EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

 CERN-EP-2024-007 LHCb-PAPER-2023-040 31 January 2024

Template for writing LHCb papers

LHCb collaboration†††Authors are listed at the end of this paper.

A measurement of $C\\!P$-violating observables associated with the
interference of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}(892)^{0}$
and ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{D}}}{}^{0}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}(892)^{0}$ decay amplitudes is
performed in the
${{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{\mp}}{{\uppi}^{\pm}}({{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}),$
${{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}({{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}})$,
and ${{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{-}}$ final
states using data collected by the LHCb experiment corresponding to an
integrated luminosity of $9$ $\text{fb}^{-1}$. $C\\!P$-violating observables
related to the interference of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*}}(892)^{0}$ and
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{D}}}{}^{0}}{{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*}}(892)^{0}$ are also measured, but no evidence for
interference is found. The ${\mathrm{B}}^{0}$ observables are used to
constrain the parameter space of the CKM angle $\gamma$ and the hadronic
parameters $r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$ and
$\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$ with inputs
from other measurements. In a combined analysis, these measurements allow for
four solutions in the parameter space, only one of which is consistent with
the world average.

Submitted to JHEP

© 2024 CERN for the benefit of the LHCb collaboration. CC BY 4.0 licence.

##  1 Introduction

The only observed phenomena of $C\\!P$ violation to date are attributed to
complex phases in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix
elements[Cabibbo:1963yz, Kobayashi:1973fv], which describe the interactions
mediated by ${\mathrm{W}^{\pm}}$ bosons between quarks of different flavour
and form a three-by-three unitary matrix. The unitarity of the CKM matrix
results in a set of constraints between the matrix elements. One such
relation, particularly relevant to decays of ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ mesons, is
commonly parameterised in terms of three angles $\alpha$, $\beta$, and
$\gamma$ which sum to $180^{\circ}$. The angle $\gamma$ can be measured from
the interference of
${\mathrm{b}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{c}}{\overline{\mathrm{u}}}{\mathrm{s}}$ and
${\mathrm{b}}\rightarrow{\overline{\mathrm{c}}}{\mathrm{u}}{\mathrm{s}}$
amplitudes with negligible theoretical uncertainties[Brod:2013sga]. Precise
measurements of $\gamma$ provide stringent tests of the Standard Model’s
requirement of CKM unitarity and thus its description of $C\\!P$ violation.

The determination of $\gamma$ through direct measurements of
${\mathrm{b}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{c}}{\overline{\mathrm{u}}}{\mathrm{s}}$ and
${\mathrm{b}}\rightarrow{\overline{\mathrm{c}}}{\mathrm{u}}{\mathrm{s}}$
interference is currently driven by the LHCb experiment. The world average of
direct measurements from the HFLAV collaboration is
$\gamma=\left(66.2^{+3.4}_{-3.6}\right)^{\circ}$[HeavyFlavorAveragingGroup:2022wzx],
and is dominated by
${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}$ decays that have
been analysed with the full proton-proton ($pp$) collision datasets collected
by the LHCb detector in 2011–2012 (Run 1) and 2015–2018 (Run 2) [LHCb-
CONF-2022-003]. Here and throughout the article, ${\mathrm{D}}$ is used to
represent a superposition of ${{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}$ and ${{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{D}}}{}^{0}}$ decays, with a similar
convention for ${{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}$. The value of $\gamma$ can be determined
indirectly by assuming CKM unitarity and performing a global fit to all
measurements relating to the CKM matrix. With such techniques, the UTFit
collaboration determined $\gamma=\left(64.9\pm
1.4\right)^{\circ}$[UTfit:2022hsi] and the CKMFitter collaboration determined
$\gamma=\left(65.5^{+1.3}_{-1.2}\right)^{\circ}$[CKMfitter2005]. While the
results of the direct and indirect determinations of $\gamma$ are in
agreement, the comparison is limited by the precision of direct measurements.
As such, additional direct measurements of $\gamma$ are required to provide
more stringent tests of CKM unitarity. Despite the smaller branching fraction
of ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}(892)^{0}$
decays compared to
${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}$ decays, a
competitive precision on $\gamma$ can be achieved due to the larger
interference effects in these decays compared to ${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}$
decays[Gershon_2009]. The $C\\!P$ violation in these decays only depends on
the flavour at decay, and thus can be studied independent of decay time.

This article presents the measurement of $C\\!P$-violating observables in the
decays ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}(892)^{0}$
and ${{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*}}(892)^{0}$ where the $\mathrm{D}$ meson is
reconstructed through the
${{\mathrm{K}}^{\mp}}{{\uppi}^{\pm}},\;{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{-}},\;{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}},\;{{\mathrm{K}}^{\mp}}{{\uppi}^{\pm}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}},\text{
and }{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$ decay modes with
Run 1 and Run 2 proton-proton collision data corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of $9$ $\text{fb}^{-1}$ collected at centre-of-mass energies
between $7$ and $13\text{\,Te\kern-1.00006ptV}$. The
${{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}(892)^{0}$ meson is referred to throughout as
${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ and is implied to decay to a
${{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$ final state. The charge of the kaon child
from the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ candidate is used to determine the flavour of
the parent ${\mathrm{B}}$ meson. The interpretation of the measured
$C\\!P$-violating observables in terms of $\gamma$ and hadronic parameters for
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow D{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ decays is also presented.
This work examines the so-called Atwood-Dunietz-Soni (ADS) final
states[Atwood:2000ck], which experience interference in the admixture of
Cabibbo-favoured
${{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{-}}{{\uppi}^{+}}({{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}})$
and doubly Cabibbo-suppressed ${{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{D}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{-}}{{\uppi}^{+}}({{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}})$
decays. The notation ${\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})$ is used to refer to
the final state where the kaon child of the ${\mathrm{D}}$ candidate has the
same charge as the kaon child of the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ candidate, while
${\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}({\uppi}{\uppi})$ refers to the final state where the two
kaons have opposite charge. The $C\\!P$-eigenstate final states
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$ and
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{-}}$ are also studied
and referred to as Gronau-London-Wilder (GLW) decay modes [Gronau:1991dp,
Gronau:1990ra]. An extension to the GLW method [FPlusPiPiPi0] allows the
inclusion of the
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
decay mode which is predominantly $C\\!P$-even.

These two classes of final states provide complementary sensitivity to the
fundamental parameters of interest: the weak phase, $\gamma$, the ratio of
amplitudes between the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{D}}}{}^{0}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ and
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ decays,
$r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$, and the strong
phase difference between the two amplitudes,
$\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$. The
interference can introduce asymmetries in the rates between ${{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$ and
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ decays, and
modulate the charge-integrated decay rates of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ for each
${\mathrm{D}}$ meson decay. The effects of interference in the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow
D[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ final state are
expected to be small compared to the predicted experimental sensitivity, and
so this final state is used as a normalisation channel to probe interference
effects in the other final states. This strategy benefits from the
cancellation of a large number of systematic uncertainties related to the
reconstruction and selection of signal candidates. For the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
final state, the parameters

$\mathcal{R}^{+}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\equiv\frac{\Gamma\left({{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}\left[{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}({\uppi}{\uppi})\right]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}\right)}{\Gamma\left({{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}\left[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})\right]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}\right)}\quad\text{
and
}\quad\mathcal{R}^{-}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\equiv\frac{\Gamma\left({{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}\left[{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}({\uppi}{\uppi})\right]{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}\right)}{\Gamma\left({{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}\left[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})\right]{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}\right)}$ (1)

are measured. The asymmetry of the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
final state,

$\mathcal{A}_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}\equiv\frac{\Gamma\big{(}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}\big{)}-\Gamma\big{(}{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}\big{)}}{\Gamma\big{(}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}\big{)}+\Gamma\big{(}{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}\big{)}},$
(2)

is also measured.

For the GLW final states, the flavour-integrated decay rates relative to the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
decay are measured, leading to the cancellation of most systematic
uncertainties related to the estimation of selection efficiencies. The
asymmetries do not require a normalisation channel for the cancellation of
systematic uncertainties, so the observables of interest are

$\small\mathcal{R}^{hh({\uppi}{\uppi})}_{CP}\equiv\frac{\Gamma\big{(}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[hh({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}\big{)}+\Gamma\big{(}{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[hh({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}\big{)}}{\Gamma\big{(}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}\big{)}+\Gamma\big{(}{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}(\pi\pi)]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}\big{)}}\times\frac{\mathcal{B}\big{(}{{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})\big{)}}{\mathcal{B}\big{(}{{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}\rightarrow
hh({\uppi}{\uppi})\big{)}}$ (3)

and

$\mathcal{A}_{CP}^{hh({\uppi}{\uppi})}\equiv\frac{\Gamma\big{(}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[hh({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}\big{)}-\Gamma\big{(}{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[hh({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}\big{)}}{\Gamma\big{(}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[hh({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}\big{)}+\Gamma\big{(}{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[hh({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}\big{)}},$
(4)

where $hh({\uppi}{\uppi})$ refers to ${\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}}$,
${\uppi}{\uppi}$, or ${\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}$.

The $C\\!P$-violating observables in the decay
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$ are also measured in this
analysis, and can be parameterised in an identical fashion. However, the
effect of the interference in this process is expected to be negligible in all
of the observed decay modes, as the parameter directly proportional to the
interference effects,
$r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$, is
estimated to be roughly an order of magnitude smaller than the corresponding
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ parameter based on the known CKM elements
[HeavyFlavorAveragingGroup:2022wzx]. Similar notation is used to refer to the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ observables throughout the article, with an
additional $s$ in the subscript.

All of these observables have been measured previously by the LHCb
collaboration using the data collected in Run 1 and 2015–2016, except the ones
associated with the ${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}$
decay channel, for which only the 2015–2016 data was analysed [LHCb-
PAPER-2019-021]. The measurements presented in this article supersede the
results of the previous analyses.

The rest of the article is organised as follows. The LHCb detector and
simulation is described in Sect. 2. The selection requirements placed on
signal candidates are discussed in Sect. 3. The determination of
$C\\!P$-violating observables from the signal candidates passing selection
requirements is discussed in Sect. 4. The interpretation of the determined
$C\\!P$-violating observables in terms of the fundamental physics parameters
and concluding remarks are presented in Sect. 5.

##  2 LHCb detector and simulation

The LHCb detector [LHCb-DP-2014-002, LHCb-DP-2008-001] is a single-arm forward
spectrometer covering the pseudorapidity range $2<\eta<5$, designed for the
study of particles containing ${\mathrm{b}}$ or ${\mathrm{c}}$ quarks. The
detector includes a high-precision tracking system consisting of a silicon-
strip vertex detector surrounding the ${\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}}$ interaction
region [LHCb-DP-2014-001], a large-area silicon-strip detector located
upstream of a dipole magnet with a bending power of about $4\,\textrm{Tm}$,
and three stations of silicon-strip detectors and straw drift tubes [LHCb-
DP-2013-003] placed downstream of the magnet. The tracking system provides a
measurement of the momentum, $p$, of charged particles with a relative
uncertainty that varies from $0.5\%$ at low momentum to $1.0\%$ at
$200\text{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c$. The minimum distance of a track to a
primary ${\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}}$ collision vertex (PV), the impact parameter
(IP), is measured with a resolution of $(15+29/p_{\text{T}})\,\upmu\text{m}$,
where $p_{\text{T}}$ is the component of the momentum transverse to the beam,
in $\text{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c$. Different types of charged hadrons are
distinguished using information from two ring-imaging Cherenkov (RICH)
detectors [LHCb-DP-2012-003, LHCb-DP-2018-001]. Photons, electrons and hadrons
are identified by a calorimeter system consisting of scintillating-pad and
preshower detectors, an electromagnetic and a hadronic calorimeter. Muons are
identified by a system composed of alternating layers of iron and multiwire
proportional chambers [LHCb-DP-2012-002].

The events considered in the analysis are triggered at the hardware level
either when one of the final-state tracks of the signal decay deposits enough
energy in the calorimeter system, or when one of the other particles in the
event, not reconstructed as part of the signal candidate, fulfils any trigger
requirement. At the software level, it is required that at least one particle
has high $p_{\text{T}}$ and high $\chi^{2}_{\text{IP}}$, where
$\chi^{2}_{\text{IP}}$ is defined as the difference in the PV fit $\chi^{2}$
with and without the inclusion of that particle. A multivariate algorithm
[BBDT] is used to identify displaced vertices consistent with being a two-,
three-, or four-track ${\mathrm{b}}$-hadron decay. The PVs are fitted with and
without the ${\mathrm{B}}$ candidate tracks, and the PV that gives the
smallest $\chi^{2}_{\text{IP}}$ is associated with the ${\mathrm{B}}$
candidate.

Simulation is used to model the reconstructed mass distributions of the signal
and background contributions and determine their selection efficiencies. In
the simulation, proton-proton collisions are generated using Pythia
[Sjostrand:2006za] with a specific LHCb configuration [LHCb-PROC-2010-056].
Decays of unstable particles are described by EvtGen [Lange:2001uf], in which
final-state radiation is generated using Photos [davidson2015photos]. The
simulation of interactions of the generated particles with the detector and
its response is implemented using the Geant4 toolkit [Agostinelli:2002hh,
Allison:2006ve] as described in Ref. [LHCb-PROC-2011-006]. Some subdominant
sources of background are generated with RapidSim, a fast simulation
[Cowan:2016tnm] that mimics the geometric acceptance and tracking resolution
of the LHCb detector as well as the dynamics of the decay via EvtGen.

##  3 Selection, efficiencies, and production and detection asymmetries

Signal ${\mathrm{B}}$-meson candidates are built from a
${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$ candidate and
a ${\mathrm{D}}$-meson candidate. Selection requirements identical to those
from Ref. [LHCb-PAPER-2015-059] are placed on the
${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$ candidate to
select the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ resonance: the reconstructed mass of the
${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ candidate must be within
$50\text{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}$ of the known ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
meson mass [PDG2022] and a requirement is made on the angle $\theta^{*}$
between the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ kaon child momentum and the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ candidate in the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ rest frame of
$\cos\theta^{*}>0.4$. The reconstructed mass of the ${\mathrm{D}}$ candidate
is required to be within $25\text{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}$ of the known
${{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}$ meson mass[PDG2022].

