EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

CERN-EP-2026-217
LHCb-PAPER-2025-068
14 August 2026

Resolution of outstanding puzzles in

B + → K +π +π − decays
arXiv:2608.12613v1 [hep-ex] 12 Aug 2026

LHCb collaboration†

Abstract
An amplitude analysis of B + → K + π + π − decays is presented, based on pp collision
data recorded with the LHCb detector in 2011–2012, corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of 3 fb−1 . Previous studies of the B → Kππ sector have left key unresolved
questions concerning the model of the S-wave contributions. A pivotal finding is
that relaxing unitarity-based assumptions about the relation between the K0∗ (1430)0
resonance and the slowly varying scalar part in K + π − leads to considerably better
agreement between the model and data. The B + → K0∗ (1430)0 π + branching fraction
now challenges the experimental consensus that B → K0∗ (1430)π decays dominate
the B → Kππ phase space, aligning with the predictions of QCD factorisation
rather than perturbative QCD, thus reversing the agreement found in previous
measurements. With this increased flexibility, it also becomes possible to model the
scalar π + π − amplitude using established states, eliminating the need for the ad-hoc
“fX (1300)” component included in previous analyses of the B → Kππ sector. These
advances facilitate the discovery of ten intermediate decays.

Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.

© 2026 CERN for the benefit of the LHCb collaboration. CC BY 4.0 licence.

†
Authors are listed at the end of this Letter.
ii
 The challenge of obtaining accurate theoretical predictions within quantum chromody-
namics (QCD) motivates the need for precise experimental measurements to test and refine
the relevant theoretical frameworks. Charmless hadronic multibody B decays offer an
important platform to probe the intricacies of strong-interaction dynamics, because such
decays are known to exhibit large matter-antimatter differences [1–6]. Otherwise known
as charge-parity (CP ) violation, these effects are driven by weak-interaction phases that
are well understood within the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) mechanism [7, 8].
A single amplitude model must simultaneously describe a given B decay and that of its
CP -conjugate B, with differences in the B and B decay densities arising only from the
complex coefficients that quantify the coupling to each intermediate component of the
amplitude. Thus, the analysis incorporates CP violation, which in principle allows better
disentangling of strong-interaction effects compared to approaches that sum over the B
flavour.
Studies of four separate B → Kππ decay channels performed have proven particularly
challenging, with inconsistent experimental results and no consensus regarding their
interpretation. This arises in large part from current understanding of the single largest
contribution to the total decay rate, B → K0∗ (1430)π [9–14]. As summarised in Table 1
for the B + → K0∗ (1430)0 π + branching fraction in particular, previous measurements per-
formed by the Belle [9, 15] and BaBar [10, 11] collaborations disagree on the experimental
side. The superseded Ref. [15] contains the only known record of the disfavoured second
solution from Belle. The same trend is also seen in related B 0 decays [12, 13]. Further-
more, conflicting theoretical predictions based on QCD factorisation (QCDf) [16, 17] and
perturbative QCD (pQCD) [18] add another element to the tension, with the experi-
mental results clearly favouring pQCD. This is contrary to the situation for the related
B → K0∗ (1430)[η (′) , ρ, ω, ϕ] decays, where experimental results instead align closely with
QCDf, leaving an unresolved puzzle [16]. Three-body QCD approaches [17, 19–21] have
begun to emerge as a subject of study in part due to this theoretical challenge. Another
open question concerns the nature of the ad-hoc “fX (1300) → π + π − ” structure included
in previous analyses [9, 10, 12, 13, 22]. While some of those studies considered multiple
spin hypotheses and their superpositions, noting consistency with known resonances such
as the f0 (1370) or f0 (1500), a clear baseline identification remained elusive, leading to
speculation about exotic states [23–26].
From the experimental point of view, such problems must be addressed by improving
the treatment of the π + π − and K + π − S-waves. This Letter summarises the results

Table 1: Comparison of experimental measurements and theoretical predictions of the

B + → K0∗ (1430)0 π + branching fraction, in units of 10−6 . The total uncertainties are quoted,
except for the measurements of this analysis, where the first uncertainty corresponds to the
combined statistical and systematic uncertainties on the fit fraction, and the second is from
external inputs used to obtain the absolute branching fraction. The result from Ref. [11] comes
from an analysis of B + → KS0 π + π 0 decays, while all other experimental measurements are from
B + → K + π − π + decays.

Belle BaBar QCDf pQCD This analysis

Ref. [15] Ref. [9] Ref. [10] Ref. [11] Ref. [16] Ref. [18] Isobar K-matrix
8.3 +4.0
−2.6 51.6 +7.2
−7.7 32.0 +10.9
− 6.1 34.6 ± 5.7 12.9 +4.6
−3.7 47.6 +11.3
−10.1 7.35 ± 0.50 ± 0.81 6.26 ± 0.57 ± 0.69

1
relevant in this context from an amplitude analysis of the B + → K + π + π − decay,1 based
on pp collision data recorded with the LHCb detector in 2011–2012, corresponding to
an integrated luminosity of 3 fb−1 . Compared with previous B + → K + π + π − amplitude
analyses [9,10], the data sample is increased by a factor of 20, with a marked improvement
in signal-to-background ratio from roughly 1:1 to about 8:1. The analysis therefore allows
a much more detailed investigation of the underlying hadron dynamics. An extensive
description of the experimental procedure along with a comprehensive collection of results
can be found in a companion article [27], whilst implications of the results related to CP
violation are discussed in another companion Letter [28].
The LHCb detector is a single-arm forward spectrometer covering the pseudorapidity
range 2 < η < 5, described in detail in Refs. [29, 30]. The selection of signal candidates
follows procedures established for measurements of the relative branching fractions of
inclusive B + → h+ h′+ h′− decays, where h(′) is a pion or kaon, based on the same data
sample [31]. Minor adjustments to the selection procedures are made for the amplitude
analysis; for example, the narrow contribution from J/ψ → π + π − decays is removed with
a veto.
After application of the selection criteria, the B + -candidate mass distribution is
modelled to obtain signal and background yields. The fit function includes components
for signal decays, combinatorial background, four-body partially reconstructed decays
and misidentified three-body peaking backgrounds. Parameters describing the shapes of
the signal and combinatorial background are determined directly from data, while those
of the remaining backgrounds are fixed from dedicated simulation samples corrected for
differences between data and simulation. The signal region in the B + candidate mass,
defined as three times the signal mass resolution on both sides of the B + peak, is retained
for the subsequent amplitude analysis, comprising 115 102 B + → K + π + π − candidates
with an estimated purity of (88.7 ± 0.3)%.
Given the large number of broad overlapping resonances and coupled-channel thresholds,
it is particularly challenging to obtain satisfactory phenomenological models for the π + π −
and K + π − S-waves. Therefore, three complementary approaches describing the total
S-wave amplitude, A± S for B
±
decays, are considered. In each case, a conventional
“isobaric” paradigm for nonzero-spin resonances is used, in which the factorisation of
two-body dynamics from three-body unitarity is the central assumption [32–34]. The
first model (Isobar) applies the same approach to the S-wave, which comprises the
coherent sum of directly produced intermediate scalar states. These include a generalised
LASS (GLASS) function [35–37] describing the K + π − S-wave, together with ππ–ππ [38]
and ππ–KK [39] scattering terms, both of which are multiplied by a form factor accounting
for the production of the two-body system in the B-meson decay [40, 41]. The second
replaces the π + π − S-wave model with the K-matrix formalism, which enforces two-body
unitarity with parameters obtained from scattering data [37,42–45]. The third implements
a quasi-model-independent (QMI) approach, marking the first instance in which any
overlapping crossing partial waves in two different two-body systems produced in particle
decay are simultaneously modelled; magnitudes and phases representing individual S-waves
are free to vary in intervals (bins) of the K + π − and π + π − masses.
The signal amplitude for B + and that for B − signal decays is constructed as the sum
over N nonzero-spin resonant contributions and the aforementioned S-wave component,

1
The inclusion of charge-conjugate processes is implied.

2
A± (Φ3 ) ≡ N ± ±
P
j=1 aj Aj (Φ3 ) + AS (Φ3 ), where Φ3 denotes the candidate position in three-
body phase space. The Aj terms describe the CP -conserving dynamical amplitude of
resonance j, consisting of: the product of a relativistic Breit–Wigner mass propagator
or an appropriate variant [46–49]; the spin-dependent angular distribution [50, 51]; and
Blatt–Weisskopf barrier factors [52, 53]. All established intermediate resonant states [54]
known to decay either into K + π − or π + π − with poles below the D0 mass are included
in this model. The complex coefficients a± j ≡ (xj ± ∆xj ) + i(yj ± ∆yj ) parametrise
the relative contributions of each resonance, where the positive (negative) signs apply
to B + (B − ) decays. The CP -violating differences between B + and B − amplitudes are
encoded in the freedom of a± ±
j and the relevant parameters of AS to take different values
for the charge-conjugate processes. As there is no sensitivity to the absolute phase of
the B + and B − amplitudes, the coefficients of the largest non-S-wave contribution, the
K ∗ (892)0 resonance, relative to which coefficients of the remaining contributions are
measured (specifically, x = 1 and y = ∆y = 0 are fixed for this component). Primary
flavour-integrated outputs include the physical intermediate branching fractions Fj , which
follow from the charge-dependent quasi-two-body fit fractions. Defined as
R ±
±
|aj Aj (Φ3 )|2 dΦ3
Fj ≡ R + 2 − 2
, with Fj = Fj+ + Fj− , (1)
(|A (Φ3 )| + |A (Φ3 )| ) dΦ3
their sum over all contributions to the model, both S-wave and nonzero spin, may not
equate to 100% due to interference effects. Also of interest are the CP -averaged relative
−
phase couplings, arg(aj ) = arg (a+


j + a j )/2 .
An event likelihood is constructed from the squared magnitude of the signal amplitude
modulated by the efficiency variation across the Dalitz plot and convolved with the
detector resolution in m2π+ π− , while background model contributions are derived from data
in the B + -mass sidebands or calibrated simulation. The Isobar and K-matrix approaches
are implemented in the Laura++ software package [55], while a GPU-accelerated fitter
based on Mint2 [56] is used for the QMI approach.
The main sources of experimental systematic uncertainty, detailed in Ref. [27], origi-
nate from: the B-candidate mass model from which fixed signal and background yields
are propagated; the inherent uncertainty in calibration as it pertains to efficiency and
background phase-space distributions from simulation further weighted by experimentally
determined amplitude models [4–6, 57]; and definition of the sideband region in data from
which the combinatorial background distribution is taken. Systematic uncertainties related
to the physical amplitude models are also considered. These comprise the variation of fixed
masses and widths of established resonances according to their known uncertainties [54]
and alternative barrier factor radii, in addition to the inclusion of the K4∗ (2045)0 and
more speculative resonant structures such as the f2 (1430).
Taking into account both statistical and systematic uncertainties, good overall agree-
ment between data and the model is obtained for all three S-wave approaches [27], with
the Isobar results showing a better log-likelihood value for nine fewer degrees of freedom
compared to the K-matrix approach. On treating the total S-wave as a single contribution
in Eq. (1), its total fit fraction as reported in Table 3 is about 68% with the results of each
approach agreeing within 0.4%. The Isobar and K-matrix S-wave results are projected
onto the one-dimensional QMI S-waves in each two-body mass, and compared in the region
below the open-charm threshold in Fig. 1. Plots showing the difference between B + and
B − decays, and extending to the rest of phase space are given in a companion article [27].

