to match the angular distributions found from the data and the
relative efficiency was recalculated. The difference between the baseline
analysis and the re-weighted simulation is taken as the systematic
uncertainty, as shown in Table 2.

Finally, the uncertainty due to potential contribution from the Cabibbo-
suppressed mode with a $\pi$ misidentified as $K$ is found to be 0.4% in the
$B^{+}$ channel and negligible in the $B^{0}$ and $B^{0}_{s}$ channels. The
uncertainty due to the cross-feed between $B^{0}$ and $B^{0}_{s}$ channels
with a $\pi$ misidentified as $K$ (or a $K$ misidentified as $\pi$) is
negligible.

##  6 Results

Since the di-electron branching fractions are measured more precisely than
those of the di-muon decay modes, we assume lepton universality and take
$R_{\psi}={\cal B}({J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-})/{\cal
B}(\psi(2S)\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-})={\cal
B}({J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-})/{\cal
B}(\psi(2S)\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-})=7.69\pm 0.19$ [10]. The results are
combined using Eq. 1 to give

$\begin{array}[]{lll}\frac{{\cal B}(B^{+}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{+})}{{\cal
B}(B^{+}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}K^{+})}&=&0.594~{}\pm 0.006\,({\rm stat})\pm 0.016\,({\rm syst})\pm
0.015\,(R_{\psi}),\\\ \vskip 3.0pt\cr\frac{{\cal
B}(B^{0}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{*0})}{{\cal
B}(B^{0}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}K^{*0})}&=&0.476~{}\pm 0.014\,({\rm stat})\pm 0.010\,({\rm syst})\pm
0.012\,(R_{\psi}),\\\ \vskip 3.0pt\cr\frac{{\cal
B}(B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow\psi(2S)\phi)}{{\cal
B}(B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}\phi)}&=&0.489~{}\pm 0.026\,({\rm stat})\pm 0.021\,({\rm syst})\pm
0.012\,(R_{\psi}),\\\ \end{array}$

where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic and the
third is the uncertainty on the $R_{\psi}$ value [10].

The resulting branching fraction ratios are compatible with, but significantly
more precise than, the current world averages of ${\cal
B}(B^{+}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{+})/{\cal
B}(B^{+}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}K^{+})=0.60\pm
0.07$ and ${\cal B}(B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow\psi(2S)\phi)/{\cal
B}(B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}\phi)=0.53\pm 0.10$ [10] and the CDF result of ${\cal
B}(B^{0}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{*0})/{\cal
B}(B^{0}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip
2.0mu}K^{*0})=0.515\pm 0.113\pm 0.052$ [2]. The
$B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow\psi(2S)\phi$ decay is particulary interesting since,
with more data, it can be used for the measurement of $C\\!P$ violation in
$B^{0}_{s}$ mixing.

## Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments
for the excellent performance of the LHC. We thank the technical and
administrative staff 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.

## References

  * [1] I. I. Y. Bigi and A. I. Sanda, Notes on the observability of CP violations in B decays, Nucl. Phys. B193 (1981) 85
  * [2] CDF collaboration, F. Abe et al., Observation of $B^{+}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{+}$ and $B^{0}\rightarrow\psi(2S)K^{*}(892)^{0}$ decays and measurements of B-meson branching fractions into ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ and $\psi(2S)$ final states, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 072001, arXiv:hep-ex/9803013
  * [3] CDF collaboration, A. Abulencia et al., Observation of $B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow\psi(2S)\phi$ and measurement of ratio of branching fractions ${\cal B}(B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow\psi(2S)\phi)/{\cal B}(B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}\phi)$, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 231801, arXiv:hep-ex/0602005
  * [4] D0 collaboration, V. Abazov et al., Relative rates of B meson decays into $\psi(2S)$ and ${J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}$ mesons, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 111102(R), arXiv:0805.2576
  * [5] CDF collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., Measurement of CP violating phase $\beta_{s}$ in $B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow{J\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\psi\mskip 2.0mu}\phi$ decays with the CDF II Detector, submitted to Phys. Rev. D, arXiv:1112.1726
  * [6] D0 Collaboration, V. M. Abazov et al., Measurement of the CP-violating phase $\phi_{s}^{J/\psi\phi}$ using the flavor-tagged decay $B_{s}^{0}\rightarrow J/\psi\phi$ in 8 fb-1 of $p\bar{p}$ collisions, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 032006, arXiv:1109.3166
  * [7] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the $C\\!P$-violating phase $\phi_{s}$ in the decay $B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow J/\psi\phi$, arXiv:1112.3183
  * [8] LHCb collaboration, A. A. Alves Jr. et al., The LHCb detector at the LHC, JINST 3 (2008) S08005
  * [9] A. Powell et al., Particle identification at LHCb, PoS ICHEP2010 (2010) 020, LHCb-PROC-2011-008
  * [10] Particle Data Group, K. Nakamura et al., Review of particle physics, J. Phys. G37 (2010) 075021
  * [11] W. Hulsbergen, Decay chain fitting with Kalman filter, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A552 (2005) 566, arXiv:physics/0503191v1
  * [12] T. Skwarnicki, A study of the radiative cascade transitions between the Upsilon-prime and Upsilon resonances, PhD thesis, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow, 1986, DESY-F31-86-02
  * [13] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Observation of $J/\psi$ pair production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7\mathrm{\,Te\kern-1.00006ptV}$, Phys. Lett. B707 (2012) 52, arXiv:1109.0963
  * [14] M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, sPlot: a statistical tool to unfold data distributions, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A555 (2005) 356, arXiv:physics/0402083v3
  * [15] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and manual, JHEP 05 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175
  * [16] I. Belyaev et al., Handling of the generation of primary events in Gauss, the LHCb simulation framework, Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC) IEEE (2010) 1155
  * [17] P. Golonka and Z. Was, PHOTOS Monte Carlo: a precision tool for QED correctionsin Z and W decays, Eur. Phys. J. C45 (2006) 97, arXiv:hep-ph/0506026
  * [18] D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462 (2001) 152
  * [19] GEANT4 collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., GEANT4: A simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250
  * [20] V. Gligorov, C. Thomas, and M. Williams, The HLT inclusive $B$ triggers, LHCb-PUB-2011-016