With the above selections in place, boosted decision tree classifiers with
gradient boost (BDT) [Therhaag:2010zz] are trained to discriminate between
signal candidates and combinatorial background. Two BDT classifiers are
trained for each final state, one for each run period. The same BDT classifier
is shared for each run period between the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
and
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow[{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}({\uppi}{\uppi})]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
final states. This gives ten separate BDT classifiers in total, each trained
using simulated signal samples and background samples from data with a
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ candidate reconstructed mass within the range
5800–5960$\text{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}$. The classifiers are trained
using the angle between the direction of the reconstructed $\mathrm{B}$
momentum and the direction defined by the primary and secondary vertices, the
$\chi^{2}_{\text{IP}}$ of the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ and ${\mathrm{D}}$
candidates, the reduced $\chi^{2}$ of the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ vertex fit, the
$\chi^{2}_{\text{IP}}$ and the transverse momenta of the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
candidate children, the $\chi^{2}_{\text{IP}}$ and the transverse momenta of
the ${\mathrm{D}}$ candidate children (only for two-body ${\mathrm{D}}$ final
states), and the transverse momentum imbalance of the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$
candidate, defined as

$I_{p_{\text{T}}}\equiv\frac{p_{\text{T}}\left({{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\right)-\sum_{X}p_{\text{T}}\left(X\right)}{p_{\text{T}}\left({{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\right)+\sum_{X}p_{\text{T}}\left(X\right)},$
(5)

where the summation is over all charged tracks $X$ inconsistent with
originating from the primary vertex within a cone around the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ candidate, excluding those used in the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ reconstruction [LHCb-PAPER-2020-036]. Variables related
to the ${\mathrm{D}}$ children are omitted for the four-body ${\mathrm{D}}$
final states to avoid any dependence on the modelling of the ${\mathrm{D}}$
decay dynamics. Requirements on the output of each BDT classifier are chosen
based on an optimisation of the estimated sensitivity to $C\\!P$-violating
observables. Each BDT classifier retains roughly 85–90% of the signal
candidates and removes over $90\%$ of the combinatorial background.

Stringent particle identification (PID) requirements are placed on the kaon
child of the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ candidate to reduce misidentification of
the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ flavour to negligible levels, as the charge of this
particle is used to determine the flavour of the parent $\mathrm{B}$ meson.
More relaxed particle identification requirements are also placed on the pion
from the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ candidate and all kaons and pions from the two-
body $\mathrm{D}$-meson decay candidates. For
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}$ and
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}$ decay candidates,
the kaon and both pions with charge opposite to the ${\mathrm{D}}$ candidate
kaon child are subject to PID requirements. For
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}$ candidates, only the two
pions with the same charge as the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ candidate kaon child
are subject to PID requirements. All particles with PID requirements are also
required to have track momentum between
3–200$\text{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c$ to ensure suitable discrimination
between kaons and pions in the RICH detectors.

Requirements are also placed on the displacement of the ${\mathrm{D}}$
candidate decay vertex from the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ candidate decay vertex to
suppress charmless ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ decays to the same final states, which
proceed without an intermediate ${\mathrm{D}}$ meson. Different requirements
are placed on the ADS and GLW final states due to different relative
contributions of charmless backgrounds. For the GLW (ADS) final states, the
${\mathrm{D}}$ candidate decay vertex displacement is required to be at least
three (two) times its uncertainty. A discussion of the remaining contributions
from these charmless backgrounds is included in Sect. 4.1.

Finally, vetoes are applied to each ${\mathrm{D}}$ final state to remove
backgrounds or maintain consistency with the measurements of ${\mathrm{D}}$
hadronic parameters used in Sect. 5. In the ADS final states,
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}$ decays misidentified as
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}$ due to two incorrect PID
assignments are removed with the requirement that the reconstructed
${\mathrm{D}}$ mass where the mass hypotheses of the kaon and pion children
have been swapped differs from the known ${{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}$ meson mass by
more than $15\text{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}$. Backgrounds from
${{\mathrm{B}}^{\pm}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{\pm}}$ decays
paired with a random pion are removed with a requirement that the
${\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{\pm}}$ reconstructed mass differ by more than
$25\text{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}$ from the known ${{\mathrm{B}}^{\pm}}$
meson mass. Decays of the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ meson to the same final state
proceeding through different charmed intermediate states, e.g.
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{-}}[{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}{{\uppi}^{-}}]{{\uppi}^{+}}$
misidentified as
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}]{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$,
are removed with requirements that the reconstructed mass of a $D$ child
combined with the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ candidate to form a Cabibbo-favoured
decay of another charmed meson does not fall within
$15\text{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}$ of the known meson mass. Candidate
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{0}_{\mathrm{S}}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
decays are removed from the
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
sample with the requirement that the reconstructed
${{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$ masses are not within
480–505$\text{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}$.

The $C\\!P$-violating observables of interest are all proportional to the
ratios of decay rates of different ${\mathrm{D}}$ final states, and thus much
of the reconstruction and selection efficiency cancels in these ratios.
However, due to the different kinematic distributions of each ${\mathrm{D}}$
final state, and due to different selection requirements placed on the
different ${\mathrm{D}}$ decay modes, these efficiencies must be accounted
for. Additionally, corrections for effects introducing asymmetries aside from
those due to the interference discussed in Sect. 1 must be applied. The
selection requirements are applied to simulated samples to estimate the
selection efficiencies of each final state integrated across the two
$\mathrm{B}$ flavours, with the exception of PID efficiencies. Charge-
dependent PID efficiencies are estimated with calibration data samples of
kaons and pions collected from ${{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}$ decays weighted to match
the kinematics of signal decays [LHCB-PUB-2016-021].

Three other possible sources of flavour asymmetry must be accounted for, aside
from that resulting from the interference discussed in Sect. 1. First, an
asymmetry can be introduced in the production of
${{\mathrm{B}}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{0}}$ mesons and their antiparticles from the
initial proton-proton collisions, referred to as $A_{\text{prod}}$. Second,
tracking and reconstruction can depend on the charge of final-state particles
due to the difference of interactions between particles and anti-particles and
the detector material, which is accounted for through the difference in
detection asymmetry between kaons and pions
$A_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}=A_{{\mathrm{K}}}-A_{{\uppi}}$. Lastly, similar to
above, asymmetries can be introduced in PID which is accounted for implicitly
in the PID efficiency corrections discussed previously. All discussed
asymmetries are defined to match the flavour conventions introduced in Sect.
1.

The quantity $A_{\text{prod}}$ is determined from the measurement of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ and ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ asymmetries in Ref.
[LHCb-PAPER-2016-062]. The measured production asymmetries are
$A_{\text{prod}}=\left(-8\pm 5\right)\times 10^{-3}$ and
$A_{s,\text{prod}}=\left(6\pm 10\right)\times 10^{-3}$. Since these results
are only determined using data from proton-proton centre-of-mass energies of
$7\text{ and }8\text{\,Te\kern-1.00006ptV}$, and not at
$13\text{\,Te\kern-1.00006ptV}$, the same central values are assumed for the
full dataset, but with inflated uncertainty.

The value of $A_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}$ is estimated using calibration data
samples of
${{\mathrm{D}}^{+}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{-}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{+}}$
and
${{\mathrm{D}}^{+}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{0}_{\mathrm{S}}}{{\uppi}^{+}}$
decays. The resulting predicted asymmetry weighted to match the signal
kinematic distributions is $A_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}=\left(-9.8\pm
5.5\right)\times 10^{-3}$. The total detection asymmetry for a
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ candidate
depends on the difference between the number of kaons and the number of pions
of the same sign in the final state, e.g. the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
final state is corrected by $2A_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}$, the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\uppi}{\uppi}]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
final state is corrected by $A_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}$, while the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
final state requires no such correction.

##  4 Measurement of $C\\!P$-violating observables

The $C\\!P$-violating observables discussed in Sect. 1 are determined from the
selected data through a simultaneous unbinned extended maximum-likelihood fit
of the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ reconstructed mass for each flavour of each
${\mathrm{D}}$ final state, where constraints are placed on the ${\mathrm{D}}$
candidate mass and the direction of the $\mathrm{B}$ candidate momentum using
the DecayTreeFitter package [Hulsbergen:2005pu]. The reconstructed mass is
calculated with these constraints unless otherwise specified. Only candidates
with a reconstructed mass within the interval
5000–5800$\text{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}$ are considered.

###  4.1 Modelling the reconstructed mass distribution

The reconstructed mass distributions of both
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ and
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$ decays are modelled by
modified Cruijff functions[LHCb-PAPER-2020-019] parameterised as

$f(M)=\begin{cases}e^{\frac{-\left(M-\mu\right)^{2}\left(1+\beta\left(M-\mu\right)^{2}\right)}{2\sigma^{2}+\alpha_{L}\left(M-\mu\right)^{2}}},&M<\mu\\\
e^{\frac{-\left(M-\mu\right)^{2}\left(1+\beta\left(M-\mu\right)^{2}\right)}{2\left(\rho\sigma\right)^{2}+\alpha_{R}\left(M-\mu\right)^{2}}},&M>\mu\end{cases}.$
(6)

For each decay mode, all the parameters of the
${{\mathrm{B}}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
modified Cruijff functions are fixed from fits to the corresponding simulation
samples of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
and
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
decays, with the exception of the mean, $\mu$, and width, $\sigma$, which are
left as free parameters. The constraints on the ${\mathrm{D}}$ meson mass
minimise the dependence on the ${\mathrm{D}}$ decay final state, but the four-
body ${\mathrm{D}}$ final states have a slightly larger width. The ratio of
the two-body width and four-body width is determined from simulation and fixed
in the fit to data.

The selection requirements accept
${{\mathrm{B}}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
decays with a similar efficiency to signal decays, as their topology is
identical to signal decays with one additional missing neutral particle from
the ${{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}\rightarrow\gamma/{{\uppi}^{0}}{\mathrm{D}}$ decay. The
reconstructed masses of these decays are mainly located below the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ mass peak, but the right-hand tail of the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$ distribution extends to the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ meson mass. As this is the decay of a pseudoscalar
particle into two vector particles, the final state is characterised by three
independent helicity amplitudes (0, $\pm 1$). However, two of these amplitudes
($\pm 1)$ have indistinguishable reconstructed mass distributions. This leaves
four different configurations of
${{\mathrm{B}}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
decays: two possible ${\mathrm{D}}^{*}$ decay chains each with two
reconstructed mass distributions. Each configuration is modelled with either a
single broad peaking structure or a double-peaked structure, as described in
Ref. [LHCb-PAPER-2020-036]. The relative size of the
${{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}[\gamma{\mathrm{D}}]$ and
${{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}[{{\uppi}^{0}}{\mathrm{D}}]$ decays for each helicity state
are fixed based on efficiencies predicted from simulation and the measured
branching fractions. The interference effects of interest can affect the
helicity amplitudes differently. Therefore, four free parameters are included
in the fit to account for this: one for the ratio of helicity states in ADS
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ decays,
one ratio for each flavour of the GLW
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ decays,
and one ratio shared across all
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$ final states.

Due to particle misidentification,
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$ and
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
decays can also be mistaken for signal decays when one pion is misidentified
as a kaon. The relatively stringent PID requirement on the
${{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}$ child of the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ candidate suppresses
these contributions significantly, but not to negligible levels. The
reconstructed mass distribution of these decays is taken from simulated
samples with PID weights determined from calibration data samples. The
simulation samples only consider the contribution of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\uprho}^{0}}[{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}]$
and
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\uprho}^{0}}[{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}]$,
as the selection requirements on the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ candidate
significantly suppress other contributions. The reconstructed mass
distribution of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\uprho}^{0}}[{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}]$
decays is modelled with a double-sided Crystal Ball
function[Skwarnicki:1986xj]. The probability distribution function (PDF) for
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\uprho}^{0}}[{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}]$
decays is parameterised in a similar fashion to the ${\mathrm{B}}^{0}$
$\rightarrow$ ${\mathrm{D}}^{*}$ ${\mathrm{K}}^{*0}$ decays, and the PDF
shares the ratio of helicity states with ADS
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ decays.
The peak of the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow
D{{\uprho}^{0}}[{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}]$ distribution is located between
the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ and ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ peaks, while
the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\uprho}^{0}}[{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}]$
distribution has minimal contribution near or above the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$
mass peak.

Partially reconstructed
${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
decays, where the ${{\uppi}^{+}}$ is not included in the reconstruction, also
pass final selection requirements. The reconstructed mass distribution of
these decays is modelled with a smoothed kernel density estimation[RooKeysPDF]
of simulated
${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{\mathrm{K}}_{1}(1270)^{+}$ decays,
and contributes negligibly near the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ mass peak, being
distributed primarily around a reconstructed mass of
$5050\text{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}$.

Requirements placed on the ${\mathrm{D}}$ candidate flight significance do not
fully suppress the contribution of charmless ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ and
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ decays to the same final state. The size of
these contributions and possible flavour asymmetries in each final state are
estimated using data in the sideband of the ${\mathrm{D}}$ candidate
reconstructed mass distribution. Fits are performed to the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ reconstructed mass without any constraints on the
${\mathrm{D}}$ candidate mass to determine the yields in the sideband regions
for each final state and infer the expected number of these decays that pass
selection requirements. The magnitude of the flavour asymmetry in these decays
is estimated with a similar procedure, however with a significantly less
stringent requirement on the ${\mathrm{D}}$ flight significance to increase
statistical precision. Significant charmless contributions from
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ decays are only observed in the
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}$ and
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}$ final states. The
largest contribution from such decays is found in the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[\pi\pi]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ and
${{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[\pi\pi]{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$ samples with a yield that is
roughly 10% of the determined signal yield.

The combinatorial background is modelled by an exponential PDF. The parameters
of the exponential PDF associated with each ${\mathrm{D}}$ decay mode vary
freely in the fit, but are shared across ${\mathrm{B}}$ flavour for each
${\mathrm{D}}$ decay mode.