3
 K +π − S-wave: arg(( A−S+A+S)/2) (°)
K +π − S-wave: |( A−S+A+S)/2|2
0.45 LHCb K 3π K η K η' 150 LHCb
0.4 3 fb−1 3 fb−1
100
0.35
0.3 50
0.25 0
QMI
0.2
−50 Isobar
0.15
−100
K-matrix
0.1
δ 1/2
0 (s)
0.05 −150 K 3π K η K η'
0
1 1.5 1 1.5
mK +π − (GeV/c2) mK +π − (GeV/c2)

π +π − S-wave: arg(( A−S+A+S)/2) (°)

π +π − S-wave: |( A−S+A+S)/2|2

LHCb 4π KK ηη ηη' 150

1 3 fb−1 LHCb
100
3 fb−1
10−1 50
4π KK ηη ηη'
0
10−2
−50

10−3 −100
−150
10−4
0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5
mπ +π − (GeV/c2) mπ +π − (GeV/c2)

Figure 1: Comparison of the S-wave amplitude for (top) K + π − and (bottom) π + π − , obtained
by fitting the LHCb data and including all sources of uncertainty, for the (left) CP -averaged
magnitude squared and (right) CP -averaged phase in the charmless region. The vertical grey
bands show the total QMI uncertainty without accounting for an additional systematic effect
arising from the fixed-bin values set from the Isobar result, while this effect is included in the
solid black error bars. Vertical dashed lines indicate the openings of coupled channels. The
1/2
dispersive isospin I = 1/2 phase of πK–πK scattering δ0 (s) taken from Ref. [39] is arbitrarily
offset to overlap the Isobar result and shown for comparison as the green dashed line in the top
right plot.

Due to a complication unique to crossing partial waves [58], a single QMI bin must be
fixed to a reference value, taken from the Isobar model. Variation of the amplitude in
this bin by the full uncertainty of the Isobar approach is therefore incorporated into the
overall QMI systematic uncertainty as an additional effect.
While the magnitude-squared and phases of both the K + π − and π + π − S-wave am-
plitudes of the three S-wave models are generally consistent with each other, a clear
discrepancy between the results of the GLASS lineshape and the QMI model can be seen
in the K + π − phase above the elastic Kη threshold and below the K0∗ (1430)0 pole. This
may motivate future theoretical work to find a suitable analytical replacement for the
GLASS lineshape.
The large uncertainties seen in the mπ+ π− projections for the K-matrix approach are
evident in Fig. 1. In this respect it should be noted that a lineshape obtained from
scattering data, in which the f0 (980) pole presents as a slight downwards cusp [38], is
being used to model the significant f0 (980) peak in B + → K + π + π − decays. The enormous
internal interference effects between multiple poles and slowly varying parts, generated
in order to produce such a model, are highly sensitive to systematic variations and
lead to the large observed uncertainties. Conversely, phase-space integrated physical

4
quantities derived from the overall K-matrix S-wave, such as its overall fit fraction and
CP -asymmetry in decay, are found to be substantially more robust to these systematic
variations. This issue of amplitude stability, along with its poorer log-likelihood value,
suggests that the K-matrix approach may not be the most suitable choice for this particular
channel with larger data samples. The B + → K0∗ (1430)0 π + contribution forms part of
the GLASS function, where the method used to isolate the resonant component and
extract its branching fraction is detailed in the companion article [27]. The measurements
of this quantity reported in Table 1 show agreement between the Isobar and K-matrix
approaches, but are in stark disagreement with results from previous B + → K + π + π −
amplitude analyses [9–11] in which the K0∗ (1430)0 fit fractions are between four and
eight times larger. This occurs since the K + π − S-wave model presented here has some
important differences with respect to those used in the previous analyses. The model used
by the Belle collaboration [9, 15] consists of an independent Breit–Wigner lineshape for
the K0∗ (1430)0 state and an empirical real-valued form for the nonresonant contribution.
This model leads to two solutions that describe the Belle data equally well: one with a
high K0∗ (1430)0 fit fraction and an alternative with a low value. While comparison with
LASS data is used to favour the first solution through invoking Watson’s theorem [59],
the results of this analysis are in excellent agreement with the disfavoured second solution
presented in Ref. [15]. The BaBar collaboration analysis, on the other hand, relied on the
unitarity-preserving LASS lineshape [35,36], in which the coupling for the term containing
the K0∗ (1430)0 resonance is constrained by an effective-range contribution. Conversely,
the analysis presented here does not impose unitarity preservation, since the GLASS
lineshape allows for an independent coupling between its two components. The capacity
of this lineshape to violate unitarity is justified for several reasons: an additional phase
in B + → (K + π − )π + decays compared to that of elastic Kπ scattering could arise from
contributions from inelastic Kη (′) coupled channels; an I = 3/2 amplitude; the interaction
between the companion π + and K + π − S-wave; or the production vertex of the penguin
amplitude that is expected to dominate B + → K0∗0 π + decays [60].
LASS data [36] upon which an I = 1/2 dispersive πK–πK scattering phase is also
based [39], exhibit a sharper uptick about the K0∗ (1430)0 pole followed by a sudden
drop, suggesting its contribution is considerable in scattering scenarios. However, the
Isobar and K-matrix results, with support from the QMI approach, indicate a less abrubt
variation shown in Fig. 1 (top right), meaning impact of the K0∗ (1430)0 resonance is
relatively limited. Furthermore, no alternative solution with a high K0∗ (1430)0 fit fraction
and reasonable fit quality has been found, nor is the QMI approach able to converge
to any solution in support of this outcome. That demonstrates that the origin of the
large K0∗ (1430)0 fit fraction in previous analyses can be understood as resulting from the
presumption of unitarity conservation in an environment where this need not hold. The
puzzle [16] as to why QCDf does not work well for B → K0∗ (1430)π decays, but does for
related processes, while the converse is true for pQCD, is thus resolved: the results of this
analysis are in full agreement with the predictions of QCDf given in Table 1.
Moreover, with the improved modelling of the K + π − S-wave implemented in this
analysis, a good description of the data in the mπ+ π− spectrum is achieved in the Isobar
approach with the S-wave described by only established states, including the f0 (1370) and
f0 (1500) resonances, and the ππ rescattering terms. There is no longer any need to include
an ad-hoc “fX (1300)” → π + π − contribution. Similarly, the K-matrix model without any
modification to accommodate a new state provides a good description of the data, while

5
 Candidates/(0.0082 GeV/c2)

Candidates/(0.04)
200
(a) LHCb Data Model (b) LHCb
150 3 fb−1 3 fb−1
103 Background S-wave
100
K +π − P-wave
50 102 K 2*(1430)0
0
Data Model Background π +π − D-wave
−50 S-wave f0(1370) f0(1500) S× D
10
−100 mK +π − ∈ [1.3, 1.6] GeV/c2
|cos θ π +π −| < 0.5
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
mπ +π − (GeV/c2) cosθ K +π −
70
Candidates/(0.02 GeV/c2)

Candidates/(0.04)
(c) LHCb Data Model (d) LHCb
2 Data Model 3 fb−1 60
Background |S + P + D|2 3 fb−1
10
Background S-wave
50 ρ3(1690)0
40
10
mπ +π − ∈ [1.50, 1.75] GeV/c2
30
|cos θ K +π −| ∈ [0.5, 0.7]
1 20
K *(1410)0
10
K 2*(1430)0
−1
10
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 −1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0
mK +π − (GeV/c2) cosθ π +π −

Figure 2: Data and model projections enhanced in the (a) π + π − inelastic rescattering,
(b) K2∗ (1430)0 , (c) K ∗ (1410)0 and (d) ρ3 (1690)0 regions. Bands on the total model and its
components indicate the maximum difference between the central values obtained for each S-wave
approach, however those unique to the Isobar model are instead indicated by dotted lines. The
depleted regions for (b) in cos θK + π− arise from the J/ψ and D0 mass vetoes.

the structure of the total S-wave in this π + π − mass region is corroborated by the QMI
approach. However, if the Belle or BaBar descriptions of the K + π − S-wave [9, 10] are
used, a model containing a single fX state with free parameters gives a significantly better
log-likelihood value than one including the f0 (1370) and f0 (1500) resonances with fixed
parameters. Both fits have much worse log-likelihood values than the baseline model with
the GLASS lineshape.
The π + π − mass distribution between the openings of the ηη and ηη ′ rescattering
channels is shown in Fig. 2(a), where the relative contribution from the S-wave has
been enhanced by requiring | cos θπ+ π− | < 0.5, which preferentially reduces contributions
from π + π − states with spin greater than zero and the majority of all other K + π − waves.
The helicity angle for an intermediate state θh+ h′− is defined between the momentum
of the hadron with opposite charge to the B meson and that of the spectator hadron
from the B decay, evaluated in the h+ h′− rest frame. This region is dominated by the
π + π − S- and D-waves, with the S-wave comprised of the f0 (980) tail and destructive
interference between the f0 (1370) and f0 (1500) intermediate states. In addition, there is
large destructive interference between the S- and D-waves.
The significance values of discovered intermediate transitions in units of standard
deviations (σ) are listed in Table 2. Ten decay channels are observed beyond 5σ for
the first time based on a more sensitive and statistically robust approach to assessing
significance that retains the two-dimensional complex-valued information; technical details

6
Table 2: Fit fractions (%) of intermediate decay channels observed for the first time in each
S-wave approach. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. In the top half,
all significance estimates accounting for the total uncertainty and deemed overwhelming (> 10σ).
This is not the case in the lower half, so their values are presented.