###  4.2 Parameterisation of the reconstructed mass distribution

The fit to determine the number of signal decays in each of the fourteen
samples (two flavours for each of the seven ${\mathrm{D}}$ final states) is
parameterised in terms of the $C\\!P$-violating observables introduced in
Sect. 1, the flavour-integrated number of observed
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
decays, and the flavour-integrated number of observed
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
decays. These observables are related to the number of observed decays in each
signal mode and the efficiency and asymmetry corrections discussed in Sect.
4.1. The $\mathcal{R}^{hh({\uppi}{\uppi})}_{CP}$ parameters are dependent on
measured ${{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}$ branching fractions, reported in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of branching fractions used as inputs in the measurement. Branching Fraction | Value |
---|---|---
$\mathcal{B}\left({{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{-}}{{\uppi}^{+}}\right)$ | $\left(3.999\pm 0.045\right)\%$ | [HeavyFlavorAveragingGroup:2022wzx]
$\mathcal{B}\left({{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}\right)$ | $\left(1.490\pm 0.027\right)\times 10^{-3}$ | [HeavyFlavorAveragingGroup:2022wzx]
$\mathcal{B}\left({{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{-}}\right)$ | $\left(4.113\pm 0.051\right)\times 10^{-3}$ | [HeavyFlavorAveragingGroup:2022wzx]
$\mathcal{B}\left({{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{-}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}\right)$ | $\left(8.22\phantom{0}\pm 0.14\right)\%$ | [PDG2022]
$\mathcal{B}\left({{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}\right)$ | $\left(8.06\phantom{0}\pm 0.20\right)\times 10^{-3}$ | [PDG2022]

The ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow D{{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern
0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$,
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$,
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$, and
${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
background components are parameterised in a similar fashion. The
$C\\!P$-violating observables of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$ decays are left as free
parameters in the fit, as are the $C\\!P$-violating observables of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ decays.
The observables of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$ decays are fixed to have no
effects from interference, and the $C\\!P$-violating observables of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
decays are fixed to the measurements for the two-body ${\mathrm{D}}$ final
states from Ref. [LHCb-PAPER-2015-020] and predicted values based on the
results of Ref. [LHCb-CONF-2022-003] for the four-body ${\mathrm{D}}$ final
states. The
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$ and
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
yields are constrained to be equal for
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
and ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow D[{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
decays, due to an equal probability of misidentifying the ${{\uppi}^{+}}$
meson and the ${{\uppi}^{-}}$ meson. For all other decay modes, the yields are
constrained relative to the yields in
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}[{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}]{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$,
and scaled by the ratio of ${\mathrm{D}}$ branching fractions and selection
efficiencies. The number of charmless decays is subject to Gaussian
constraints according to the determined values. The combinatorial backgrounds
are parameterised in terms of the observed number of candidates, which is
required to be equal for each flavour of a given ${\mathrm{D}}$ decay mode.
The possibility of biases introduced in the fitting procedure is investigated
by fitting toy data samples generated from the result of the total PDF fit to
data. No evidence is seen for biases in the central values or uncertainties of
any of the $C\\!P$-violating observables.

###  4.3 Systematic uncertainties

The following sources of systematic uncertainties are considered: uncertainty
in the determination of the asymmetry and efficiency corrections, uncertainty
from the measured branching fractions used as inputs in the fit, and
uncertainty in the modelling of the PDFs or in the determination of the fixed
yields in the fit. Any systematic uncertainties that are estimated at less
than $5\%$ of the measured statistical uncertainty from the fit are considered
negligible, and are excluded in the final determination of systematic
uncertainties. A summary of the assigned systematic uncertainties is provided
in Table 2. The total systematic uncertainty is calculated as the sum in
quadrature of the individual sources. The dominant systematic uncertainties
are due to the measurement of input branching fractions, asymmetry
corrections, and estimation of particle identification efficiencies, but are
generally small compared to statistical uncertainties. The assigned systematic
uncertainties are slightly larger than those in the previous analysis from
Ref. [LHCb-PAPER-2019-021] as more detailed study is possible with the larger
dataset.

The uncertainties of $A_{\text{prod}}$ and $A_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}$ are
propagated to the parameters of interest based on the quoted uncertainties in
Sect. 3. The measured uncertainty of $A_{\text{prod}}$ [LHCb-PAPER-2016-062]
is doubled for the data samples collected at $13\text{\,Te\kern-1.00006ptV}$
to account for possible energy dependence in the asymmetry. Additionally, the
possibility of asymmetries introduced by the hardware trigger is estimated to
be at the level of $10^{-3}$ based on the results of Ref. [LHCb-
PAPER-2020-036]. The uncertainty due to the selection efficiencies largely
cancels, with the primary uncertainty arising from different PID requirements
on different final states. Uncertainties in estimated PID efficiencies arise
from the limited statistics of simulated samples for kinematic weighting and
the finite size of bins used in the weighting of the PID efficiency. The
propagated uncertainties of the input branching fractions listed in Table 1
are also determined.

The uncertainty due to the modelling of the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ candidate
reconstructed mass for each component in the fit is also investigated. The
uncertainty due to the modelling of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
decays is assessed by varying the determined efficiencies and input branching
fractions of the ${{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}[\gamma{\mathrm{D}}]$ and
${{\mathrm{D}}^{*}}[{{\uppi}^{0}}{\mathrm{D}}]$ components within their
respective uncertainties. Two alternative PDFs are examined to assess
uncertainty in the modelling of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
decays: one based on simulated samples of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}(1400)^{0}[{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}]$
decays, and another based on
${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
decays collected from data. Performing the fit with either distribution
results in negligible variations in the $C\\!P$-violating observables. An
alternative
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
reconstructed mass distribution composed of an equal admixture of
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\uprho}^{0}}[{{\uppi}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}]$
and non-resonant
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}\left({\uppi}{\uppi}\right)_{S-\text{wave}}$
decays based on results in Ref.[LHCb-PAPER-2014-070] is also considered. These
uncertainties are negligible for all $C\\!P$-violating observables except
$R^{\pm}_{\pi K(\pi\pi)}$.

The statistical uncertainty of the flavour-integrated number of charmless
decays is accounted for through Gaussian constraints in the fit, but the
asymmetry of the charmless yields is fixed based on the central values
determined in data. The resulting uncertainty on the parameters of interest is
determined through variations of the charmless asymmetries within their
measured uncertainties.

The assumption of equal combinatorial background in ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ and
${{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}$ candidate samples is
studied using pseudoexperiments, where an ensemble of datasets is generated
with asymmetric background yields. The magnitude of the asymmetry generated is
determined from an alternative fit to the data. The pseudoexperiments are fit
with the default model and biases in the fitted observables are taken as the
systematic uncertainty.

Table 2: Summary of uncertainties on the physics observables measured in ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ decays. Uncertainties smaller than $5\%$ of the statistical uncertainty are indicated with dashed lines. | $\mathcal{A}_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}$ | $\mathcal{R}^{+}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}}$ | $\mathcal{R}^{-}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}}$ | $\mathcal{R}^{{\uppi}{\uppi}}_{CP}$ | $\mathcal{A}^{{\uppi}{\uppi}}_{CP}$ | $\mathcal{R}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}}}_{CP}$ | $\mathcal{A}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}}}_{CP}$ | $\mathcal{A}_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}}$ | $R^{+}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}}$ | $\mathcal{R}^{-}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}}$ | $\mathcal{R}^{4{\uppi}}_{CP}$ | $\mathcal{A}^{4{\uppi}}_{CP}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
$A_{\text{prod}}$ | $0.009$ | $0.001$ | $0.001$ | $0.002$ | $0.009$ | – | $0.009$ | $0.009$ | $0.001$ | $0.001$ | – | $0.009$
$A_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}$ | $0.009$ | $0.001$ | $0.001$ | $0.001$ | $0.006$ | $0.001$ | $0.006$ | $0.009$ | $0.001$ | $0.001$ | $0.001$ | $0.006$
PID | $0.008$ | $0.004$ | $0.004$ | $0.012$ | $0.010$ | $0.010$ | $0.010$ | $0.010$ | $0.004$ | $0.004$ | $0.017$ | $0.011$
Fit PDFs | – | 0.003 | 0.003 | – | – | – | – | – | 0.003 | 0.003 | – | –
Charmless Asymmetries | – | – | – | 0.011 | 0.005 | – | – | – | 0.001 | 0.001 | – | –
Combinatorial Asymmetries | – | 0.002 | 0.002 | – | 0.002 | – | 0.001 | – | 0.004 | 0.004 | – | 0.001
Input Branching Fractions | – | – | – | 0.020 | – | 0.013 | – | – | – | – | 0.028 | –
Total systematic | $0.015$ | $0.005$ | $0.005$ | $0.026$ | $0.016$ | $0.017$ | $0.015$ | $0.016$ | $0.006$ | $0.006$ | $0.033$ | $0.016$
Statistical | $0.017$ | $0.013$ | $0.013$ | $0.110$ | $0.103$ | $0.057$ | $0.064$ | $0.018$ | $0.014$ | $0.014$ | $0.084$ | $0.088$

###  4.4 Results of the reconstructed mass fit

The reconstructed $\mathrm{B}$ candidate mass distributions for different
$\mathrm{D}$ decay modes are shown with the results of the fit overlaid in
Figs. 1–3. The yields of the favoured decays,
$N_{K\pi},\;N_{K\pi\pi\pi},N_{s,\pi K},\text{ and }N_{s,\pi K\pi\pi}$ are
found to be roughly 3800, 3600, 8800, and 8200, respectively. The
$C\\!P$-violating observables determined in the fit for ${\mathrm{B}}^{0}$
$\rightarrow$ $\mathrm{D}$ ${\mathrm{K}}^{*0}$ decays are given in Table 3 and
the results of ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$ are given in Table 4. The
results from the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ decays conform to the
expectation of unobservable effects of interference: all
$\mathcal{R}^{s}_{CP}$ parameters are consistent with unity within one
standard deviation, and no statistically significant asymmetries are observed.
However, statistically significant evidence of interference is seen in the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ results, most
notably in $\mathcal{R}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}}}_{CP}$ at the $3\sigma$
level. An approximately $2\sigma$ tension is observed between the values of
$\mathcal{R}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}}}_{CP}$ and
$\mathcal{R}^{{\uppi}{\uppi}}_{CP}$, which are expected to be consistent, but
this difference is attributed to a statistical fluctuation. The asymmetries
$\mathcal{A}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}}}_{CP}$ and
$\mathcal{A}^{{\uppi}{\uppi}}_{CP}$ are consistent with each other. In
aggregate, the results are self-consistent, as evidenced by our interpretation
of the parameters in Sect. 5.

Statistical precision on the $C\\!P$-violating observables has improved by
around 60$\%$ in comparison to the previous results in Ref. [LHCb-
PAPER-2019-021], an improvement which is consistent with the increase in
signal yield. Central values are also consistent taking into account
correlations and the more accurate determination of the contribution of
charmless decays with the larger dataset.

|
---|---
|
Figure 1: Reconstructed mass distributions for selected candidates in the (left) ${{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}$ and (right) ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ samples for the (top) ${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}$ and (bottom) ${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}$ decay channels. The fit projection is overlaid. |
---|---
|
Figure 2: Reconstructed mass distributions for selected candidates in the (left) ${{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}$ and (right) ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ samples for the (top) ${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}$ and (bottom) ${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}$ decay modes. The fit projections are overlaid. |
---|---
|
|
Figure 3: Reconstructed mass distributions for selected candidates in the
(left) ${{\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}}$ and (right)
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ samples for the (top)
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\uppi}{\uppi}$, (centre)
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}}$, and (bottom)
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}$ decay modes. The fit
projections are overlaid. Table 3: Fitted $C\\!P$-violating observables
related to ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow D{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ decays. The
first stated uncertainties are statistical and the second are systematic.

. 4  Parameter Value $\mathcal{A}_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}$ $\phantom{-}0.031\pm
0.017\pm 0.015$ $\mathcal{R}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}}^{+}$ $\phantom{-}0.069\pm
0.013\pm 0.005$ $\mathcal{R}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}}^{-}$ $\phantom{-}0.093\pm
0.013\pm 0.005$ $\mathcal{A}_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}}$ $-0.012\pm
0.018\pm 0.016$ $\mathcal{R}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}}^{+}$
$\phantom{-}0.060\pm 0.014\pm 0.006$
$\mathcal{R}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}}^{-}$ $\phantom{-}0.038\pm
0.014\pm 0.006$ $\mathcal{R}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}}}_{CP}$
$\phantom{-}0.811\pm 0.057\pm 0.017$
$\mathcal{A}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}}}_{CP}$ $-0.047\pm 0.063\pm 0.015$
$\mathcal{R}^{{\uppi}{\uppi}}_{CP}$ $\phantom{-}1.104\pm 0.111\pm 0.026$
$\mathcal{A}^{{\uppi}{\uppi}}_{CP}$ $-0.034\pm 0.094\pm 0.016$
$\mathcal{R}^{4{\uppi}}_{CP}$ $\phantom{-}0.882\pm 0.086\pm 0.033$
$\mathcal{A}^{4{\uppi}}_{CP}$ $\phantom{-}0.021\pm 0.087\pm 0.016$

Table 4: Fitted $C\\!P$-violating observables related to
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\kern
0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}}$ decays. The first stated
uncertainties are statistical and the second are systematic.