Component Isobar K-matrix QMI

∗ 0
K2 (1430) 2.253 ± 0.125 ± 0.303 2.434 ± 0.117 ± 0.278 2.220 ± 0.119 ± 0.264
f2 (1270) 2.152 ± 0.110 ± 0.278 2.145 ± 0.094 ± 0.240 2.442 ± 0.174 ± 0.406
∗ 0
K0 (1950) 0.793 ± 0.092 ± 0.133 0.842 ± 0.079 ± 0.110 —
f0 (1370) 16.785 ± 0.951 ± 1.683 — —
f0 (1500) 1.857 ± 0.150 ± 0.286 — —
∗ 0
K (1410) 0.700 ± 0.092 ± 0.158 (7.9σ) 0.517 ± 0.088 ± 0.173 (6.7σ) 0.891 ± 0.166 ± 0.347 (8.0σ)
ρ(1450)0 1.213 ± 0.212 ± 1.024 (4.0σ) 0.881 ± 0.153 ± 0.125 (7.4σ) 1.908 ± 0.409 ± 0.471 (7.4σ)
0
ρ3 (1690) 0.408 ± 0.047 ± 0.094 (7.1σ) 0.439 ± 0.042 ± 0.058 (10.2σ) 0.258 ± 0.043 ± 0.093 (6.5σ)
f0 (500) 1.833 ± 0.214 ± 0.320 (8.2σ) — —
f0 (1710) 0.714 ± 0.094 ± 0.588 (5.0σ) — —
ππ–ππ 5.365 ± 0.833 ± 1.789 (8.5σ) — —

are described in Appendix B. With this improved metric, the first evidence exceeding 3σ
is also obtained for B + → ρ(1450)0 K + decays.
The necessity of the intermediate scalar states is demonstrated in the agreement
between the Isobar and QMI S-wave amplitudes, as shown in Fig. 1 and related plots in
Ref. [27] showing the difference in S-wave amplitude between B + and B − decays. While
the f2 (1270) state is significant, it manifests itself through a largely destructive interference
with the S-wave, as presented in Fig. 2(a), so does not present as a peak in mπ+ π− . By
limiting the mK + π− range to [1.3, 1.6] GeV/c2 , the impact of the K2∗ (1430)0 contribution
can be seen in the extremes of the helicity regions in Fig. 2(b). The K ∗ (1410)0 state
also occupies the same mass range, and as can be seen from the cos θK + π− projection,
is larger than the K2∗ (1430)0 contribution in the region 0.5 < | cos θK + π− | < 0.7. This
region is selected for the mK + π− projection in Fig. 2(c), making evident the significant
K ∗ (1410)0 contribution. Finally, the contribution from the ρ3 (1690)0 state is seen in
Fig. 2(d), where mπ+ π− ∈ [1.50, 1.75] GeV/c2 is required. Concentrating on the negative
helicity angle region where the contributions from K + π − reflections are limited, a notable
spin-3 excess above the combined S-, P- and D-waves is seen to be necessary to describe
the data, particularly in the cos θπ+ π− < −0.9 region.
To conclude, an amplitude analysis of the B + → K + π + π − decay has been performed
with pp collision data recorded with the LHCb detector, corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of 3 fb−1 . Three complementary approaches describe the dominant S-wave
contribution, revealing a rich and complex structure that was previously unobserved
or unexplained. Together with significant CP -violating effects discussed in companion
articles [27, 28], two long-standing questions related to strong-interaction effects are
addressed. As regards the S-wave amplitude, the Isobar and K-matrix approaches are
mostly in agreement with the QMI results, although a discrepancy in the K + π − phase
motion between Kη and Kη ′ thresholds suggests that an improved analytical replacement
for the GLASS lineshape will become necessary. Nevertheless, the capacity to decouple
the K0∗ (1430)0 state from the underlying slowly varying structure is found to challenge
the experimental consensus that B → K0∗ (1430)π dominates the B → Kππ phase space,

7
and reconcile the B + → K0∗ (1430)0 π + branching fraction to the predictions of two-body
QCDf. In addition, questions concerning the ad-hoc “fX (1300)” contribution included in
previous B → Kππ amplitude analyses are also resolved. These advances enable the first
observation of ten intermediate decay processes.
The results presented have considerable intrinsic interest as they provide improved
understanding of the underlying strong interactions responsible for the large CP -violating
effects observed across the B + → h+ h′+ h′− phase space. Moreover, the developments
presented here lay the groundwork for their inclusion into the amplitude models of related
B decays, which can be used to search for beyond the Standard Model contributions to loop-
mediated multibody charmless hadronic B decays. The improved understanding of both
Kπ and ππ S-waves will be crucial to search for subtle deviations from the Standard Model
predictions for decay-time-dependent CP violation effects in B 0 → K 0 π + π − decays [13,22].
The improved modelling will also lead to reduced uncertainties in theoretically clean
model-independent isospin sum rules in the B → K ∗ π and ρK systems [61–63], where
knowledge of the B + → K ∗0 π + branching fraction is critical since a single decay topology
dominates. The benefit of such reductions in uncertainty also extends to determinations of
the fundamental CP -violating phase of the CKM matrix, γ = ϕ3 ≡ arg[−Vud Vub∗ /Vcd Vcb∗ ],
from decays dominated by loop-mediated processes [64–67].

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: ARC (Australia); CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); MOST and
NSFC (China); CNRS/IN2P3 and CEA (France); BMFTR, DFG and MPG (Germany);
NKFIH (Hungary); INFN (Italy); NWO (Netherlands); MNiSW and NCN (Poland);
MEC/IFA (Romania); MICIU and AEI (Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU
(Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE NP and NSF (USA). We acknowledge the
computing resources that are provided by ARDC (Australia), CBPF (Brazil), CERN,
IHEP and LZU (China), IN2P3 (France), KIT and DESY (Germany), INFN (Italy),
SURF (Netherlands), Polish WLCG (Poland), IFIN-HH (Romania), PIC (Spain), CSCS
(Switzerland), GridPP (United Kingdom), and NSF (USA). 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 RTP (Australia), FWO Odysseus
grant G0ASD25N (Belgium), Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of CAS, CAS
PIFI, CAS CCEPP (China); Minciencias (Colombia); EPLANET, Marie Sklodowska-
Curie Actions, ERC and NextGenerationEU (European Union); A*MIDEX, ANR, IPhU
and Labex P2IO, and Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (France); Alexander-von-Humboldt
Foundation (Germany); ICSC (Italy); Severo Ochoa and Marı́a de Maeztu Units of
Excellence, GVA, XuntaGal, GENCAT, InTalent-Inditex and Prog. Atracción Talento
CM (Spain); the Leverhulme Trust, the Royal Society and UKRI (United Kingdom).

8
End matter
A Fit fractions and strong phases
In this section, the hadronic observables that characterise the amplitude models are
presented. The fit fractions for the remaining contributions not already included in
Table 2 are reported in Table 3, where to facilitate a meaningful comparison between
S-wave approaches, the total fit fraction is determined from the combined S-wave in K + π −
and π + π − . To ease comparison, all quasi-two-body fit fractions are visually represented in
Fig. 3. The strong phase differences for each component are listed in Table 4 and shown
in Fig. 4.

B Significance of complex couplings

For the raw fit-result central values µ and corresponding total covariance matrix Σ
including all systematic and model uncertainties, a parameter-level χ2 test statistic is
constructed as
χ2 = (x − µ)T Σ−1 (x − µ) . (2)
Any pair of (xi , yi ) parameters from x corresponding to the complex coupling ai for a
given resonance may then be fixed and scanned, with the χ2 function reminimised at
each point. In this way, the potential impact from the remainder of the model through
parameter correlations is accounted for.

Table 3: Remaining quasi-two-body fit fractions (%) not already included in the main text for
the three S-wave approaches. For all results, the first uncertainty is statistical while the second
is systematic.

Component Isobar K-matrix QMI

K ∗ (892)0 12.167 ± 0.128 ± 0.518 12.071 ± 0.118 ± 0.400 12.669 ± 0.223 ± 0.417
K ∗ (1680)0 0.219 ± 0.060 ± 0.075 0.223 ± 0.065 ± 0.081 0.322 ± 0.111 ± 0.113
ρ(770)0 7.834 ± 0.192 ± 0.652 8.122 ± 0.194 ± 0.552 7.326 ± 0.259 ± 0.565
ω(782) 0.202 ± 0.030 ± 0.034 0.219 ± 0.035 ± 0.038 0.221 ± 0.032 ± 0.027
ρ(1700)0 0.340 ± 0.088 ± 0.380 0.317 ± 0.073 ± 0.078 0.351 ± 0.142 ± 0.223
f2′ (1525) 0.056 ± 0.019 ± 0.052 0.047 ± 0.019 ± 0.032 0.053 ± 0.021 ± 0.030
K3∗ (1780)0 0.222 ± 0.039 ± 0.044 0.274 ± 0.042 ± 0.077 0.420 ± 0.084 ± 0.214
χc0 (1P ) 2.000 ± 0.065 ± 0.097 1.927 ± 0.052 ± 0.079 1.823 ± 0.077 ± 0.146
K0∗ (1430)0 7.912 ± 0.270 ± 0.465 6.736 ± 0.208 ± 0.570 —
f0 (980) 16.582 ± 0.440 ± 0.634 — —
ππ–KK 0.227 ± 0.101 ± 0.667 — —
π + π − S-wave — 30.901 ± 0.303 ± 1.026 —
K + π − and 68.248 ± 0.387 ± 0.788 68.475 ± 0.329 ± 0.432 67.547 ± 0.606 ± 0.641
π + π − S-waves
Total 98.433 ± 0.301 ± 0.386 98.090 ± 0.377 ± 0.339 98.451 ± 0.431 ± 0.567

9
F (%)

F (%)
10 LHCb LHCb
3 fb−1 10 3 fb−1

1
1

10−1

10−1 10−2

ω (782)

f 2(1270)

f 0(500)
f 0(980)
f 0(1370)
f 0(1500)
f 0(1710)
f 2'(1525)
K (892)0

K (1410)0

K (1680)0

K 2(1430)0

K 3(1780)0

K 0(1430)0

K 0(1950)0

ρ (770)0

ρ (1450)0
ρ (1700)0

ρ3(1690)0

π π -K K
π π -π π
*

*
*

*
Figure 3: Comparison of the quasi-two-body fit fractions between Isobar (green), K-matrix (ma-
genta) and QMI (blue) for states in (left) K + π − and (right) π + π − . Solid bands show the
statistical spread while the lighter shading indicates ranges for the total uncertainty.

Table 4: Average strong phases (◦ ) for each component, relative to the B + → K ∗ (892)0 π +
reference amplitude, shown for the three S-wave approaches. For all results, the first uncertainty
is statistical while the second is systematic.

Component Isobar K-matrix QMI

K ∗ (892)0 0 (fixed) 0 (fixed) 0 (fixed)
K ∗ (1410)0 −50.7 ± 2.7 ± 6.0 −51.8 ± 3.4 ± 4.6 −37.4 ± 4.4 ± 7.8
K ∗ (1680)0 +161.3 ± 9.2 ± 14.3 +156.7 ± 7.6 ± 12.7 −149.5 ± 12.0 ± 23.6
ρ(770)0 −23.0 ± 2.3 ± 4.9 −30.2 ± 1.8 ± 4.1 −24.4 ± 3.7 ± 6.6
ω(782) +93.3 ± 5.3 ± 5.8 +87.7 ± 5.1 ± 3.6 +94.9 ± 5.0 ± 5.4
ρ(1450)0 +96.0 ± 3.7 ± 7.7 +103.4 ± 4.2 ± 4.9 +120.6 ± 4.2 ± 8.4
ρ(1700)0 +44.1 ± 8.7 ± 25.5 +65.7 ± 9.0 ± 6.3 +68.1 ± 13.2 ± 11.6
K2∗ (1430)0 +91.2 ± 1.2 ± 2.2 +93.6 ± 1.1 ± 1.8 +101.6 ± 3.2 ± 2.5
f2 (1270) +150.8 ± 1.9 ± 3.6 +149.5 ± 2.1 ± 2.8 +156.7 ± 3.0 ± 5.0
f2′ (1525) +3.4 ± 13.7 ± 36.1 +5.3 ± 12.2 ± 19.1 +41.4 ± 32.0 ± 26.0
K3∗ (1780)0 −113.5 ± 7.3 ± 6.0 −106.1 ± 7.5 ± 9.0 −105.3 ± 7.4 ± 15.1
ρ3 (1690)0 −96.9 ± 4.9 ± 21.7 −95.3 ± 4.0 ± 5.0 −78.4 ± 6.5 ± 6.2
χc0 (1P ) +115.4 ± 2.4 ± 1.8 +116.1 ± 2.2 ± 1.7 +123.0 ± 3.8 ± 2.4
K0∗ (1430)0 +116.2 ± 2.4 ± 5.0 +81.6 ± 1.7 ± 7.5 —
K0∗ (1950)0 −18.2 ± 3.5 ± 7.9 −16.5 ± 3.2 ± 7.8 —
f0 (500) −86.9 ± 3.4 ± 9.7 — —
f0 (980) +63.6 ± 2.5 ± 3.3 — —
f0 (1370) +151.9 ± 1.9 ± 5.1 — —
f0 (1500) −43.7 ± 2.5 ± 4.1 — —
f0 (1710) +44.0 ± 4.5 ± 15.6 — —
ππ–ππ +124.4 ± 3.6 ± 7.3 — —
ππ–KK −3.2 ± 12.6 ± 25.6 — —

10
arg(a) (°)

arg(a) (°)
150 LHCb 150 LHCb
3 fb−1 3 fb−1
100 100
50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150

ω (782)

f 2(1270)

f 0(500)
f 0(980)
f 0(1370)
f 0(1500)
f 0(1710)
f 2'(1525)
K (1410)0

K (1680)0

K 2(1430)0

K 3(1780)0

K 0(1430)0

K 0(1950)0

ρ (770)0

ρ (1450)0
ρ (1700)0

ρ3(1690)0

π π -K K
π π -π π
*

*
*

*
Figure 4: Comparison of the average strong phases for each component, relative to the B + →
K ∗ (892)0 π + reference amplitude, between Isobar (green), K-matrix (magenta) and QMI (blue)
for states in (left) K + π − and (right) π + π − . Solid bands show the statistical spread while the
lighter shading indicates ranges for the total uncertainty.

Adopting a frequentist interpretation similar to that of the CKMfitter group [68],

the χ2 value at each point in the scan is then converted into a p-value for two degrees of
freedom. Confidence intervals can subsequently be derived from the z-scores associated
with each p-value, quantifying the level to which the nonexistence hypothesis of a particular
contribution (xi , yi ) = (0, 0), may be rejected with respect to the global minimum. This
procedure is applied separately to each of the three S-wave approaches, where applicable,
with the lowest rejection significance retained for reporting in the main text. Significance
contours for the newly observed intermediate decays, and that for which first evidence is
found, are shown in Fig. 5. In these plots, the scans are combined by displaying only the
maximum p-value of the three S-wave approaches.

11
Figure 5: Two-dimensional contours of the strong complex coupling for intermediates states
listed in the lower half of Table 2. The uncertainties account for statistical, systematic and
amplitude-model sources.

12
References
[1] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of CP violation in the phase space of
B ± → K ± π + π − and B ± → K ± K + K − decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 101801,
arXiv:1306.1246.

[2] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of CP violation in the three-

body phase space of charmless B ± decays, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 112004,
arXiv:1408.5373.

[3] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Direct CP violation in charmless three-body decays
of B ± mesons, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 012008, arXiv:2206.07622.

[4] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Observation of several sources of CP violation in

B + → π + π + π − decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 031801, arXiv:1909.05211.

[5] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Amplitude analysis of the B + → π + π + π − decay,

Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 012006, arXiv:1909.05212.

[6] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Amplitude analysis of B ± → π ± K + K − decays,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 231802, arXiv:1905.09244.

[7] N. Cabibbo, Unitary symmetry and leptonic decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 531.

[8] M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, CP -violation in the renormalizable theory of weak

interaction, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652.

[9] Belle collaboration, A. Garmash et al., Evidence for large direct CP violation in
B ± → ρ(770)0 K ± from analysis of the three-body charmless B ± → K ± π ± π ∓ decay,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 251803, arXiv:hep-ex/0512066.

[10] BaBar collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Evidence for direct CP violation from Dalitz-
plot analysis of B ± → K ± π ∓ π ± , Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 012004, arXiv:0803.4451.

[11] BaBar collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Evidence for CP violation in B + → K ∗ (892)+ π 0

from a Dalitz plot analysis of B + → KS0 π + π 0 decays, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 072001,
arXiv:1501.00705.

[12] Belle collaboration, A. Garmash et al., Dalitz analysis of three-body charmless B 0 →

K 0 π + π − decay, Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 012006, arXiv:hep-ex/0610081.

[13] BaBar collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Time-dependent amplitude analysis of B 0 →

KS0 π + π − , Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 112001, arXiv:0905.3615.

[14] BaBar collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Amplitude analysis of B 0 → K + π − π 0 and

evidence of direct CP violation in B → K ∗ π decays, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 112010,
arXiv:1105.0125.

[15] Belle collaboration, A. Garmash et al., Dalitz analysis of the three-body charmless
decays B + → K + π + π − and B + → K + K + K − , Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 092003,
arXiv:hep-ex/0412066.

13
[16] H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua, K.-C. Yang, and Z.-Q. Zhang, Revisiting charmless hadronic
B decays to scalar mesons, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 114001, arXiv:1303.4403.

[17] H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua, and Z.-Q. Zhang, Direct CP violation in charmless three-
body decays of B mesons, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 094015, arXiv:1607.08313.

[18] Y.-L. Shen, W. Wang, J. Zhu, and C.-D. Lu, Study of K0∗ (1430) and a0 (980)
from B → K0∗ (1430)π and B → a0 (980)K decays, Eur. Phys. J. C50 (2007) 877,
arXiv:hep-ph/0610380.

[19] S. Kränkl, T. Mannel, and J. Virto, Three-body non-leptonic B decays and QCD
factorization, Nucl. Phys. B899 (2015) 247, arXiv:1505.04111.

[20] C.-H. Chen and H.-n. Li, Three-body nonleptonic B decays in perturbative QCD, Phys.
Lett. B561 (2003) 258, arXiv:hep-ph/0209043.

[21] W.-F. Wang, H.-C. Hu, H.-n. Li, and C.-D. Lü, Direct CP asymmetries of three-body
B decays in perturbative QCD, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 074031, arXiv:1402.5280.

[22] Belle collaboration, J. Dalseno et al., Time-dependent Dalitz plot measurement

of CP parameters in B 0 → KS0 π + π − decays, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 072004,
arXiv:0811.3665.

[23] P. Minkowski and W. Ochs, B decays into light scalar particles and glueball, Eur.
Phys. J. C39 (2005) 71, arXiv:hep-ph/0404194.

[24] W. Wang, Y.-L. Shen, Y. Li, and C.-D. Lu, Study of scalar mesons f0 (980) and
f0 (1500) from B → f0 (980)K and B → f0 (1500)K decays, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006)
114010, arXiv:hep-ph/0609082.

[25] E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Glueballs, hybrids, multiquarks: Experimental facts versus
QCD inspired concepts, Phys. Rept. 454 (2007) 1, arXiv:0708.4016.

[26] W. Ochs, The status of glueballs, J. Phys. G40 (2013) 043001, arXiv:1301.5183.