. 4  Parameter Value $\mathcal{A}_{s,{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}}$ $-0.009\pm 0.011\pm
0.020$ $\mathcal{R}_{s,{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}^{+}$ $\phantom{-}0.004\pm 0.002\pm
0.006$ $\mathcal{R}_{s,{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}^{-}$ $\phantom{-}0.004\pm 0.002\pm
0.006$ $\mathcal{A}_{s,{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}}$ $-0.029\pm 0.012\pm
0.021$ $\mathcal{R}_{s,{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}}^{+}$
$\phantom{-}0.019\pm 0.004\pm 0.007$
$\mathcal{R}_{s,{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}}^{-}$ $\phantom{-}0.015\pm
0.004\pm 0.007$ $\mathcal{R}^{s,{\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}}}_{CP}$
$\phantom{-}1.000\pm 0.034\pm 0.016$
$\mathcal{A}^{s,{\mathrm{K}}{\mathrm{K}}}_{CP}$ $\phantom{-}0.062\pm 0.032\pm
0.021$ $\mathcal{R}^{s,{\uppi}{\uppi}}_{CP}$ $\phantom{-}0.996\pm 0.057\pm
0.023$ $\mathcal{A}^{s,{\uppi}{\uppi}}_{CP}$ $-0.001\pm 0.056\pm 0.021$
$\mathcal{R}^{s,4{\uppi}}_{CP}$ $\phantom{-}1.010\pm 0.048\pm 0.033$
$\mathcal{A}^{s,4{\uppi}}_{CP}$ $\phantom{-}0.017\pm 0.044\pm 0.022$

##  5 Interpretation and conclusions

The measured parameters from Table 3 can be expressed in terms of the
fundamental physics parameters of interest, $\gamma$,
$r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$, and
$\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$, and some
additional inputs. These additional inputs include the coherence factor
$\kappa_{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$, which quantifies the dilution of the interference
effects of interest due to the selected
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{+}}{{\uppi}^{-}}$
decays that do not proceed through an intermediate ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
resonance. The value of this parameter measured by Ref. [LHCb-PAPER-2015-059]
is used, which placed identical requirements on the ${{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
candidate to those presented in this article. There is additional dependence
on the hadronic parameters associated with the ${\mathrm{D}}$ meson decays to
a final state $X$: $r_{\mathrm{D}}^{X}$, $\delta_{\mathrm{D}}^{X}$, and
$\kappa_{\mathrm{D}}^{X}$ for ADS decays, and the $C\\!P$-even fraction
$F_{+}^{X}$ for GLW decays. The values of the ADS parameters are taken from
Ref. [LHCb-CONF-2022-003] for the ${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}$
decay (except for $\kappa_{\mathrm{D}}^{K\pi}$, which is exactly one) and from
Ref. [BESIIIK3Pi] for the
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}$ decay. For the two-
body GLW modes, $F_{+}^{hh}$ is exactly one, and the value of
$F_{+}^{4{\uppi}}=0.746\pm 0.013$ is taken from an average of the results from
Ref. [BESIIIFPlus4Pi] and Ref. [CLEOFPlus4Pi]. The GLW observables
$\mathcal{A}_{CP}^{hh(\pi\pi)}$ and $\mathcal{R}_{CP}^{hh(\pi\pi)}$ relate to
these parameters through

$\begin{array}[]{r@{}l}\mathcal{A}^{hh({\uppi}{\uppi})}_{CP}&=\frac{2\kappa_{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}\left(2F_{+}^{hh({\uppi}{\uppi})}-1\right)\sin\left(\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}\right)\sin\left(\gamma\right)}{1+\left(r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}\right)^{2}+2\kappa_{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\cos\left(\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}\right)\cos\left(\gamma\right)}\text{,}\\\
\\\
\mathcal{R}^{hh({\uppi}{\uppi})}_{CP}&=\frac{1+\left(r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}\right)^{2}+2\kappa_{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}\left(2F_{+}^{hh({\uppi}{\uppi})}-1\right)\cos\left(\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}\right)\cos\left(\gamma\right)}{1+\left(r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}\right)^{2}\left(r_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}}\right)^{2}+2\kappa_{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}r_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}}\kappa_{D}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}}\cos\left(\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}-\delta_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}}\right)\cos\left(\gamma\right)}.\end{array}$
(7)

The $\mathcal{R}^{+}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}({\uppi}{\uppi})}$ and
$\mathcal{R}^{-}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}({\uppi}{\uppi})}$ observables can be
expressed, neglecting effects of charm mixing, as

$\small\mathcal{R}^{\pm}_{{\uppi}{\mathrm{K}}({\uppi}{\uppi})}=\frac{\left(r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}\right)^{2}+\left(r_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\right)^{2}+2\kappa_{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}r_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\kappa_{D}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\cos\left(\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}+\delta_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\pm\gamma\right)}{1+\left(r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}\right)^{2}\left(r_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\right)^{2}+2\kappa_{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}r_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\kappa_{D}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\cos\left(\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}-\delta_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\pm\gamma\right)}.$
(8)

Additional corrections are made due to the effects of charm mixing, as
described in Ref. [CharmMixing], which are of the order of $1\%$. Finally, the
parameters $\mathcal{A}_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}}$ and
$\mathcal{A}_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}{\uppi}{\uppi}}$ can be expressed as

$\small\mathcal{A}_{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}=\frac{2\kappa_{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\kappa_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}r_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\sin\left(\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}-\delta_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\right)\sin(\gamma)}{1+\left(r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}\right)^{2}\left(r_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\right)^{2}+2\kappa_{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\kappa_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}r_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\cos\left(\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}-\delta_{\mathrm{D}}^{{\mathrm{K}}{\uppi}({\uppi}{\uppi})}\right)\cos(\gamma)}.$
(9)

With Eqs. 7–9, the measured $C\\!P$-violating observables from Table 3, and
the aforementioned inputs, limits are set on the ($\gamma$,
$r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$,
$\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$) parameter
space using the GammaCombo package [LHCb-PAPER-2016-032], which implements a
profile-likelihood method. The correlations of statistical and systematic
uncertainties for the measured $C\\!P$-violating observables are accounted for
with correlation matrices shown in Appendix D. Four solutions are found, and
constraints on the parameter space are shown in Figs. 4–6. It should be noted
that the probability contours shown in the two-dimensional figures do not
correspond to $1\sigma,\;2\sigma,\;3\sigma$, etc. when projected to one
dimension. The preferred solution determines $\gamma$ to be $172^{\circ}$ with
an approximate Gaussian uncertainty of $6^{\circ}$ and
$\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$ to be
$296^{\circ}$ with an approximate Gaussian uncertainty of $8^{\circ}$.
However, the second-preferred solution is consistent with the world-average of
direct measurements of $\gamma=\left(66.2^{+3.4}_{-3.6}\right)^{\circ}$
[HeavyFlavorAveragingGroup:2022wzx], finding $\gamma$ to be $62^{\circ}$ with
an approximate Gaussian uncertainty of $8^{\circ}$ and
$\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$ to be
$187^{\circ}$ with an approximate Gaussian uncertainty of $6^{\circ}$. As can
be seen in Fig. 5, all solutions give a consistent determination of
$r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}$, with the preferred
solution of this analysis finding
$r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}=0.235\pm 0.017$.

A combined analysis of these results with the measurement of $C\\!P$-violating
observables from
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ with
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{0}_{\mathrm{S}}}h^{+}h^{-}$ from Ref.
[LHCb-PAPER-2023-009] is also performed. As the
${\mathrm{D}}\rightarrow{{\mathrm{K}}^{0}_{\mathrm{S}}}h^{+}h^{-}$ decay
probes ${\mathrm{D}}$ strong phases other than those close to $0$ and $\pi$,
this breaks the $90^{\circ}$ degeneracy of the solutions found for $\gamma$ in
this analysis and provides additional precision. Projections of the allowed
parameter space from the combined analysis are shown in Figs. 4–6. The
preferred solution including all of the measured ${\mathrm{D}}$ decay modes in
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}\rightarrow D{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$ is $\gamma=\left(63.3\pm
7.2\right)^{\circ}$,
$r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}=0.233\pm 0.016$, and
$\delta_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*}}}=\left(191.9\pm
6.0\right)^{\circ}$.

|
---|---
Figure 4: Confidence levels from the fitted results of the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$-related $C\\!P$-violating observables from (left) just this analysis and (right) this analysis combined with the results from Ref. [LHCb-PAPER-2023-009] projected to the $\gamma$ axis. |
---|---
Figure 5: Confidence level contours from the fitted results of the ${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$-related $C\\!P$-violating observables from (left) just this analysis and (right) this analysis combined with the results from Ref. [LHCb-PAPER-2023-009] projected to the $\gamma$-$r_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}}$ plane. Contours contain 68.3%, 95.4%, and 99.7% of the distribution. |
---|---
Figure 6: Confidence level contours from the fitted results of the
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$-related $C\\!P$-violating observables from (left) just
this analysis and (right) this analysis combined with the results from Ref.
[LHCb-PAPER-2023-009] projected to the
$\gamma$-$\delta_{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}^{{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}}$ plane.
Contours contain 68.3%, 95.4%, and 99.7% of the distribution.

In summary, measurements of $C\\!P$-violating observables in
${{\mathrm{B}}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{0}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{D}}{{\mathrm{K}}^{*0}}$
decays are presented in this article. These are the most precise measurements
to date and provide the most stringent limits to date on $\gamma$ from
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$ decays. The $C\\!P$-violating observables in
${{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ decays are found to be consistent with no
$C\\!P$ violation. A combined analysis of the $C\\!P$-violating observables
from ${\mathrm{B}}^{0}$ decays finds a solution for $\gamma$ that is
consistent with the measurement from ${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}$ decays reported in
the HFLAV average [HeavyFlavorAveragingGroup:2022wzx].

## 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 the LHCb institutes. We acknowledge support from CERN
and from the national agencies: CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); MOST
and NSFC (China); CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG and MPG (Germany); INFN
(Italy); NWO (Netherlands); MNiSW and NCN (Poland); MCID/IFA (Romania); MICINN
(Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom);
DOE NP and NSF (USA). We acknowledge the computing resources that are provided
by CERN, IN2P3 (France), KIT and DESY (Germany), INFN (Italy), SURF
(Netherlands), PIC (Spain), GridPP (United Kingdom), CSCS (Switzerland), IFIN-
HH (Romania), CBPF (Brazil), and Polish WLCG (Poland). We are indebted to the
communities behind the multiple open-source software packages on which we
depend. Individual groups or members have received support from ARC and ARDC
(Australia); Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of CAS, CAS PIFI, CAS
CCEPP, Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and Sci. &
Tech. Program of Guangzhou (China); Minciencias (Colombia); EPLANET, Marie
Skłodowska-Curie Actions, ERC and NextGenerationEU (European Union); A*MIDEX,
ANR, IPhU and Labex P2IO, and Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (France); AvH
Foundation (Germany); ICSC (Italy); GVA, XuntaGal, GENCAT, Inditex, InTalent
and Prog. Atracción Talento, CM (Spain); SRC (Sweden); the Leverhulme Trust,
the Royal Society and UKRI (United Kingdom).

##  6 Acknowledgements paragraph

Include the following text in the Acknowledgements section in all paper
drafts. It is not needed for analysis notes or conference reports.

The text below are the acknowledgements as approved by the collaboration
board. Extending the acknowledgements to include individuals from outside the
collaboration who have contributed to the analysis should be approved by the
EB. The extra acknowledgements are normally placed before the standard
acknowledgements, unless it matches better with the text of the standard
acknowledgements to put them elsewhere. They should be included in the draft
for the first circulation. Except in exceptional circumstances, to be approved
by the EB chair, authors of the paper should not be named in extended
acknowledgements.

## 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 the LHCb institutes. We acknowledge support from CERN
and from the national agencies: CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); MOST
and NSFC (China); CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG and MPG (Germany); INFN
(Italy); NWO (Netherlands); MNiSW and NCN (Poland); MCID/IFA (Romania); MICINN
(Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom);
DOE NP and NSF (USA). We acknowledge the computing resources that are provided
by CERN, IN2P3 (France), KIT and DESY (Germany), INFN (Italy), SURF
(Netherlands), PIC (Spain), GridPP (United Kingdom), CSCS (Switzerland), IFIN-
HH (Romania), CBPF (Brazil), and Polish WLCG (Poland). We are indebted to the
communities behind the multiple open-source software packages on which we
depend. Individual groups or members have received support from ARC and ARDC
(Australia); Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of CAS, CAS PIFI, CAS
CCEPP, Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and Sci. &
Tech. Program of Guangzhou (China); Minciencias (Colombia); EPLANET, Marie
Skłodowska-Curie Actions, ERC and NextGenerationEU (European Union); A*MIDEX,
ANR, IPhU and Labex P2IO, and Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (France); AvH
Foundation (Germany); ICSC (Italy); GVA, XuntaGal, GENCAT, Inditex, InTalent
and Prog. Atracción Talento, CM (Spain); SRC (Sweden); the Leverhulme Trust,
the Royal Society and UKRI (United Kingdom).

## Appendices

##  Appendix A Standard References

Below is a list of common references, as well as a list of all LHCb
publications. As they are already in prepared bib files, they can be used as
simply as \cite{LHCb-DP-2008-001} to get the LHCb detector paper. The
references are defined in the files main.bib, LHCb-PAPER.bib, LHCb-CONF.bib,
LHCb-DP.bib LHCb-TDR.bib files, with obvious contents. Each of these have
their LHCb-ZZZ-20XX-0YY number as their cite code. If you believe there is a
problem with the formatting or content of one of the entries, then get in
contact with the Editorial Board rather than just editing it in your local
file, since you are likely to need the latest version just before submitting
the article.

Table 5: Standard references. Description |  Ref. cite code
---|---
Lee, Weinberg, Zumino |  [Lee:1967iu] Lee:1967iu
Cabibbo, Kobayashi, Maskawa |  [Cabibbo:1963yz, *Kobayashi:1973fv] Cabibbo:1963yz,*Kobayashi:1973fv
Gell-Mann, Zweig |  [GellMann:1964nj, *Zweig:352337] GellMann:1964nj,*Zweig:352337
Baryon asymmetry & SM $C\\!P$ |  [Gavela:1994dt] Gavela:1994dt
Baryon asymmetry & SM $C\\!P$ |  [Gavela:1993ts] Gavela:1993ts
EW Baryogenesis & $C\\!P$ |  [Huet:1994jb] Huet:1994jb
Dalitz Plot111Dalitz invented the method, Fabri added relativistic corrections. |  [Dalitz:1953cp, *Fabri:1954zz] Dalitz:1953cp,*Fabri:1954zz
PDG 2020 |  [PDG2020] PDG2020
PDG 2019 |  [PDG2019] PDG2019
PDG 2018 |  [PDG2018] PDG2018
PDG 2016 |  [PDG2016] PDG2016
PDG 2014 |  [PDG2014] PDG2014
HFlav 2018 |  [HFLAV18] HFLAV18
HFlav 2016 |  [HFLAV16] HFLAV16
HFlav (pre-2016) |  [Amhis:2014hma] Amhis:2014hma
CKMfitter group |  [CKMfitter2005] CKMfitter2005
CKMfitter group |  [CKMfitter2015] CKMfitter2015
UTfit (Standard Model/CKM) |  [UTfit-UT] UTfit-UT
UTfit (New Physics) |  [UTfit-NP] UTfit-NP
Pythia |  [Sjostrand:2007gs, *Sjostrand:2006za] Sjostrand:2007gs,*Sjostrand:2006za
LHCb Pythia tuning |  [LHCb-PROC-2010-056] LHCb-PROC-2010-056
EvtGen |  [Lange:2001uf] Lange:2001uf
Photos |  [davidson2015photos] davidson2015photos
Geant4 |  [Allison:2006ve, *Agostinelli:2002hh] Allison:2006ve, *Agostinelli:2002hh
LHCb simulation |  [LHCb-PROC-2011-006] LHCb-PROC-2011-006
RapidSim |  [Cowan:2016tnm] Cowan:2016tnm
Dirac |  [Tsaregorodtsev:2010zz, *BelleDIRAC] Tsaregorodtsev:2010zz,*BelleDIRAC
HLT2 topological trigger |  [BBDT] BBDT
Topological trigger reoptimization — Run 2 |  [LHCb-PROC-2015-018] LHCb-PROC-2015-018
Turbo and real-time alignment — Run 2 |  [LHCb-PROC-2015-011] LHCb-PROC-2015-011
TisTos method |  [LHCb-PUB-2014-039] LHCb-PUB-2014-039
Allen |  [Aaij:2019zbu] Aaij:2019zbu
PIDCalib (for Run 1) |  [LHCb-PUB-2016-021] LHCb-PUB-2016-021
Ghost probability |  [DeCian:2255039] DeCian:2255039
Primary vertex reconstruction |  [Kucharczyk:1756296] Kucharczyk:1756296
DecayTreeFitter |  [Hulsbergen:2005pu] Hulsbergen:2005pu
SMOG |  [FerroLuzzi:2005em] FerroLuzzi:2005em
Run-2 tagging |  [Fazzini:2018dyq] Fazzini:2018dyq
OS $\mathrm{K}$, $\upmu$, $\mathrm{e}$ and VS tagging |  [LHCb-PAPER-2011-027] LHCb-PAPER-2011-027
OS charm tagging |  [LHCb-PAPER-2015-027] LHCb-PAPER-2015-027
SS kaon tagging |  [LHCb-PAPER-2015-056] LHCb-PAPER-2015-056
SS proton and pion tagging |  [LHCb-PAPER-2016-039] LHCb-PAPER-2016-039
Reommendations for multiple candidates |  [Koppenburg:2017zsh] Koppenburg:2017zsh
See also Table LABEL:tab:LHCb-DPs for LHCb performance references.
sPlot |  [Pivk:2004ty] Pivk:2004ty
sFit |  [Xie:2009rka] Xie:2009rka
Punzi’s optimization |  [Punzi:2003bu] Punzi:2003bu
BDT |  [Breiman] Breiman
BDT training |  [AdaBoost] AdaBoost
TMVA222Do not cite this instead of the actual reference for the MVA being used. |  [Hocker:2007ht, *TMVA4] Hocker:2007ht,*TMVA4
RooUnfold |  [Adye:2011gm] Adye:2011gm
scikit-learn |  [Scikit-learn-paper] Scikit-learn-paper
Laura++ |  [Back:2017zqt] Back:2017zqt
hep_ml |  [Rogozhnikov:2016bdp] Rogozhnikov:2016bdp
root_numpy |  [root-numpy] root-numpy
GammaCombo333Always cite this along with Ref. [LHCb-PAPER-2016-032] as \cite{GammaCombo,*LHCb-PAPER-2016-032} (unless LHCb-PAPER-2016-032 is cited elsewhere). |  [GammaCombo] GammaCombo
Crystal Ball function444A valid alternative for most papers where the normalisation is not critical is to use the expression“Gaussian function with a low-mass power-law tail” or “Gaussian function with power-law tails”. In that case, no citation is needed |  [Skwarnicki:1986xj] Skwarnicki:1986xj
Hypatia function |  [Santos:2013gra] Santos:2013gra
Modified Novosibirsk function |  [Ikeda:1999aq] Ikeda:1999aq
Bukin function |  [Bukin:2007] Bukin:2007
Wilks’ theorem |  [Wilks:1938dza] Wilks:1938dza
CLs method |  [CLs] CLs
BLUE method |  [Nisius:2020jmf] Nisius:2020jmf
Bootstrapping |  [efron:1979] efron:1979
Blatt–Weisskopf barrier |  [Blatt:1952ije] Blatt:1952ije
$f_{s}/f_{d}$ at 7–8 TeV |  [fsfd] fsfd
LHC beam energy uncertainty |  [PhysRevAccelBeams.20.081003] PhysRevAccelBeams.20.081003
Table 6: LHCb detector performance papers. LHCb-DP number | Title
---|---
LHCb-DP-2020-003 [LHCb-DP-2020-003] | TBD
LHCb-DP-2020-002 [LHCb-DP-2020-002] | TBD
LHCb-DP-2020-001 [LHCb-DP-2020-001] | TBD
LHCb-DP-2019-006 [LHCb-DP-2019-006] | TBD
LHCb-DP-2019-005 [LHCb-DP-2019-005] | TBD
LHCb-DP-2019-004 [LHCb-DP-2019-004] | Diphoton discrimination
LHCb-DP-2019-003 [LHCb-DP-2019-003] | Electron reconstruction efficiency
LHCb-DP-2019-002 [LHCb-DP-2019-002] | Real-Time analysis
LHCb-DP-2019-001 [LHCb-DP-2019-001] | Run 2 trigger performance
LHCb-DP-2018-004 [LHCb-DP-2018-004] | ReDecay
LHCb-DP-2018-003 [LHCb-DP-2018-003] | Radiation damage in TT
LHCb-DP-2018-002 [LHCb-DP-2018-002] | VeLo material map using SMOG
LHCb-DP-2018-001 [LHCb-DP-2018-001] | PIDCalib for Run 2 (use Ref. [LHCb-PUB-2016-021] for Run 1)
LHCb-DP-2017-001 [LHCb-DP-2017-001] | Performance of the Outer Tracker — Run 2
LHCb-DP-2016-003 [LHCb-DP-2016-003] | HeRSCheL
LHCb-DP-2016-001 [LHCb-DP-2016-001] | TESLA project — Run 2
LHCb-DP-2014-002 [LHCb-DP-2014-002] | LHCb detector performance
LHCb-DP-2014-001 [LHCb-DP-2014-001] | Performance of the LHCb Vertex Locator
LHCb-DP-2013-003 [LHCb-DP-2013-003] | Performance of the LHCb Outer Tracker — Run 1
LHCb-DP-2013-002 [LHCb-DP-2013-002] | Measurement of the track reconstruction efficiency at LHCb
LHCb-DP-2013-001 [LHCb-DP-2013-001] | Performance of the muon identification at LHCb
LHCb-DP-2012-005 [LHCb-DP-2012-005] | Radiation damage in the LHCb Vertex Locator
LHCb-DP-2012-004 [LHCb-DP-2012-004] | The LHCb trigger and its performance in 2011
LHCb-DP-2012-003 [LHCb-DP-2012-003] | Performance of the LHCb RICH detector at the LHC
LHCb-DP-2012-002 [LHCb-DP-2012-002] | Performance of the LHCb muon system
LHCb-DP-2012-001 [LHCb-DP-2012-001] | Radiation hardness of the LHCb Outer Tracker
LHCb-DP-2011-002 [LHCb-DP-2011-002] | Simulation of machine induced background …
LHCb-DP-2011-001 [LHCb-DP-2011-001] | Performance of the LHCb muon system with cosmic rays
LHCb-DP-2010-001 [LHCb-DP-2010-001] | First spatial alignment of the LHCb VELO …
LHCb-DP-2008-001 [LHCb-DP-2008-001] |  LHCb detector
Table 7: LHCb TDRs. LHCb-TDR number | Title
---|---
LHCb-TDR-021 [LHCb-TDR-021] | Allen
LHCb-TDR-020 [LHCb-TDR-020] | SMOG Upgrade
LHCb-TDR-018 [LHCb-TDR-018] | Upgrade computing model
LHCb-PII-Physics [LHCb-PII-Physics] | Phase-II upgrade physics case
LHCb-PII-EoI [LHCb-PII-EoI] | Expression of interest for Phase-II upgrade
LHCb-TDR-017 [LHCb-TDR-017] | Upgrade software and computing
LHCb-TDR-016 [LHCb-TDR-016] | Trigger and online upgrade
LHCb-TDR-015 [LHCb-TDR-015] | Tracker upgrade
LHCb-TDR-014 [LHCb-TDR-014] | PID upgrade
LHCb-TDR-013 [LHCb-TDR-013] | VELO upgrade
LHCb-TDR-012 [LHCb-TDR-012] | Framework TDR for the upgrade
LHCb-TDR-011 [LHCb-TDR-011] | Computing
LHCb-TDR-010 [LHCb-TDR-010] | Trigger
LHCb-TDR-009 [LHCb-TDR-009] | Reoptimized detector
LHCb-TDR-008 [LHCb-TDR-008] | Inner Tracker
LHCb-TDR-007 [LHCb-TDR-007] | Online, DAQ, ECS
LHCb-TDR-006 [LHCb-TDR-006] | Outer Tracker
LHCb-TDR-005 [LHCb-TDR-005] | VELO
LHCb-TDR-004 [LHCb-TDR-004] | Muon system
LHCb-TDR-003 [LHCb-TDR-003] | RICH
LHCb-TDR-002 [LHCb-TDR-002] | Calorimeters
LHCb-TDR-001 [LHCb-TDR-001] | Magnet
Table 8: LHCb-PAPERs (which have their identifier as their cite code). DNE: Does not exist.  LHCb-PAPER-2021-020 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-020] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-019 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-019] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-018 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-018] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-017 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-017] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-016 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-016]
---|---|---|---|---
LHCb-PAPER-2021-015 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-015] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-014 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-014] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-013 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-013] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-012 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-012] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-011 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-011]
LHCb-PAPER-2021-010 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-010] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-009 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-009] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-008 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-008] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-007 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-007] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-006 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-006]
LHCb-PAPER-2021-005 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-005] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-004 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-004] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-003 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-003] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2021-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2021-001]
LHCb-PAPER-2020-048 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-048] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-047 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-047] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-046 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-046] |  |
LHCb-PAPER-2020-045 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-045] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-044 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-044] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-043 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-043] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-042 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-042] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-041 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-041]
LHCb-PAPER-2020-040 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-040] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-039 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-039] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-038 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-038] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-037 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-037] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-036 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-036]
LHCb-PAPER-2020-035 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-035] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-034 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-034] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-033 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-033] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-032 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-032] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-031 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-031]
LHCb-PAPER-2020-030 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-030] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-029 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-029] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-028 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-028] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-027 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-027] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-026 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-026]
LHCb-PAPER-2020-025 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-025] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-024 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-024] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-023 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-023] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-022 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-022] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-021 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-021]
LHCb-PAPER-2020-020 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-020] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-019 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-019] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-018 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-018] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-017 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-017] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-016 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-016]
LHCb-PAPER-2020-015 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-015] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-014 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-014] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-013 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-013] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-012 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-012] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-011 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-011]
LHCb-PAPER-2020-010 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-010] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-009 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-009] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-008 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-008] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-007 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-007] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-006 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-006]
LHCb-PAPER-2020-005 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-005] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-004 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-004] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-003 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-003] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2020-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2020-001]
LHCb-PAPER-2019-046 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-046] |  |  |  |
LHCb-PAPER-2019-045 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-045] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-044 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-044] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-043 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-043] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-042 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-042] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-041 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-041]
LHCb-PAPER-2019-040 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-040] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-039 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-039] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-038 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-038] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-037 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-037] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-036 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-036]
LHCb-PAPER-2019-035 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-035] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-034 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-034] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-033 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-033] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-032 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-032] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-031 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-031]
LHCb-PAPER-2019-030 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-030] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-029 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-029] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-028 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-028] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-027 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-027] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-026 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-026]
LHCb-PAPER-2019-025 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-025] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-024 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-024] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-023 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-023] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-022 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-022] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-021 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-021]
LHCb-PAPER-2019-020 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-020] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-019 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-019] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-018 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-018] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-017 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-017] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-016 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-016]
LHCb-PAPER-2019-015 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-015] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-014 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-014] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-013 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-013] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-012 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-012] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-011 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-011]
LHCb-PAPER-2019-010 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-010] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-009 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-009] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-008 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-008] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-007 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-007] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-006 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-006]
LHCb-PAPER-2019-005 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-005] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-004 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-004] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-003 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-003] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2019-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2019-001]
LHCb-PAPER-2018-051 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-051] |  |  |  |
LHCb-PAPER-2018-050 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-050] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-049 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-049] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-048 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-048] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-047 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-047] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-046 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-046]
LHCb-PAPER-2018-045 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-045] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-044 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-044] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-043 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-043] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-042 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-042] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-041 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-041]
LHCb-PAPER-2018-040 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-040] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-039 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-039] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-038 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-038] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-037 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-037] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-036 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-036]
LHCb-PAPER-2018-035 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-035] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-034 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-034] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-033 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-033] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-032 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-032] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-031 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-031]
LHCb-PAPER-2018-030 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-030] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-029 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-029] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-028 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-028] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-027 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-027] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-026 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-026]
LHCb-PAPER-2018-025 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-025] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-024 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-024] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-023 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-023] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-022 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-022] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-021 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-021]
LHCb-PAPER-2018-020 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-020] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-019 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-019] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-018 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-018] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-017 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-017] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-016 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-016]
LHCb-PAPER-2018-015 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-015] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-014 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-014] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-013 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-013] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-012 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-012] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-011 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-011]
LHCb-PAPER-2018-010 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-010] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-009 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-009] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-008 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-008] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-007 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-007] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-006 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-006]
LHCb-PAPER-2018-005 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-005] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-004 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-004] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-003 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-003] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2018-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2018-001]
LHCb-PAPER-2017-050 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-050] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-049 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-049] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-048 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-048] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-047 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-047] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-046 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-046]
LHCb-PAPER-2017-045 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-045] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-044 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-044] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-043 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-043] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-042 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-042] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-041 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-041]
LHCb-PAPER-2017-040 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-040] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-039 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-039] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-038 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-038] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-037 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-037] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-036 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-036]
LHCb-PAPER-2017-035 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-035] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-034 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-034] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-033 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-033] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-032 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-032] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-031 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-031]
LHCb-PAPER-2017-030 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-030] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-029 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-029] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-028 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-028] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-027 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-027] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-026 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-026]
LHCb-PAPER-2017-025 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-025] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-024 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-024] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-023 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-023] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-022 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-022] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-021 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-021]
LHCb-PAPER-2017-020 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-020] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-019 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-019] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-018 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-018] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-017 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-017] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-016 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-016]
LHCb-PAPER-2017-015 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-015] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-014 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-014] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-013 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-013] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-012 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-012] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-011 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-011]
LHCb-PAPER-2017-010 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-010] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-009 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-009] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-008 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-008] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-007 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-007] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-006 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-006]
LHCb-PAPER-2017-005 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-005] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-004 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-004] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-003 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-003] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2017-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2017-001]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-065 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-065] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-064 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-064] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-063 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-063] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-062 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-062] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-061 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-061]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-060 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-060] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-059 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-059] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-058 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-058] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-057 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-057] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-056 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-056]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-055 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-055] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-054 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-054] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-053 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-053] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-052 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-052] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-051 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-051]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-050 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-050] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-049 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-049] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-048 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-048] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-047 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-047] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-046 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-046]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-045 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-045] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-044 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-044] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-043 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-043] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-042 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-042] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-041 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-041]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-040 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-040] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-039 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-039] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-038 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-038] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-037 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-037] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-036 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-036]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-035 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-035] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-034 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-034] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-033 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-033] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-032 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-032] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-031 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-031]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-030 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-030] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-029 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-029] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-028 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-028] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-027 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-027] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-026 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-026]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-025 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-025] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-024 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-024] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-023 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-023] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-022 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-022] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-021 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-021]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-020 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-020] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-019 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-019] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-018 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-018] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-017 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-017] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-016 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-016]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-015 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-015] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-014 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-014] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-013 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-013] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-012 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-012] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-011 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-011]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-010 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-010] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-009 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-009] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-008 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-008] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-007 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-007] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-006 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-006]
LHCb-PAPER-2016-005 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-005] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-004 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-004] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-003 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-003] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2016-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2016-001]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-060 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-060] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-059 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-059] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-058 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-058] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-057 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-057] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-056 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-056]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-055 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-055] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-054 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-054] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-053 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-053] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-052 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-052] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-051 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-051]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-050 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-050] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-049 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-049] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-048 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-048] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-047 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-047] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-046 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-046]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-045 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-045] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-044 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-044] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-043 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-043] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-042 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-042] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-041 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-041]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-040 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-040] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-039 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-039] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-038 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-038] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-037 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-037] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-036 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-036]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-035 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-035] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-034 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-034] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-033 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-033] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-032 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-032] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-031 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-031]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-030 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-030] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-029 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-029] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-028 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-028] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-027 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-027] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-026 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-026]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-025 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-025] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-024 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-024] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-023 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-023] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-022 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-022] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-021 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-021]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-020 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-020] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-019 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-019] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-018 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-018] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-017 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-017] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-016 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-016]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-015 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-015] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-014 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-014] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-013 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-013] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-012 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-012] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-011 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-011]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-010 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-010] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-009 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-009] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-008 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-008] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-007 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-007] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-006 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-006]