[27] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Amplitude analysis of B + → K + π + π − decays,

LHCb-PAPER-2025-067, in preparation.

[28] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Observation of several sources of CP violation in

B + → K + π + π − decays, LHCb-PAPER-2025-069, in preparation.

[29] LHCb collaboration, A. A. Alves Jr. et al., The LHCb detector at the LHC, JINST 3
(2008) S08005.

[30] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., LHCb detector performance, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
A30 (2015) 1530022, arXiv:1412.6352.

[31] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the relative branching fraction of
′ ′
B + → h+ h + h − decays, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 112010, arXiv:2010.11802.

[32] S. Mandelstam, J. E. Paton, R. F. Peierls and A. Q. Sarker, Isobar approximation of

production processes, Ann. Phys. 18 (1962) 198.

14
[33] D. J. Herndon, P. Söding, and R. J. Cashmore, Generalized isobar model formalism,
Phys. Rev. D11 (1975) 3165.

[34] J. J. Brehm, Unitarity and the isobar model: Two-body discontinuities, Ann. Phys.
108 (1977) 454.

[35] P. Estabrooks, Where and what are the scalar mesons?, Phys. Rev. D19 (1979) 2678.

[36] D. Aston et al., A study of K − π + scattering in the reaction K − p → K − π + n at

11 GeV/c, Nucl. Phys. B296 (1988) 493.

[37] BaBar collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Improved measurement of the CKM angle γ
in B ∓ → D(∗) K (∗)∓ decays with a Dalitz plot analysis of D decays to KS0 π + π − and
KS0 K + K − , Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 034023, arXiv:0804.2089.

[38] R. Garcia-Martin et al., Pion-pion scattering amplitude. IV. Improved analysis with
once subtracted Roy-like equations up to 1100 MeV, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 074004,
arXiv:1102.2183.

[39] J. R. Peláez and A. Rodas, Dispersive πK → πK and ππ → KK amplitudes from

scattering data, threshold parameters, and the lightest strange resonance κ or K0∗ (700),
Phys. Rept. 969 (2022) 1, arXiv:2010.11222.

[40] J. H. Alvarenga Nogueira et al., CP violation: Dalitz interference, CP T , and final

state interactions, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 054010, arXiv:1506.08332.

[41] I. Bediaga, T. Frederico, and O. Lourenço, CP violation and CPT invariance in B ±

decays with final state interactions, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 094013, arXiv:1307.8164.

[42] I. J. R. Aitchison, The K-matrix formalism for overlapping resonances, Nucl. Phys.
A189 (1972) 417.

[43] S. U. Chung et al., Partial wave analysis in K-matrix formalism, Annalen Phys. 4
(1995) 404.

[44] V. V. Anisovich and A. V. Sarantsev, K-matrix analysis of the (IJ P C =

00++ )-wave in the mass region below 1900 MeV, Eur. Phys. J. A16 (2003) 229,
arXiv:hep-ph/0204328.

[45] FOCUS collaboration, J. M. Link et al., Dalitz plot analysis of Ds+ and D+
decay to π + π − π + using the K-matrix formalism, Phys. Lett. B585 (2004) 200,
arXiv:hep-ex/0312040.

[46] D. V. Bugg, The mass of the σ pole, J. Phys. G34 (2007) 151,
arXiv:hep-ph/0608081.

[47] S. M. Flatte, Coupled-channel analysis of the πη and KK systems near KK threshold,

Phys. Lett. B63 (1976) 224.

[48] J. R. Pelaez, A. Rodas, and J. R. de Elvira, The f0 (1370) controversy from dispersive
meson-meson scattering data analyses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 051902, Erratum
ibid. 132 (2024) 239901, arXiv:2206.14822.

15
[49] G. J. Gounaris and J. J. Sakurai, Finite-width corrections to the vector-meson-
dominance prediction for ρ → e+ e− , Phys. Rev. Lett. 21 (1968) 244.

[50] C. Zemach, Three-pion decays of unstable particles, Phys. Rev. 133 (1964) B1201.

[51] C. Zemach, Use of angular-momentum tensors, Phys. Rev. 140 (1965) B97.

[52] J. M. Blatt and V. F. Weisskopf, Theoretical nuclear physics, Springer, New York,
1952.

[53] J. D. Jackson, Remarks on the phenomenological analysis of resonances, Nuovo Cim.

34 (1964) 1644.

[54] Particle Data Group, P. A. Zyla et al., Review of particle physics, Prog. Theor. Exp.
Phys. 2020 (2020) 083C01.

[55] J. Back et al., Laura++ : A Dalitz plot fitter, Comput. Phys. Commun. 231 (2018)
198, arXiv:1711.09854, the software version used in this analysis is available from
[Link]

[56] J. Rademacker, P. d’Argent, and J. Dalseno, Mint2, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2585535.

[57] BESIII collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Precision study of η ′ → γπ + π − decay

dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 242003, arXiv:1712.01525.

[58] F. Krinner et al., Ambiguities in model-independent partial-wave analysis, Phys. Rev.

D97 (2018) 114008, arXiv:1710.09849.

[59] K. M. Watson, The effect of final state interactions on reaction cross-sections, Phys.
Rev. 88 (1952) 1163.

[60] M. Gronau, O. F. Hernandez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner, Decays of B mesons to

two light pseudoscalars, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 4529, arXiv:hep-ph/9404283.

[61] H. J. Lipkin, Y. Nir, H. R. Quinn, and A. Snyder, Penguin trapping with isospin
analysis and CP asymmetries in B decays, Phys. Rev. D44 (1991) 1454.

[62] M. Gronau, A precise sum rule among four B → Kπ CP asymmetries, Phys. Lett.
B627 (2005) 82, arXiv:hep-ph/0508047.

[63] M. Gronau, D. Pirjol, and J. Zupan, CP asymmetries in B → Kπ, K ∗ π, ρK decays,

Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 094011, arXiv:1001.0702.

[64] B. Bhattacharya, M. Imbeault, and D. London, Extraction of the CP-violating

phase γ using B → Kππ and B → KKK decays, Phys. Lett. B728 (2014) 206,
arXiv:1303.0846.

[65] B. Bhattacharya et al., Charmless B → P P P decays: The fully-symmetric final state,

Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 074043, arXiv:1402.2909.

[66] E. Bertholet et al., Extraction of the CKM phase γ using charmless 3-body decays of
B mesons, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 114011, arXiv:1812.06194.

16
[67] B. Bhattacharya et al., Charmless B → P P P decays: The fully antisymmetric final
state, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 013001, arXiv:2308.16240.

[68] CKMfitter group, J. Charles et al., CP violation and the CKM matrix:
Assessing the impact of the asymmetric B factories, Eur. Phys. J. C41
(2005) 1, arXiv:hep-ph/0406184, updated results and plots available at
[Link]

17
 LHCb collaboration
R. Aaij38 , M. Abdelfatah69 , A.S.W. Abdelmotteleb57 , C. Abellan Beteta51 ,
F. Abudinén59 , T. Ackernley61 , A.A. Adefisoye69 , B. Adeva47 , M. Adinolfi55 ,
P. Adlarson87 , C. Agapopoulou14 , C.A. Aidala89 , Z. Ajaltouni11 , S. Akar11 ,
K. Akiba38 , P. Albicocco28 , J. Albrecht19,g , R. Aleksiejunas81 , F. Alessio49 ,
P. Alvarez Cartelle56,47 , R. Amalric16 , S. Amato3 , J.L. Amey55 , Y. Amhis14 ,
L. An6 , L. Anderlini27 , M. Andersson51 , P. Andreola51 , M. Andreotti26 ,
S. Andres Estrada44 , A. Anelli31,p , D. Ao7 , C. Arata12 , F. Archilli37 , Z. Areg69 ,
M. Argenton26 , S. Arguedas Cuendis9,49 , L. Arnone31,p , M. Artuso69 ,
E. Aslanides13 , R. Ataı́de Da Silva50 , M. Atzeni65 , B. Audurier12 , J.A. Authier15 ,
D. Bacher64 , I. Bachiller Perea50 , S. Bachmann22 , M. Bachmayer50 , J.J. Back57 ,
Z.B. Bai8 , P. Baladron Rodriguez47 , V. Balagura15 , A. Balboni26 , W. Baldini26 ,
Z. Baldwin79 , L. Balzani19 , H. Bao7 , J. Baptista de Souza Leite2 ,
C. Barbero Pretel47,12 , M. Barbetti27 , I.R. Barbosa70 , R.J. Barlow63,† ,
M. Barnyakov25 , S. Barsuk14 , W. Barter59 , J. Bartz69 , S. Bashir40 , B. Batsukh82 ,
P.B. Battista14 , A. Bavarchee80 , A. Bay50 , A. Beck65 , M. Becker19 ,
F. Bedeschi35 , I.B. Bediaga2 , N.A. Behling19 , S. Belin47 , A. Bellavista25 ,
I. Belov29 , I. Belyaev36 , G. Benane13 , G. Bencivenni28 , E. Ben-Haim16 ,
R. Bernet51 , A. Bertolin33 , F. Betti59 , J. Bex56 , O. Bezshyyko88 ,
S. Bhattacharya80 , M.S. Bieker18 , N.V. Biesuz26 , A. Biolchini38 , M. Birch62 ,
F.C.R. Bishop10 , A. Bitadze63 , A. Bizzeti27,q , T. Blake57,c , F. Blanc50 ,
J.E. Blank19 , S. Blusk69 , J.A. Boelhauve19 , O. Boente Garcia49 , T. Boettcher90 ,
A. Bohare59 , C. Bolognani19 , R. Bolzonella26,m , R.B. Bonacci1 , A. Bordelius49 ,
F. Borgato33,49 , S. Borghi63 , M. Borsato31,p , J.T. Borsuk86 , E. Bottalico61 ,
S.A. Bouchiba50 , M. Bovill64 , T.J.V. Bowcock61 , A. Boyer49 , C. Bozzi26 ,
J.D. Brandenburg91 , A. Brea Rodriguez50 , N. Breer19 , C. Breitfeld19 ,
J. Brodzicka41 , J. Brown61 , D. Brundu32 , E. Buchanan59 , M. Burgos Marcos84 ,
C. Burr49 , C. Buti27 , J.S. Butter56 , J. Buytaert49 , W. Byczynski49 ,
S. Cadeddu32 , H. Cai75 , Y. Cai5 , A. Caillet16 , R. Calabrese26,m , L. Calefice45 ,
M. Calvi31,p , M. Calvo Gomez46 , P. Camargo Magalhaes2,a , J.I. Cambon Bouzas47 ,
P. Campana28 , A.C. Campos3 , A.F. Campoverde Quezada7 , Y. Cao6 , S. Capelli31,p ,
M. Caporale25 , L. Capriotti26 , R. Caravaca-Mora9 , A. Carbone25,k ,
L. Carcedo Salgado47 , R. Cardinale29,n , A. Cardini32 , P. Carniti31 , L. Carus22 ,
A. Casais Vidal65 , R. Caspary22 , G. Casse61 , M. Cattaneo49 , G. Cavallero26 ,
V. Cavallini26,m , S. Celani49 , I. Celestino35,t , S. Cesare49,o , A.J. Chadwick61 ,
I. Chahrour89 , H. Chang4,d , M. Charles16 , Ph. Charpentier49 ,
E. Chatzianagnostou38 , R. Cheaib80 , M. Chefdeville10 , C. Chen57 , J. Chen50 ,
S. Chen5 , Z. Chen7 , A. Chen Hu62 , M. Cherif12 , A. Chernov41 ,
S. Chernyshenko53 , X. Chiotopoulos84 , G. Chizhik1 , V. Chobanova44 ,
M. Chrzaszcz41 , V. Chulikov28,49,36 , P. Ciambrone28 , X. Cid Vidal47 , G. Ciezarek49 ,
P. Cifra49 , P.E.L. Clarke59 , M. Clemencic49 , H.V. Cliff56 , J. Closier49 ,
C. Cocha Toapaxi22 , V. Coco49 , J. Cogan13 , E. Cogneras11 , L. Cojocariu43 ,
S. Collaviti50 , P. Collins49 , T. Colombo49 , M. Colonna19 , A. Comerma-Montells45 ,
L. Congedo24 , J. Connaughton57 , A. Contu32 , N. Cooke60 , G. Cordova35,t ,
C. Coronel66 , I. Corredoira 12 , A. Correia16 , G. Corti49 , G.C. Costantino61 ,
J. Cottee Meldrum55 , B. Couturier49 , D.C. Craik51 , N. Crepet14 , M. Cruz Torres2,h ,
M. Cubero Campos9 , E. Curras Rivera50 , R. Currie59 , C.L. Da Silva68 , X. Dai4 ,
E. Dall’Occo49 , J. Dalseno44,47 , C. D’Ambrosio62 , J. Daniel11 , G. Darze3 ,
A. Davidson57 , J.E. Davies63 , O. De Aguiar Francisco63 , C. De Angelis32,l ,