LHCb-PAPER-2015-005 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-005] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-004 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-004] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-003 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-003] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2015-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2015-001]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-070 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-070] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-069 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-069] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-068 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-068] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-067 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-067] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-066 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-066]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-065 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-065] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-064 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-064] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-063 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-063] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-062 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-062] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-061 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-061]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-060 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-060] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-059 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-059] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-058 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-058] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-057 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-057] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-056 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-056]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-055 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-055] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-054 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-054] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-053 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-053] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-052 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-052] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-051 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-051]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-050 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-050] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-049 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-049] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-048 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-048] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-047 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-047] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-046 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-046]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-045 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-045] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-044 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-044] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-043 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-043] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-042 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-042] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-041 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-041]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-040 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-040] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-039 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-039] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-038 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-038] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-037 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-037] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-036 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-036]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-035 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-035] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-034 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-034] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-033 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-033] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-032 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-032] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-031 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-031]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-030 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-030] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-029 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-029] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-028 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-028] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-027 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-027] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-026 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-026]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-025 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-025] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-024 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-024] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-023 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-023] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-022 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-022] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-021 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-021]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-020 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-020] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-019 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-019] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-018 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-018] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-017 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-017] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-016 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-016]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-015 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-015] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-014 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-014] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-013 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-013] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-012 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-012] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-011 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-011]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-010 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-010] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-009 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-009] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-008 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-008] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-007 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-007] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-006 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-006]
LHCb-PAPER-2014-005 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-005] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-004 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-004] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-003 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-003] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2014-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2014-001]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-070 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-070] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-069 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-069] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-068 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-068] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-067 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-067] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-066 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-066]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-065 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-065] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-064 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-064] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-063 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-063] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-062 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-062] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-061 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-061]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-060 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-060] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-059 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-059] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-058 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-058] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-057 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-057] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-056 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-056]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-055 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-055] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-054 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-054] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-053 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-053] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-052 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-052] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-051 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-051]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-050 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-050] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-049 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-049] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-048 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-048] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-047 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-047] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-046 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-046]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-045 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-045] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-044 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-044] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-043 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-043] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-042 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-042] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-041 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-041]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-040 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-040] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-039 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-039] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-038 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-038] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-037 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-037] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-036 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-036]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-035 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-035] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-034 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-034] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-033 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-033] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-032 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-032] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-031 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-031]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-030 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-030] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-029 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-029] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-028 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-028] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-027 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-027] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-026 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-026]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-025 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-025] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-024 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-024] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-023 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-023] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-022 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-022] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-021 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-021]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-020 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-020] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-019 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-019] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-018 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-018] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-017 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-017] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-016 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-016]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-015 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-015] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-014 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-014] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-013 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-013] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-012 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-012] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-011 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-011]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-010 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-010] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-009 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-009] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-008 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-008] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-007 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-007] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-006 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-006]
LHCb-PAPER-2013-005 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-005] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-004 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-004] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-003 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-003] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2013-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2013-001]
LHCb-PAPER-2012-057 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-057] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-056 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-056] |  |  |
LHCb-PAPER-2012-055 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-055] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-054 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-054] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-053 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-053] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-052 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-052] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-051 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-051]
LHCb-PAPER-2012-050 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-050] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-049 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-049] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-048 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-048] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-047 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-047] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-046 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-046]
LHCb-PAPER-2012-045 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-045] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-044 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-044] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-043 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-043] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-042 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-042] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-041 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-041]
LHCb-PAPER-2012-040 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-040] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-039 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-039] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-038 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-038] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-037 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-037] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-036 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-036]
LHCb-PAPER-2012-035 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-035] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-034 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-034] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-033 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-033] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-032 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-032] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-031 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-031]
LHCb-PAPER-2012-030 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-030] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-029 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-029] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-028 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-028] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-027 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-027] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-026 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-026]
LHCb-PAPER-2012-025 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-025] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-024 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-024] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-023 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-023] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-022 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-022] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-021 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-021]
LHCb-PAPER-2012-020 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-020] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-019 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-019] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-018 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-018] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-017 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-017] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-016 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-016]
LHCb-PAPER-2012-015 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-015] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-014 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-014] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-013 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-013] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-012 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-012] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-011 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-011]
LHCb-PAPER-2012-010 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-010] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-009 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-009] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-008 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-008] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-007 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-007] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-006 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-006]
LHCb-PAPER-2012-005 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-005] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-004 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-004] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-003 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-003] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2012-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2012-001]
LHCb-PAPER-2011-045 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-045] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-044 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-044] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-043 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-043] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-042 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-042] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-041 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-041]
LHCb-PAPER-2011-040 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-040] | LHCb-PAPER-2011-039555LHCb-PAPER-2011-039 does not exist. |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-038 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-038] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-037 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-037] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-036 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-036]
LHCb-PAPER-2011-035 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-035] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-034 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-034] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-033 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-033] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-032 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-032] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-031 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-031]
LHCb-PAPER-2011-030 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-030] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-029 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-029] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-028 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-028] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-027 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-027] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-026 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-026]
LHCb-PAPER-2011-025 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-025] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-024 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-024] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-023 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-023] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-022 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-022] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-021 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-021]
LHCb-PAPER-2011-020 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-020] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-019 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-019] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-018 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-018] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-017 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-017] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-016 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-016]
LHCb-PAPER-2011-015 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-015] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-014 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-014] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-013 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-013] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-012 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-012] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-011 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-011]
LHCb-PAPER-2011-010 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-010] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-009 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-009] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-008 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-008] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-007 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-007] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-006 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-006]
LHCb-PAPER-2011-005 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-005] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-004 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-004] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-003 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-003] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2011-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2011-001]
LHCb-PAPER-2010-002 [LHCb-PAPER-2010-002] |  LHCb-PAPER-2010-001 [LHCb-PAPER-2010-001] |  |  |
Table 9: LHCb-CONFs (which have their identifier as their cite code). Most CONF notes have been superseded by a paper and are thus retired. This is indicated in the bibtex entry. Do not cite retired CONF notes. DNE: Does not exist.  LHCb-CONF-2020-005 [LHCb-CONF-2020-005] |  LHCb-CONF-2020-004 [LHCb-CONF-2020-004] |  LHCb-CONF-2020-003 [LHCb-CONF-2020-003] |  LHCb-CONF-2020-002 [LHCb-CONF-2020-002] |  LHCb-CONF-2020-001 [LHCb-CONF-2020-001]
---|---|---|---|---
LHCb-CONF-2019-005 [LHCb-CONF-2019-005] |  LHCb-CONF-2019-004 [LHCb-CONF-2019-004] |  LHCb-CONF-2019-003 [LHCb-CONF-2019-003] |  LHCb-CONF-2019-002 [LHCb-CONF-2019-002] |  LHCb-CONF-2019-001 [LHCb-CONF-2019-001]
LHCb-CONF-2018-006 [LHCb-CONF-2018-006] |  |  |  |
LHCb-CONF-2018-005 [LHCb-CONF-2018-005] |  LHCb-CONF-2018-004 [LHCb-CONF-2018-004] |  LHCb-CONF-2018-003 [LHCb-CONF-2018-003] |  LHCb-CONF-2018-002 [LHCb-CONF-2018-002]666If you cite the gamma combination, always also cite the latest gamma paper as \cite{LHCb-PAPER-2013-020,*LHCb-CONF-2018-002} (unless you cite LHCb-PAPER-2013-020 separately too). |  LHCb-CONF-2018-001 [LHCb-CONF-2018-001]
LHCb-CONF-2017-005 [LHCb-CONF-2017-005] |  LHCb-CONF-2017-004 [LHCb-CONF-2017-004] |  LHCb-CONF-2017-003 [LHCb-CONF-2017-003] |  LHCb-CONF-2017-002 [LHCb-CONF-2017-002] |  LHCb-CONF-2017-001 [LHCb-CONF-2017-001]
LHCb-CONF-2016-018 [LHCb-CONF-2016-018] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-016 [LHCb-CONF-2016-016] |  |  |
LHCb-CONF-2016-015 [LHCb-CONF-2016-015] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-014 [LHCb-CONF-2016-014] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-013 [LHCb-CONF-2016-013] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-012 [LHCb-CONF-2016-012] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-011 [LHCb-CONF-2016-011]
LHCb-CONF-2016-010 [LHCb-CONF-2016-010] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-009 [LHCb-CONF-2016-009] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-008 [LHCb-CONF-2016-008] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-007 [LHCb-CONF-2016-007] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-006 [LHCb-CONF-2016-006]
LHCb-CONF-2016-005 [LHCb-CONF-2016-005] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-004 [LHCb-CONF-2016-004] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-003 [LHCb-CONF-2016-003] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-002 [LHCb-CONF-2016-002] |  LHCb-CONF-2016-001 [LHCb-CONF-2016-001]
LHCb-CONF-2015-005 [LHCb-CONF-2015-005] |  LHCb-CONF-2015-004 [LHCb-CONF-2015-004] |  LHCb-CONF-2015-003 [LHCb-CONF-2015-003] |  LHCb-CONF-2015-002 [LHCb-CONF-2015-002] |  LHCb-CONF-2015-001 [LHCb-CONF-2015-001]
LHCb-CONF-2014-004 [LHCb-CONF-2014-004] |  LHCb-CONF-2014-003 [LHCb-CONF-2014-003] |  LHCb-CONF-2014-002 [LHCb-CONF-2014-002] |  LHCb-CONF-2014-001 [LHCb-CONF-2014-001] |
LHCb-CONF-2013-013 [LHCb-CONF-2013-013] |  LHCb-CONF-2013-012 [LHCb-CONF-2013-012] |  LHCb-CONF-2013-011 [LHCb-CONF-2013-011] |  |
LHCb-CONF-2013-010 [LHCb-CONF-2013-010] |  LHCb-CONF-2013-009 [LHCb-CONF-2013-009] |  LHCb-CONF-2013-008 [LHCb-CONF-2013-008] |  LHCb-CONF-2013-007 [LHCb-CONF-2013-007] |  LHCb-CONF-2013-006 [LHCb-CONF-2013-006]
LHCb-CONF-2013-005 [LHCb-CONF-2013-005] |  LHCb-CONF-2013-004 [LHCb-CONF-2013-004] |  LHCb-CONF-2013-003 [LHCb-CONF-2013-003] |  LHCb-CONF-2013-002 [LHCb-CONF-2013-002] |  LHCb-CONF-2013-001 [LHCb-CONF-2013-001]
LHCb-CONF-2012-034 [LHCb-CONF-2012-034] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-033 [LHCb-CONF-2012-033] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-032 [LHCb-CONF-2012-032] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-031 [LHCb-CONF-2012-031] |
LHCb-CONF-2012-030 [LHCb-CONF-2012-030] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-029 [LHCb-CONF-2012-029] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-028 [LHCb-CONF-2012-028] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-027 [LHCb-CONF-2012-027] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-026 [LHCb-CONF-2012-026]
LHCb-CONF-2012-025 [LHCb-CONF-2012-025] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-024 [LHCb-CONF-2012-024] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-023 [LHCb-CONF-2012-023] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-022 [LHCb-CONF-2012-022] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-021 [LHCb-CONF-2012-021]
LHCb-CONF-2012-020 [LHCb-CONF-2012-020] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-019 [LHCb-CONF-2012-019] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-018 [LHCb-CONF-2012-018] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-017 [LHCb-CONF-2012-017] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-016 [LHCb-CONF-2012-016]
LHCb-CONF-2012-015 [LHCb-CONF-2012-015] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-014 [LHCb-CONF-2012-014] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-013 [LHCb-CONF-2012-013] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-012 [LHCb-CONF-2012-012] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-011 [LHCb-CONF-2012-011]
LHCb-CONF-2012-010 [LHCb-CONF-2012-010] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-009 [LHCb-CONF-2012-009] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-008 [LHCb-CONF-2012-008] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-007 [LHCb-CONF-2012-007] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-006 [LHCb-CONF-2012-006]
LHCb-CONF-2012-005 [LHCb-CONF-2012-005] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-004 [LHCb-CONF-2012-004] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-003 [LHCb-CONF-2012-003] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-002 [LHCb-CONF-2012-002] |  LHCb-CONF-2012-001 [LHCb-CONF-2012-001]
LHCb-CONF-2011-062 [LHCb-CONF-2011-062] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-061 [LHCb-CONF-2011-061] |  |  |
LHCb-CONF-2011-060 [LHCb-CONF-2011-060] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-059 [LHCb-CONF-2011-059] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-058 [LHCb-CONF-2011-058] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-057 [LHCb-CONF-2011-057] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-056 [LHCb-CONF-2011-056]
LHCb-CONF-2011-055 [LHCb-CONF-2011-055] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-054 [LHCb-CONF-2011-054] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-053 [LHCb-CONF-2011-053] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-052 [LHCb-CONF-2011-052] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-051 [LHCb-CONF-2011-051]
LHCb-CONF-2011-050 [LHCb-CONF-2011-050] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-049 [LHCb-CONF-2011-049] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-048 [LHCb-CONF-2011-048] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-047 [LHCb-CONF-2011-047] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-046 [LHCb-CONF-2011-046]
LHCb-CONF-2011-045 [LHCb-CONF-2011-045] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-044 [LHCb-CONF-2011-044] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-043 [LHCb-CONF-2011-043] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-042 [LHCb-CONF-2011-042] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-041 [LHCb-CONF-2011-041]
LHCb-CONF-2011-040 [LHCb-CONF-2011-040] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-039 [LHCb-CONF-2011-039] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-038 [LHCb-CONF-2011-038] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-037 [LHCb-CONF-2011-037] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-036 [LHCb-CONF-2011-036]
LHCb-CONF-2011-035 [LHCb-CONF-2011-035] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-034 [LHCb-CONF-2011-034] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-033 [LHCb-CONF-2011-033] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-032 DNE |  LHCb-CONF-2011-031 [LHCb-CONF-2011-031]
LHCb-CONF-2011-030 [LHCb-CONF-2011-030] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-029 [LHCb-CONF-2011-029] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-028 [LHCb-CONF-2011-028] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-027 [LHCb-CONF-2011-027] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-026 [LHCb-CONF-2011-026]
LHCb-CONF-2011-025 [LHCb-CONF-2011-025] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-024 [LHCb-CONF-2011-024] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-023 [LHCb-CONF-2011-023] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-022 [LHCb-CONF-2011-022] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-021 [LHCb-CONF-2011-021]
LHCb-CONF-2011-020 [LHCb-CONF-2011-020] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-019 [LHCb-CONF-2011-019] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-018 [LHCb-CONF-2011-018] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-017 [LHCb-CONF-2011-017] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-016 [LHCb-CONF-2011-016]
LHCb-CONF-2011-015 [LHCb-CONF-2011-015] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-014 [LHCb-CONF-2011-014] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-013 [LHCb-CONF-2011-013] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-012 [LHCb-CONF-2011-012] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-011 [LHCb-CONF-2011-011]
LHCb-CONF-2011-010 [LHCb-CONF-2011-010] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-009 [LHCb-CONF-2011-009] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-008 [LHCb-CONF-2011-008] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-007 [LHCb-CONF-2011-007] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-006 [LHCb-CONF-2011-006]
LHCb-CONF-2011-005 [LHCb-CONF-2011-005] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-004 [LHCb-CONF-2011-004] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-003 [LHCb-CONF-2011-003] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-002 [LHCb-CONF-2011-002] |  LHCb-CONF-2011-001 [LHCb-CONF-2011-001]
LHCb-CONF-2010-014 [LHCb-CONF-2010-014] |  LHCb-CONF-2010-013 [LHCb-CONF-2010-013] |  LHCb-CONF-2010-012 [LHCb-CONF-2010-012] |  LHCb-CONF-2010-011 [LHCb-CONF-2010-011] |
LHCb-CONF-2010-010 [LHCb-CONF-2010-010] |  LHCb-CONF-2010-009 [LHCb-CONF-2010-009] |  LHCb-CONF-2010-008 [LHCb-CONF-2010-008] |  |
Earlier documents in LHCb-CONF series are actually proceedings.