18
F. De Benedetti49 , J. de Boer38 , K. De Bruyn83 , S. De Capua63 , M. De Cian63 ,
U. De Freitas Carneiro Da Graca2,b , E. De Lucia28 , J.M. De Miranda2 , L. De Paula3 ,
M. De Serio24,i , P. De Simone28 , F. De Vellis19 , J.A. de Vries84 , F. Debernardis24 ,
D. Decamp10 , S. Dekkers1 , L. Del Buono16 , B. Delaney65 , J. Deng8 ,
V. Denysenko51 , O. Deschamps11 , F. Dettori32,l , B. Dey80 , P. Di Nezza28 ,
S. Ding69 , Y. Ding50 , L. Dittmann22 , A.D. Docheva60 , A. Doheny57 , C. Dongd,4 ,
F. Dordei32 , A.C. dos Reis2 , A.D. Dowling69 , L. Dreyfus13 , W. Duan73 ,
P. Duda86 , L. Dufour50 , V. Duk34 , P. Durante49 , M.M. Duras86 , J.M. Durham68 ,
O.D. Durmus80 , A. Dziurda41 , S. Easo58 , E. Eckstein18 , U. Egede1 ,
S. Eisenhardt59 , E. Ejopu61 , L. Eklund87 , M. Elashri66 , D. Elizondo Blanco9 ,
J. Ellbracht19 , S. Ely62 , A. Ene43 , J. Eschle69 , T. Evans38 , F. Fabiano14 ,
S. Faghih66 , L.N. Falcao31,p , B. Fang7 , R. Fantechi35 , L. Fantini34,s , M. Faria50 ,
K. Farmer59 , F. Fassin83,38 , D. Fazzini31,p , L. Felkowski86 , C. Feng6 , M. Feng5,7 ,
A. Fernandez Casani48 , M. Fernandez Gomez47 , A.D. Fernez67 , F. Ferrari25,k ,
F. Ferreira Rodrigues3 , M. Ferrillo51 , M. Ferro-Luzzi49 , R.A. Fini24 , M. Fiorini26,m ,
M. Firlej40 , K.L. Fischer64 , D.S. Fitzgerald89 , C. Fitzpatrick63 , T. Fiutowski40 ,
F. Fleuret15 , A. Fomin52 , M. Fontana25,49 , L.A. Foreman63 , R. Forty49 ,
D. Foulds-Holt59 , V. Franco Lima3 , M. Franco Sevilla67 , M. Frank49 ,
E. Franzoso26,m , G. Frau63 , C. Frei49 , D.A. Friday63,49 , J. Fu7 , Q. Führing19,56,g ,
T. Fulghesu13 , G. Galati24,i , M.D. Galati38 , A. Gallas Torreira47 , D. Galli25,k ,
S. Gambetta59 , M. Gandelman3 , P. Gandini30 , B. Ganie63 , H. Gao7 , R. Gao64 ,
T.Q. Gao56 , Y. Gao8 , Y. Gao6 , Y. Gao8 , L.M. Garcia Martin50 ,
P. Garcia Moreno45 , J. Garcı́a Pardiñas65 , P. Gardner67 , L. Garrido45 , C. Gaspar49 ,
A. Gavrikov33 , L.L. Gerken19 , E. Gersabeck20 , M. Gersabeck20 , T. Gershon57 ,
S. Ghizzo29,n , Z. Ghorbanimoghaddam55 , F.I. Giasemis16,f , V. Gibson56 ,
H.K. Giemza42 , A.L. Gilman66 , M. Giovannetti28 , A. Gioventù47 , L. Girardey63,58 ,
M.A. Giza41 , F.C. Glaser22,14 , V.V. Gligorov16 , C. Göbel70 ,
L. Golinka-Bezshyyko88 , E. Golobardes46 , A. Golutvin62,49 , S. Gomez Fernandez45 ,
W. Gomulka40 , F. Goncalves Abrantes64 , I. Gonçales Vaz49 , M. Goncerz41 ,
G. Gong4,d , J.A. Gooding19 , C. Gotti31 , E. Govorkova65 , J.P. Grabowski30 ,
L.A. Granado Cardoso49 , E. Graugés45 , E. Graverini35,u,50 , L. Grazette57 ,
G. Graziani27 , A.T. Grecu43 , N.A. Grieser66 , L. Grillo60 , C. Gu15 , M. Guarise26 ,
L. Guerry11 , A.-K. Guseinov50 , Y. Guz6 , T. Gys49 , K. Habermann18 ,
T. Hadavizadeh1 , C. Hadjivasiliou67 , G. Haefeli50 , C. Haen49 , S. Haken56 ,
G. Hallett57 , P.M. Hamilton67 , Q. Han33 , X. Han22,49 , S. Hansmann-Menzemer22 ,
N. Harnew64 , T.J. Harris1 , M. Hartmann14 , S. Hashmi40 , J. He7,e , N. Heatley14 ,
A. Hedes63 , F. Hemmer49 , C. Henderson66 , R. Henderson14 , R.D.L. Henderson1 ,
A.M. Hennequin49 , K. Hennessy61 , J. Herd62 , P. Herrero Gascon22 , J. Heuel17 ,
A. Heyn13 , A. Hicheur3 , G. Hijano Mendizabal51 , J. Horswill63 , R. Hou8 ,
Y. Hou11 , D.C. Houston60 , N. Howarth61 , W. Hu7,e , X. Hu4 , W. Hulsbergen38 ,
R.J. Hunter57 , D. Hutchcroft61 , M. Idzik40 , P. Ilten66 , A. Iohner10 , H. Jage17 ,
S.J. Jaimes Elles77,48,49 , S. Jakobsen49 , T. Jakoubek78 , E. Jans38 , A. Jawahery67 ,
C. Jayaweera54 , A. Jelavic1 , V. Jevtic19 , Z. Jia16 , E. Jiang67 , X. Jiang5,7 ,
Y. Jiang7 , Y.J. Jiang6 , E. Jimenez Moya9 , N. Jindal91 , M. John64 ,
A. John Rubesh Rajan23 , D. Johnson54 , C.R. Jones56 , S. Joshi42 , B. Jost49 ,
J. Juan Castella56 , N. Jurik49 , I. Juszczak41 , K. Kalecinska40 , D. Kaminaris50 ,
S. Kandybei52 , M. Kane59 , Y. Kang4,d , C. Kar11 , M. Karacson49 ,
A. Kauniskangas50 , J.W. Kautz66 , M.K. Kazanecki41 , F. Keizer49 , M. Kenzie56 ,
T. Ketel38 , B. Khanji69 , S. Kholodenko62,49 , G. Khreich14 , F. Kiraz14 , T. Kirn17 ,
V.S. Kirsebom31,p , S. Klaver39 , N. Kleijne35,t , A. Kleimenova50 , D. Klekots88 ,