##  Appendix B Standard symbols

As explained in Sect. LABEL:sec:typography this appendix contains standard
typesetting of symbols, particle names, units etc. in LHCb documents.

In the file lhcb-symbols-def.tex, which is included, a large number of symbols
is defined. While they can lead to quicker typing, the main reason is to
ensure a uniform notation within a document and between different LHCb
documents. If a symbol like \CP to typeset $C\\!P$ violation is available for
a unit, particle name, process or whatever, it should be used. If you do not
agree with the notation you should ask to get the definition in lhcb-symbols-
def.tex changed rather than just ignoring it.

All the main particles have been given symbols. The $\mathrm{B}$ mesons are
thus named ${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}$, ${\mathrm{B}}^{0}$,
${\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}$, and ${\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$. There is
no need to go into math mode to use particle names, thus saving the typing of
many $ signs. By default particle names are typeset in italic type to agree
with the PDG preference. To get roman particle names you can just change
\setboolean{uprightparticles}{false} to true at the top of this template.

There is a large number of units typeset that ensures the correct use of
fonts, capitals and spacing. As an example we have
${m_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}}}=5366.3\pm
0.6\text{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}$. Note that $\,\upmu\text{m}$ is
typeset with an upright $\upmu$, even if the particle names have slanted Greek
letters.

A set of useful symbols are defined for working groups. More of these symbols
can be included later. As an example in the Rare Decay group we have several
different analyses looking for a measurement of
$\mathcal{C}_{7}^{{}^{\prime}\mathrm{(eff)}}$ and
$\mathcal{O}_{7.}^{{}^{\prime}}$

##  Appendix C List of all symbols

###  C.1 Experiments

\lhcb | LHCb | \atlas | ATLAS | \cms | CMS
---|---|---|---|---|---
\alice | ALICE | \babar | BaBar | \belle | Belle
\belletwo | Belle II | \besiii | BESIII | \cleo | CLEO
\cdf | CDF | \dzero | D0 | \aleph | ALEPH
\delphi | DELPHI | \opal | OPAL | \lthree | L3
\sld | SLD | \cern | CERN | \lhc | LHC
\lep | LEP | \tevatron | Tevatron | \bfactories | $\mathrm{B}$ Factories
\bfactory | $\mathrm{B}$ Factory | \upgradeone | Upgrade I | \upgradetwo | Upgrade II

####  C.1.1 LHCb sub-detectors and sub-systems

\velo | VELO | \rich | RICH | \richone | RICH1
---|---|---|---|---|---
\richtwo | RICH2 | \ttracker | TT | \intr | IT
\st | ST | \ot | OT | \herschel | HeRSCheL
\spd | SPD | \presh | PS | \ecal | ECAL
\hcal | HCAL | \MagUp | MagUp | \MagDown | MagDown
\ode | ODE | \daq | DAQ | \tfc | TFC
\ecs | ECS | \lone | L0 | \hlt | HLT
\hltone | HLT1 | \hlttwo | HLT2 |  |

###  C.2 Particles

####  C.2.1 Leptons

\electron | $\mathrm{e}$ | \en | $\mathrm{e}^{-}$ | \ep | $\mathrm{e}^{+}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\epm | $\mathrm{e}^{\pm}$ | \emp | $\mathrm{e}^{\mp}$ | \epem | $\mathrm{e}^{+}\mathrm{e}^{-}$
\muon | $\upmu$ | \mup | $\upmu^{+}$ | \mun | $\upmu^{-}$
\mupm | $\upmu^{\pm}$ | \mump | $\upmu^{\mp}$ | \mumu | $\upmu^{+}\upmu^{-}$
\tauon | $\uptau$ | \taup | $\uptau^{+}$ | \taum | $\uptau^{-}$
\taupm | $\uptau^{\pm}$ | \taump | $\uptau^{\mp}$ | \tautau | $\uptau^{+}\uptau^{-}$
\lepton | $\ell$ | \ellm | $\ell^{-}$ | \ellp | $\ell^{+}$
\ellpm | $\ell^{\pm}$ | \ellmp | $\ell^{\mp}$ | \ellell | $\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$
\neu | $\upnu$ | \neub | $\overline{\upnu}$ | \neue | ${\upnu}_{e}$
\neueb | ${\overline{\upnu}}_{e}$ | \neum | ${\upnu}_{\mu}$ | \neumb | ${\overline{\upnu}}_{\mu}$
\neut | ${\upnu}_{\tau}$ | \neutb | ${\overline{\upnu}}_{\tau}$ | \neul | ${\upnu}_{\ell}$
\neulb | ${\overline{\upnu}}_{\ell}$ |  |  |  |

####  C.2.2 Gauge bosons and scalars

\g | $\upgamma$ | \H | $\mathrm{H}^{0}$ | \Hp | $\mathrm{H}^{+}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\Hm | $\mathrm{H}^{-}$ | \Hpm | $\mathrm{H}^{\pm}$ | \W | $\mathrm{W}$
\Wp | $\mathrm{W}^{+}$ | \Wm | $\mathrm{W}^{-}$ | \Wpm | $\mathrm{W}^{\pm}$
\Z | $\mathrm{Z}$ |  |  |  |

####  C.2.3 Quarks

\quark | $\mathrm{q}$ | \quarkbar | $\overline{\mathrm{q}}$ | \qqbar | ${\mathrm{q}}{\overline{\mathrm{q}}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\uquark | $\mathrm{u}$ | \uquarkbar | $\overline{\mathrm{u}}$ | \uubar | ${\mathrm{u}}{\overline{\mathrm{u}}}$
\dquark | $\mathrm{d}$ | \dquarkbar | $\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ | \ddbar | ${\mathrm{d}}{\overline{\mathrm{d}}}$
\squark | $\mathrm{s}$ | \squarkbar | $\overline{\mathrm{s}}$ | \ssbar | ${\mathrm{s}}{\overline{\mathrm{s}}}$
\cquark | $\mathrm{c}$ | \cquarkbar | $\overline{\mathrm{c}}$ | \ccbar | ${\mathrm{c}}{\overline{\mathrm{c}}}$
\bquark | $\mathrm{b}$ | \bquarkbar | $\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ | \bbbar | ${\mathrm{b}}{\overline{\mathrm{b}}}$
\tquark | $\mathrm{t}$ | \tquarkbar | $\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ | \ttbar | ${\mathrm{t}}{\overline{\mathrm{t}}}$

####  C.2.4 Light mesons

\hadron | $\mathrm{h}$ | \pion | $\uppi$ | \piz | ${\uppi}^{0}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\pip | ${\uppi}^{+}$ | \pim | ${\uppi}^{-}$ | \pipm | ${\uppi}^{\pm}$
\pimp | ${\uppi}^{\mp}$ | \rhomeson | $\uprho$ | \rhoz | ${\uprho}^{0}$
\rhop | ${\uprho}^{+}$ | \rhom | ${\uprho}^{-}$ | \rhopm | ${\uprho}^{\pm}$
\rhomp | ${\uprho}^{\mp}$ | \kaon | $\mathrm{K}$ | \Kbar | $\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}$
\Kb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}$ | \KorKbar |  ( ) [-.7ex] $\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}$ | \Kz | ${\mathrm{K}}^{0}$
\Kzb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{0}$ | \Kp | ${\mathrm{K}}^{+}$ | \Km | ${\mathrm{K}}^{-}$
\Kpm | ${\mathrm{K}}^{\pm}$ | \Kmp | ${\mathrm{K}}^{\mp}$ | \KS | ${\mathrm{K}}^{0}_{\mathrm{S}}$
\Vzero | $V^{0}$ | \KL | ${\mathrm{K}}^{0}_{\mathrm{L}}$ | \Kstarz | ${\mathrm{K}}^{*0}$
\Kstarzb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*0}$ | \Kstar | ${\mathrm{K}}^{*}$ | \Kstarb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}}}{}^{*}$
\Kstarp | ${\mathrm{K}}^{*+}$ | \Kstarm | ${\mathrm{K}}^{*-}$ | \Kstarpm | ${\mathrm{K}}^{*\pm}$
\Kstarmp | ${\mathrm{K}}^{*\mp}$ | \KorKbarz | $\kern 0.0pt\shortstack{{(\rule[2.15277pt]{12.50002pt}{0.51212pt})} \\\ [-.7ex] $\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{K}$}{}^{0}$ | \etaz | $\upeta$
\etapr | $\upeta^{\prime}$ | \phiz | $\upphi$ | \omegaz | $\upomega$

####  C.2.5 Charmed mesons

\Dbar | $\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{D}}$ | \D | $\mathrm{D}$ | \Db | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{D}}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\DorDbar |  ( ) [-.7ex] $\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{D}$ | \Dz | ${\mathrm{D}}^{0}$ | \Dzb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{D}}}{}^{0}$
\Dp | ${\mathrm{D}}^{+}$ | \Dm | ${\mathrm{D}}^{-}$ | \Dpm | ${\mathrm{D}}^{\pm}$
\Dmp | ${\mathrm{D}}^{\mp}$ | \DpDm | ${{\mathrm{D}}^{+}}{\kern-1.60004pt{{\mathrm{D}}^{-}}}$ | \Dstar | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*}$
\Dstarb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{D}}}{}^{*}$ | \Dstarz | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*0}$ | \Dstarzb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{D}}}{}^{*0}$
\theDstarz | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*}(2007)^{0}$ | \theDstarzb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{D}}}^{*}(2007)^{0}$ | \Dstarp | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*+}$
\Dstarm | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*-}$ | \Dstarpm | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*\pm}$ | \Dstarmp | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*\mp}$
\theDstarp | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*}(2010)^{+}$ | \theDstarm | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*}(2010)^{-}$ | \theDstarpm | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*}(2010)^{\pm}$
\theDstarmp | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*}(2010)^{\mp}$ | \Ds | ${\mathrm{D}}^{+}_{\mathrm{s}}$ | \Dsp | ${\mathrm{D}}^{+}_{\mathrm{s}}$
\Dsm | ${\mathrm{D}}^{-}_{\mathrm{s}}$ | \Dspm | ${\mathrm{D}}^{\pm}_{\mathrm{s}}$ | \Dsmp | ${\mathrm{D}}^{\mp}_{\mathrm{s}}$
\Dss | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*+}_{\mathrm{s}}$ | \Dssp | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*+}_{\mathrm{s}}$ | \Dssm | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*-}_{\mathrm{s}}$
\Dsspm | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*\pm}_{\mathrm{s}}$ | \Dssmp | ${\mathrm{D}}^{*\mp}_{\mathrm{s}}$ | \DporDsp | ${\mathrm{D}}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{+}$
\DmorDsm | ${\mathrm{D}}{}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{-}$ | \DpmorDspm | ${\mathrm{D}}{}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{\pm}$ |  |

####  C.2.6 Beauty mesons

\B | $\mathrm{B}$ | \Bbar | $\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}$ | \Bb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\BorBbar |  ( ) [-.7ex] $\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}$ | \Bz | ${\mathrm{B}}^{0}$ | \Bzb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}$
\Bd | ${\mathrm{B}}^{0}$ | \Bdb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}$ | \BdorBdbar |  ( ) [-.7ex] $\kern 0.0pt{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}$
\Bu | ${\mathrm{B}}^{+}$ | \Bub | ${\mathrm{B}}^{-}$ | \Bp | ${{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}$
\Bm | ${{\mathrm{B}}^{-}}$ | \Bpm | ${\mathrm{B}}^{\pm}$ | \Bmp | ${\mathrm{B}}^{\mp}$
\Bs | ${\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}$ | \Bsb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}$ | \BsorBsbar |  ( ) [-.7ex] $\kern 0.0pt{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}$
\Bc | ${\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ | \Bcp | ${\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}$ | \Bcm | ${\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{c}}^{-}$
\Bcpm | ${\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\pm}$ | \Bds | ${\mathrm{B}}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{0}$ | \Bdsb | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{0}$
\BdorBs | ${\mathrm{B}}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{0}$ | \BdorBsbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\mathrm{B}}}{}_{({\mathrm{s}})}^{0}$ |  |

####  C.2.7 Onia

\jpsi | ${\mathrm{J}\mskip-3.0mu/\mskip-2.0mu\uppsi}$ | \psitwos | $\uppsi{(2S)}$ | \psiprpr | $\uppsi(3770)$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\etac | $\upeta_{\mathrm{c}}$ | \psires | $\uppsi$ | \chic | $\upchi_{\mathrm{c}}$
\chiczero | $\upchi_{{\mathrm{c}}0}$ | \chicone | $\upchi_{{\mathrm{c}}1}$ | \chictwo | $\upchi_{{\mathrm{c}}2}$
\chicJ | $\upchi_{{\mathrm{c}}J}$ | \Upsilonres | $\Upsilon$ | \OneS | $\Upsilon{(1S)}$
\TwoS | $\Upsilon{(2S)}$ | \ThreeS | $\Upsilon{(3S)}$ | \FourS | $\Upsilon{(4S)}$
\FiveS | $\Upsilon{(5S)}$ | \chib | $\upchi_{b}$ | \chibzero | $\upchi_{{\mathrm{b}}0}$
\chibone | $\upchi_{{\mathrm{b}}1}$ | \chibtwo | $\upchi_{{\mathrm{b}}2}$ | \chibJ | $\upchi_{{\mathrm{b}}J}$
\theX | $\upchi_{c1}(3872)$ |  |  |  |

####  C.2.8 Light Baryons

\proton | $\mathrm{p}$ | \antiproton | $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ | \neutron | $\mathrm{n}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\antineutron | $\overline{\mathrm{n}}$ | \Deltares | $\Delta$ | \Deltaresbar | $\overline{\Delta}$
\Lz | $\Lambda$ | \Lbar | $\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\Lambda}$ | \LorLbar |  ( ) [-.7ex] $\kern 0.0pt\Lambda$
\Lambdares | $\Lambda$ | \Lambdaresbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\Lambda}}$ | \Sigmares | $\Sigma$
\Sigmaz | ${\Sigma}{}^{0}$ | \Sigmap | ${\Sigma}{}^{+}$ | \Sigmam | ${\Sigma}{}^{-}$
\Sigmaresbar | $\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Sigma}}$ | \Sigmabarz | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Sigma}}}{}^{0}$ | \Sigmabarp | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Sigma}}}{}^{+}$
\Sigmabarm | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Sigma}}}{}^{-}$ | \Xires | $\Xi$ | \Xiz | ${\Xi}^{0}$
\Xim | ${\Xi}^{-}$ | \Xiresbar | $\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}$ | \Xibarz | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}}^{0}$
\Xibarp | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}}^{+}$ | \Omegares | $\Omega$ | \Omegaresbar | $\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\Omega}$
\Omegam | ${\Omega}^{-}$ | \Omegabarp | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\Omega}}^{+}$ |  |

####  C.2.9 Charmed Baryons

\Lc | ${\Lambda}^{+}_{\mathrm{c}}$ | \Lcbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\Lambda}}{}^{-}_{\mathrm{c}}$ | \Xic | ${\Xi}_{\mathrm{c}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\Xicz | ${\Xi}^{0}_{\mathrm{c}}$ | \Xicp | ${\Xi}^{+}_{\mathrm{c}}$ | \Xicbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}$
\Xicbarz | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}^{0}$ | \Xicbarm | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}^{-}$ | \Omegac | ${\Omega}^{0}_{\mathrm{c}}$
\Omegacbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\Omega}}{}_{\mathrm{c}}^{0}$ | \Xicc | ${\Xi}_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}}$ | \Xiccbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}}{}_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}}$
\Xiccp | ${\Xi}^{+}_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}}$ | \Xiccpp | ${\Xi}^{++}_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}}$ | \Xiccbarm | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}}{}_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}}^{-}$
\Xiccbarmm | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}}{}_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}}^{--}$ | \Omegacc | ${\Omega}^{+}_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}}$ | \Omegaccbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\Omega}}{}_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}}^{-}$
\Omegaccc | ${\Omega}^{++}_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}}$ | \Omegacccbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\Omega}}{}_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}}^{--}$ |  |

####  C.2.10 Beauty Baryons

\Lb | ${\Lambda}^{0}_{\mathrm{b}}$ | \Lbbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\Lambda}}{}^{0}_{\mathrm{b}}$ | \Sigmab | ${\Sigma}_{\mathrm{b}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\Sigmabp | ${\Sigma}_{\mathrm{b}}^{+}$ | \Sigmabz | ${\Sigma}_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ | \Sigmabm | ${\Sigma}_{\mathrm{b}}^{-}$
\Sigmabpm | ${\Sigma}_{\mathrm{b}}^{\pm}$ | \Sigmabbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Sigma}}}_{\mathrm{b}}$ | \Sigmabbarp | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Sigma}}}_{\mathrm{b}}^{+}$
\Sigmabbarz | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Sigma}}}_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ | \Sigmabbarm | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Sigma}}}_{\mathrm{b}}^{-}$ | \Sigmabbarpm | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Sigma}}}_{\mathrm{b}}^{-}$
\Xib | ${\Xi}_{\mathrm{b}}$ | \Xibz | ${\Xi}^{0}_{\mathrm{b}}$ | \Xibm | ${\Xi}^{-}_{\mathrm{b}}$
\Xibbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}$ | \Xibbarz | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}^{0}$ | \Xibbarp | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt{\Xi}}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}^{+}$
\Omegab | ${\Omega}^{-}_{\mathrm{b}}$ | \Omegabbar | ${\kern 0.0pt\overline{\kern 0.0pt\Omega}}{}_{\mathrm{b}}^{+}$ |  |

###  C.3 Physics symbols

####  C.3.1 Decays

\BF | $\mathcal{B}$ | \BR | $\mathcal{B}$ | \BRvis | ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathrm{{vis}}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\ra | $\rightarrow$ | \to | $\rightarrow$ |  |

####  C.3.2 Lifetimes

\tauBs | $\tau_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}}$ | \tauBd | $\tau_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}$ | \tauBz | $\tau_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\tauBu | $\tau_{{{{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}}}$ | \tauDp | $\tau_{{{\mathrm{D}}^{+}}}$ | \tauDz | $\tau_{{{\mathrm{D}}^{0}}}$
\tauL | $\tau_{\mathrm{L}}$ | \tauH | $\tau_{\mathrm{H}}$ |  |

####  C.3.3 Masses

\mBd | $m_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}}}$ | \mBp | $m_{{{{\mathrm{B}}^{+}}}}$ | \mBs | $m_{{{\mathrm{B}}^{0}_{\mathrm{s}}}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\mBc | $m_{{{\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{c}}^{+}}}$ | \mLb | $m_{{{\Lambda}^{0}_{\mathrm{b}}}}$ |  |

####  C.3.4 EW theory, groups

\grpsuthree | $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ | \grpsutw | $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ | \grpuone | $\mathrm{U}(1)$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\ssqtw | $\sin^{2}\\!\theta_{\mathrm{W}}$ | \csqtw | $\cos^{2}\\!\theta_{\mathrm{W}}$ | \stw | $\sin\theta_{\mathrm{W}}$
\ctw | $\cos\theta_{\mathrm{W}}$ | \ssqtwef | ${\sin}^{2}\theta_{\mathrm{W}}^{\mathrm{eff}}$ | \csqtwef | ${\cos}^{2}\theta_{\mathrm{W}}^{\mathrm{eff}}$
\stwef | $\sin\theta_{\mathrm{W}}^{\mathrm{eff}}$ | \ctwef | $\cos\theta_{\mathrm{W}}^{\mathrm{eff}}$ | \gv | $g_{\mbox{\tiny V}}$
\ga | $g_{\mbox{\tiny A}}$ | \order | $\mathcal{O}$ | \ordalph | $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$
\ordalsq | $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{2})$ | \ordalcb | $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^{3})$ |  |

####  C.3.5 QCD parameters

\as | $\alpha_{s}$ | \MSb | $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ | \lqcd | $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\qsq | $q^{2}$ |  |  |  |

####  C.3.6 CKM, $C\\!P$ violation

\eps | $\varepsilon$ | \epsK | $\varepsilon_{K}$ | \epsB | $\varepsilon_{B}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\epsp | $\varepsilon^{\prime}_{K}$ | \CP | $C\\!P$ | \CPT | $C\\!PT$
\T | $T$ | \rhobar | $\overline{\rho}$ | \etabar | $\overline{\eta}$
\Vud | $V_{{\mathrm{u}}{\mathrm{d}}}^{\phantom{\ast}}$ | \Vcd | $V_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{d}}}^{\phantom{\ast}}$ | \Vtd | $V_{{\mathrm{t}}{\mathrm{d}}}^{\phantom{\ast}}$
\Vus | $V_{{\mathrm{u}}{\mathrm{s}}}^{\phantom{\ast}}$ | \Vcs | $V_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{s}}}^{\phantom{\ast}}$ | \Vts | $V_{{\mathrm{t}}{\mathrm{s}}}^{\phantom{\ast}}$
\Vub | $V_{{\mathrm{u}}{\mathrm{b}}}^{\phantom{\ast}}$ | \Vcb | $V_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{b}}}^{\phantom{\ast}}$ | \Vtb | $V_{{\mathrm{t}}{\mathrm{b}}}^{\phantom{\ast}}$
\Vuds | $V_{{\mathrm{u}}{\mathrm{d}}}^{\ast}$ | \Vcds | $V_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{d}}}^{\ast}$ | \Vtds | $V_{{\mathrm{t}}{\mathrm{d}}}^{\ast}$
\Vuss | $V_{{\mathrm{u}}{\mathrm{s}}}^{\ast}$ | \Vcss | $V_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{s}}}^{\ast}$ | \Vtss | $V_{{\mathrm{t}}{\mathrm{s}}}^{\ast}$
\Vubs | $V_{{\mathrm{u}}{\mathrm{b}}}^{\ast}$ | \Vcbs | $V_{{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{b}}}^{\ast}$ | \Vtbs | $V_{{\mathrm{t}}{\mathrm{b}}}^{\ast}$

####  C.3.7 Oscillations

\dm | $\Delta m$ | \dms | $\Delta m_{{\mathrm{s}}}$ | \dmd | $\Delta m_{{\mathrm{d}}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
\DG | $\Delta\Gamma$ | \DGs | $\Delta\Gamma_{{\mathrm{s}}}$ | \DGd | $\Delta\Gamma_{{\mathrm{d}}}$
\Gs | $\Gamma_{{\mathrm{s}}}$ | \Gd | $\Gamma_{{\mathrm{d}}}$ | \MBq | $M_{{\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{q}}}$
\DGq | $\Delta\Gamma_{{\mathrm{q}}}$ | \Gq | $\Gamma_{{\mathrm{q}}}$ | \dmq | $\Delta m_{{\mathrm{q}}}$
\GL | $\Gamma_{\mathrm{L}}$ | \GH | $\Gamma_{\mathrm{H}}$ | \DGsGs | $\Delta\Gamma_{{\mathrm{s}}}/\Gamma_{{\mathrm{s}}}$
\Delm | $\Delta m$ | \ACP | ${\mathcal{A}}^{{C\\!P}}$ | \Adir | ${\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{dir}}$
\Amix | ${\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{mix}}$ | \ADelta | ${\mathcal{A}}^{\Delta}$ | \phid | $\phi_{{\mathrm{d}}}$
\sinphid | $\sin\\!{\phi_{{\mathrm{d}}}}$ | \phis | $\phi_{{\mathrm{s}}}$ | \betas | $\beta_{{\mathrm{s}}}$
\sbetas | $\sigma(\beta_{{\mathrm{s}}})$ | \stbetas | $\sigma(2\beta_{{\mathrm{s}}})$ | \stphis | $\sigma(\phi_{{\mathrm{s}}})$
\sinphis | $\sin\\!{\phi_{{\mathrm{s}}}}$ |  |  |  |

####  C.3.8 Tagging