19
K. Klimaszewski42 , M.R. Kmiec42 , T. Knospe19 , R. Kolb22 , S. Koliiev53 ,
L. Kolk19 , A. Konoplyannikov6 , P. Kopciewicz49 , P. Koppenburg38 , A. Korchin52 ,
I. Kostiuk38 , O. Kot53 , S. Kotriakhova , E. Kowalczyk67 , O. Kravcov81 ,
M. Kreps57 , W. Krupa49 , W. Krzemien42 , O. Kshyvanskyi53 , S. Kubis86 ,
M. Kucharczyk41 , A. Kupsc87 , V. Kushnir52 , B. Kutsenko13 , J. Kvapil68 ,
I. Kyryllin52 , D. Lacarrere49 , P. Laguarta Gonzalez45 , A. Lai32 , A. Lampis32 ,
D. Lancierini62 , C. Landesa Gomez47 , J.J. Lane1 , G. Lanfranchi28 ,
C. Langenbruch22 , J. Langer19 , T. Latham57 , F. Lazzari35,u , C. Lazzeroni54 ,
R. Le Gac13 , H. Lee61 , R. Lefèvre11 , M. Lehuraux57 , E. Lemos Cid49 , O. Leroy13 ,
T. Lesiak41 , E.D. Lesser49 , B. Leverington22 , A. Li4,d , C. Li4 , C. Li13 , H. Li73 ,
J. Li8 , K. Li76 , L. Li63 , P. Li7 , P.-R. Li74 , Q. Li5,7 , T. Li72 , T. Li73 ,
Y. Li8 , Y. Li5 , Y. Li4 , Z. Lian4,d , Q. Liang8 , X. Liang69 , Z. Liang32 ,
S. Libralon48 , A. Lightbody12 , C. Lin7 , T. Lin58 , R. Lindner49 , H. Linton62 ,
R. Litvinov32 , D. Liu8 , F.L. Liu1 , G. Liu73 , K. Liu74 , S. Liu5 , W. Liu8 ,
Y. Liu59 , Y. Liu74 , Y.L. Liu62 , G. Loachamin Ordonez70 , I. Lobo1 ,
A. Lobo Salvia10 , A. Loi32 , T. Long56 , F.C.L. Lopes2,a , J.H. Lopes3 ,
A. Lopez Huertas45 , C. Lopez Iribarnegaray47 , Q. Lu15 , C. Lucarelli49 ,
D. Lucchesi33,r , M. Lucio Martinez48 , Y. Luo6 , A. Lupato33,j , M. Lupberger20 ,
E. Luppi26,m , K. Lynch23 , S. Lyu6 , X.-R. Lyu7 , G.M. Ma4,d , H. Ma72 ,
S. Maccolini49 , F. Machefert14 , F. Maciuc43 , B. Mack69 , I. Mackay64 ,
L.M. Mackey69 , L.R. Madhan Mohan56 , M.J. Madurai54 , D. Magdalinski38 ,
J.J. Malczewski41 , S. Malde64 , L. Malentacca49 , G. Manca32,l , G. Mancinelli13 ,
C. Mancuso14 , R. Manera Escalero45 , A. Mangalasseri80 , F.M. Manganella37 ,
D. Manuzzi25 , D. Marangotto30,o , J.F. Marchand10 , R. Marchevski50 , U. Marconi25 ,
E. Mariani16 , S. Mariani49 , C. Marin Benito45 , J. Marks22 , A.M. Marshall55 ,
L. Martel64 , G. Martelli34 , G. Martellotti36 , L. Martinazzoli49 , M. Martinelli31,p ,
D. Martinez Gomez83 , D. Martinez Santos44 , F. Martinez Vidal48 ,
A. Martorell i Granollers46 , A. Massafferri2 , R. Matev49 , A. Mathad49 ,
C. Matteuzzi69 , K.R. Mattioli15 , A. Mauri62 , E. Maurice15 , J. Mauricio45 ,
P. Mayencourt50 , J. Mazorra de Cos48 , M. Mazurek42 , D. Mazzanti Tarancon45 ,
M. McCann62 , N.T. McHugh60 , A. McNab63 , R. McNulty23 , B. Meadows66 ,
S.E.R. Medaer49 , D. Melnychuk42 , D. Mendoza Granada16 ,
P. Menendez Valdes Perez47 , F.M. Meng4,d , M. Merk38,84 , A. Merli50,30 ,
L. Meyer Garcia67 , D. Miao5,7 , H. Miao7 , M. Mikhasenko79 , D.A. Milanes85 ,
A. Minotti31,p , E. Minucci28 , B. Mitreska63 , D.S. Mitzel19 , R. Mocanu43 ,
A. Modak58 , L. Moeser19 , R.D. Moise17 , E.F. Molina Cardenas89 , T. Mombächer47 ,
M. Monk56 , T. Monnard50 , S. Monteil11 , A. Morcillo Gomez47 , G. Morello28 ,
M.J. Morello35,t , M.P. Morgenthaler22 , A. Moro31,p , J. Moron40 , W. Morren38 ,
A.B. Morris81,49 , A.G. Morris13 , R. Mountain69 , Z. Mu6 , E. Muhammad57 ,
F. Muheim59 , M. Mulder19 , K. Müller51 , F. Muñoz-Rojas9 , V. Mytrochenko52 ,
P. Naik61 , T. Nakada50 , R. Nandakumar58 , G. Napoletano50 , I. Nasteva3 ,
M. Needham59 , N. Neri30,o , S. Neubert18 , N. Neufeld49 , J. Nicolini49 ,
D. Nicotra84 , E.M. Niel15 , L. Nisi19 , Q. Niu74 , B.K. Njoki49 , P. Nogarolli3 ,
P. Nogga18 , C. Normand47 , J. Novoa Fernandez47 , G. Nowak66 , C. Nunez89 ,
H.N. Nur60 , A. Oblakowska-Mucha40 , T. Oeser17 , O. Okhrimenko53 ,
R. Oldeman32,l , F. Oliva59,49 , E. Olivart Pino45 , M. Olocco19 , R.H. O’Neil49 ,
J.S. Ordonez Soto11 , D. Osthues19 , J.M. Otalora Goicochea3 , P. Owen51 ,
A. Oyanguren48 , O. Ozcelik49 , F. Paciolla35,v , A. Padee42 , K.O. Padeken18 ,
B. Pagare47 , T. Pajero49 , A. Palano24 , L. Palini30 , M. Palutan28 , C. Pan75 ,
X. Pan4,d , S. Panebianco12 , S. Paniskaki49,33 , L. Paolucci63 , A. Papanestis58 ,

20
M. Pappagallo24,i , L.L. Pappalardo26 , C. Pappenheimer66 , C. Parkes63 ,
D. Parmar79 , G. Passaleva27 , D. Passaro35,t , A. Pastore24 , M. Patel62 ,
J. Patoc64 , C. Patrignani25,k , A. Paul69 , C.J. Pawley84 , A. Pellegrino38 ,
J. Peng5,7 , X. Peng74 , M. Pepe Altarelli28 , S. Perazzini25 , H. Pereira Da Costa68 ,
M. Pereira Martinez47 , A. Pereiro Castro47 , C. Perez46 , P. Perret11 ,
A. Perrevoort83 , A. Perro49 , M.J. Peters66 , K. Petridis55 , A. Petrolini29,n ,
S. Pezzulo29,n , J.P. Pfaller66 , H. Pham69 , L. Pica35,t , M. Piccini34 , L. Piccolo32 ,
B. Pietrzyk10 , R.N. Pilato61 , D. Pinci36 , F. Pisani49 , M. Pizzichemi31,p,49 ,
V.M. Placinta43 , M. Plo Casasus47 , T. Poeschl49 , F. Polci16 , M. Poli Lener28 ,
A. Poluektov13 , I. Polyakov63 , E. Polycarpo3 , S. Ponce49 , D. Popov7,49 ,
K. Popp19 , K. Prasanth59 , C. Prouve44 , D. Provenzano32,l,49 , V. Pugatch53 ,
A. Puicercus Gomez49 , G. Punzi35,u , J.R. Pybus68 , Q. Qian6 , W. Qian7 ,
N. Qin4,d , R. Quagliani49 , R.I. Rabadan Trejo57 , R. Racz81 , J.H. Rademacker55 ,
M. Rama35 , M. Ramı́rez Garcı́a89 , V. Ramos De Oliveira70 , M. Ramos Pernas49 ,
M.S. Rangel3 , G. Raven39 , M. Rebollo De Miguel48 , F. Redi30,j , J. Reich55 ,
F. Reiss20 , Z. Ren7 , P.K. Resmi64 , M. Ribalda Galvez45 , R. Ribatti50 ,
G. Ricart12 , D. Riccardi35,t , S. Ricciardi58 , K. Richardson65 ,
M. Richardson-Slipper56 , F. Riehn19 , K. Rinnert61 , P. Robbe14,49 , G. Robertson60 ,
E. Rodrigues61 , A. Rodriguez Alvarez45 , E. Rodriguez Fernandez47 ,
J.A. Rodriguez Lopez77 , E. Rodriguez Rodriguez49 , J. Roensch19 , A. Rogovskiy58 ,
D.L. Rolf19 , P. Roloff49 , V. Romanovskiy66 , A. Romero Vidal47 , G. Romolini26,49 ,
F. Ronchetti50 , T. Rong6 , M. Rotondo28 , M.S. Rudolph69 , M. Ruiz Diaz22 ,
R.A. Ruiz Fernandez47 , J. Ruiz Vidal84 , J.J. Saavedra-Arias9 , J.J. Saborido Silva47 ,
D. Sahoo80 , N. Sahoo54 , B. Saitta32 , M. Salomoni31,49,p , I. Sanderswood48 ,
R. Santacesaria36 , C. Santamarina Rios47 , M. Santimaria28 , L. Santoro 2 ,
E. Santovetti37 , A. Saputi26,49 , A. Sarnatskiy83 , G. Sarpis49 , M. Sarpis81 ,
C. Satriano36 , A. Satta37 , M. Saur74 , H. Sazak17 , F. Sborzacchi49,28 ,
A. Scarabotto19 , S. Schael17 , S. Scherl61 , M. Schiller22 , H. Schindler49 ,
M. Schmelling21 , B. Schmidt49 , N. Schmidt68 , S. Schmitt65 , H. Schmitz18 ,
O. Schneider50 , A. Schopper62 , N. Schulte19 , M.H. Schune14 , G. Schwering17 ,
B. Sciascia28 , A. Sciuccati49 , G. Scriven84 , I. Segal79 , S. Sellam47 , T. Senger51 ,
M. Senghi Soares39 , A. Sergi29,n , N. Serra51 , L. Sestini27 , B. Sevilla Sanjuan46 ,
Y. Shang6 , D.M. Shangase89 , R.S. Sharma69 , L. Shchutska50 , T. Shears61 , J. Shen6 ,
Z. Shen38 , S. Sheng50 , B. Shi7 , J. Shi56 , Q. Shi7 , W.S. Shi73 , E. Shmanin25 ,
R. Silva Coutinho2 , G. Simi33,r , S. Simone24,i , M. Singha80 , I. Siral50 ,
N. Skidmore57 , T. Skwarnicki69 , M.W. Slater54 , E. Smith65 , M. Smith62 ,
L. Soares Lavra59 , M.D. Sokoloff66 , F.J.P. Soler60 , A. Solomin55 , K. Solovieva20 ,
N.S. Sommerfeld18 , R. Song1 , Y. Song50 , Y. Song4,d , Y.S. Song6 ,
F.L. Souza De Almeida45 , B. Souza De Paula3 , K.M. Sowa40 , E. Spadaro Norella29,n ,
E. Spedicato25 , J.G. Speer19 , P. Spradlin60 , F. Stagni49 , M. Stahl79 , S. Stahl49 ,
S. Stanislaus64 , M. Stefaniak91 , O. Steinkamp51 , Y. Su7 , F. Suljik64 , J. Sun32 ,
J. Sun63 , L. Sun75 , D. Sundfeld2 , W. Sutcliffe51 , P. Svihra78 , V. Svintozelskyi48 ,
K. Swientek40 , F. Swystun56 , A. Szabelski42 , T. Szumlak40 , Y. Tan4 , Y. Tang75 ,
Y.T. Tang7 , M.D. Tat22 , J.A. Teijeiro Jimenez47 , F. Terzuoli35,v , F. Teubert49 ,
E. Thomas49 , D.J.D. Thompson54 , A.R. Thomson-Strong59 , H. Tilquin62 ,
V. Tisserand11 , S. T’Jampens10 , M. Tobin5,49 , T.T. Todorov20 , L. Tomassetti26,m ,
G. Tonani30 , X. Tong6 , T. Tork30 , L. Toscano19 , D.Y. Tou4,d , C. Trippl46 ,
G. Tuci22 , N. Tuning38 , L.H. Uecker22 , A. Ukleja40 , D.J. Unverzagt22 ,
A. Upadhyay49 , B. Urbach59 , A. Usachov38 , U. Uwer22 , V. Vagnoni25,49 ,
A. Vaitkevicius81 , V. Valcarce Cadenas47 , G. Valenti25 , N. Valls Canudas49 ,

21
J. van Eldik49 , H. Van Hecke68 , E. van Herwijnen62 , C.B. Van Hulse47,x ,
R. Van Laak50 , M. van Veghel84 , G. Vasquez51 , R. Vazquez Gomez45 ,
P. Vazquez Regueiro47 , C. Vázquez Sierra44 , S. Vecchi26 , J. Velilla Serna48 ,
J.J. Velthuis55 , M. Veltri27,w , A. Venkateswaran50 , M. Verdoglia32 , M. Vesterinen57 ,
W. Vetens69 , D. Vico Benet64 , P. Vidrier Villalba45 , M. Vieites Diaz47 ,
X. Vilasis-Cardona46 , E. Vilella Figueras61 , A. Villa50 , P. Vincent16 , B. Vivacqua3 ,
F.C. Volle54 , D. vom Bruch13 , K. Vos84 , C. Vrahas59 , J. Wagner19 , J. Walsh35 ,
N. Walter49 , E.J. Walton1 , G. Wan6 , A. Wang7 , B. Wang5 , C. Wang22 ,
G. Wang8 , H. Wang74 , J. Wang7 , J. Wang5 , J. Wang4,d , J. Wang75 ,
M. Wang49 , N.W. Wang7 , R. Wang55 , X. Wang8 , X. Wang73 , X.W. Wang62 ,
Y. Wang76 , Y. Wang6 , Y.H. Wang74 , Z. Wang14 , Z. Wang30 , J.A. Ward57,1 ,
M. Waterlaat49 , N.K. Watson54 , D. Websdale62 , Y. Wei6 , Z. Weida7 ,
J. Wendel44 , B.D.C. Westhenry55 , C. White56 , M. Whitehead60 , E. Whiter54 ,
A.R. Wiederhold63 , D. Wiedner19 , M.A. Wiegertjes38 , C. Wild64 , G. Wilkinson64,49 ,
M.K. Wilkinson66 , M. Williams65 , M.J. Williams49 , M.R.J. Williams59 ,
R. Williams56 , S. Williams55 , Z. Williams55 , F.F. Wilson58 , M. Winn12 ,
W. Wislicki42 , M. Witek41 , L. Witola19 , T. Wolf22 , E. Wood56 , G. Wormser14 ,
S.A. Wotton56 , H. Wu69 , J. Wu8 , X. Wu75 , Y. Wu6,56 , Z. Wu7 , K. Wyllie49 ,
S. Xian73 , Z. Xiang5 , Y. Xie8 , T.X. Xing30 , A. Xu35,t , L. Xu4,d , M. Xu49 ,
R. Xu89 , Z. Xu49 , Z. Xu7 , Z. Xu5 , S. Yadav26 , K. Yang62 , X. Yang6 ,
Y. Yang80 , Y. Yang7 , Z. Yang6 , Z. Yang4 , H. Yeung63 , H. Yin8 , X. Yin7 ,
C.Y. Yu6 , J. Yu72 , X. Yuan5 , Y Yuan5,7 , J.A. Zamora Saa71 , M. Zavertyaev21 ,
M. Zdybal41 , F. Zenesini25 , C. Zeng5,7 , M. Zeng4,d , S.H Zeng55 , C. Zhang6 ,
D. Zhang8 , J. Zhang7 , L. Zhang4,d , R. Zhang8 , S. Zhang64 , S.L. Zhang72 ,
Y. Zhang6 , Y.Z. Zhang4,d , Z. Zhang4,d , Y. Zhao22 , A. Zhelezov22 , S.Z. Zheng6 ,
X.Z. Zheng4,d , Y. Zheng7 , T. Zhou6 , X. Zhou8 , V. Zhovkovska57 , L.Z. Zhu59 ,
X. Zhu4,d , X. Zhu8 , Y. Zhu17 , V. Zhukov17 , J. Zhuo48 , D. Zuliani33,r ,
G. Zunica28 .
1
School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
2
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fı́sicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
4
Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
5
Institute Of High Energy Physics (IHEP), Beijing, China
6
School of Physics State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing,
China
7
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
8
Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei, China
9
Consejo Nacional de Rectores (CONARE), San Jose, Costa Rica
10
Université Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, IN2P3-LAPP, Annecy, France
11
Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
12
Université Paris-Saclay, Centre d’Etudes de Saclay (CEA), IRFU, Gif-Sur-Yvette, France
13
Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS/IN2P3, CPPM, Marseille, France
14
Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, Orsay, France
15
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris,
Palaiseau, France
16
Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Énergies (LPNHE), Sorbonne Université,
CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
17
I. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
18
Universität Bonn - Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen und Kernphysik, Bonn, Germany
19
Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
20
Physikalisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
21
Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany

22
22
Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
23
School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
24
INFN Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy
25
INFN Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
26
INFN Sezione di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
27
INFN Sezione di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
28
INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
29
INFN Sezione di Genova, Genova, Italy
30
INFN Sezione di Milano, Milano, Italy
31
INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy
32
INFN Sezione di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
33
INFN Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy
34
INFN Sezione di Perugia, Perugia, Italy
35
INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
36
INFN Sezione di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
37
INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
38
Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands
39
Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
Netherlands
40
AGH - University of Krakow, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Kraków, Poland
41
Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
42
National Center for Nuclear Research (NCBJ), Warsaw, Poland
43
Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
44
Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña, Spain
45
ICCUB, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
46
La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain
47
Instituto Galego de Fı́sica de Altas Enerxı́as (IGFAE), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela,
Santiago de Compostela, Spain
48
Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular, Centro Mixto Universidad de Valencia - CSIC, Valencia, Spain
49
European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
50
Institute of Physics, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
51
Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
52
NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine
53
Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR), Kyiv, Ukraine
54
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
55
H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
56
Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
57
Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
58
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
59
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
60
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
61
Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
62
Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
63
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
64
Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
65
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States
66
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States
67
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States
68
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM, United States
69
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States
70
Pontifı́cia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, associated to 3
71
Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile, associated to 51
72
School of Physics and Electronics, Hunan University, Changsha City, China, associated to 8
73
State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou,
China, associated to 4
74
Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China, associated to 5

23
75
School of Physics and Technology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China, associated to 4
76
Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China, associated to 8
77
Departamento de Fisica , Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia, associated to 16
78
Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic, associated to 63
79
Ruhr Universitaet Bochum, Fakultaet f. Physik und Astronomie, Bochum, Germany, associated to 19
80
Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary, associated to 49
81
Faculty of Physics, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, associated to 20
82
Institute of Physics and Technology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Ulan Bator, Mongolia, associated
to 5
83
Van Swinderen Institute, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, associated to 38
84
Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands, associated to 38
85
Universidad de Ingenierı́a y Tecnologı́a (UTEC), Lima, Peru, associated to 65
86
Tadeusz Kosciuszko Cracow University of Technology, Cracow, Poland, associated to 41
87
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, associated to 60
88
Taras Schevchenko University of Kyiv, Faculty of Physics, Kyiv, Ukraine, associated to 14
89
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States, associated to 69
90
Indiana University, Bloomington, United States, associated to 68
91
Ohio State University, Columbus, United States, associated to 68

a
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
b
Centro Federal de Educacão Tecnológica Celso Suckow da Fonseca, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
c
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada
d
Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
e
Hangzhou Institute for Advanced Study, UCAS, Hangzhou, China
f
LIP6, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
g
Lamarr Institute for Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, Dortmund, Germany
h
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, Tegucigalpa, Honduras
i
Università di Bari, Bari, Italy
j
Università di Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy
k
Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
l
Università di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
m
Università di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
n
Università di Genova, Genova, Italy
o
Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
p
Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy
q
Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
r
Università di Padova, Padova, Italy
s
Università di Perugia, Perugia, Italy
t
Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy
u
Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
v
Università di Siena, Siena, Italy
w
Università di Urbino, Urbino, Italy
x
Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Spain
†
Deceased

24