Measurement of the mass and production rate of Ξ
b−baryons
R. Aaijet al.* (LHCb Collaboration)
(Received 21 January 2019; published 22 March 2019)
The first measurement of the production rate of Ξ−b baryons in pp collisions relative to that of Λ0b
baryons is reported, using data samples collected by the LHCb experiment, and corresponding to integrated luminosities of 1, 2 and1.6 fb−1atpffiffiffis¼ 7, 8 and 13 TeV, respectively. In the kinematic region 2 < η < 6 and pT< 20 GeV=c, we measure
fΞ− b fΛ0 b BðΞ− b→J=ψΞ−Þ BðΛ0 b→J=ψΛÞ ¼ ð10.8 0.9 0.8Þ × 10 −2 [pffiffiffis¼ 7; 8 TeV], fΞ− b fΛ0 b BðΞ− b→J=ψΞ−Þ BðΛ0 b→J=ψΛÞ ¼ ð13.1 1.1 1.0Þ × 10 −2 [pffiffiffis¼ 13 TeV], where f Ξ−
b and fΛ0b are the fragmentation
fractions of b quarks into Ξ−b and Λ0b baryons, respectively;B represents branching fractions; and the
uncertainties are due to statistical and experimental systematic sources. The values of fΞ−
b=fΛ0bare obtained
by invoking SU(3) symmetry in the Ξ−b → J=ψΞ− and Λ0b→ J=ψΛ decays. Production asymmetries betweenΞ−b and ¯Ξþb baryons are also reported. The mass of theΞ−b baryon is also measured relative to that of theΛ0bbaryon, from which it is found that mðΞ−bÞ ¼ 5796.70 0.39 0.15 0.17 MeV=c2, where the
last uncertainty is due to the precision on the known Λ0b mass. This result represents the most precise determination of theΞ−b mass.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.052006
The decays of beauty (b) quarks provide a sensitive probe of physics within, and beyond, the Standard Model. Due to the large b ¯b production cross section at the Large Hadron Collider, beauty hadrons of all species are abun-dantly produced. Measurements of branching fractions in specific decay channels are often needed in order to make quantitative comparisons to theoretical predictions. However, absolute branching fraction measurements at hadron colliders are difficult to perform without an external input. Instead, one generally resorts to measuring a par-ticular branching fraction relative to that of a topologically similar decay mode, frequently one that involves either a B0 or a B− meson, whose absolute branching fractions are known from B-factory measurements. When B0s or Λ0b branching fractions are measured relative to those of a B0 decay, knowledge of the ratio of fragmentation fractions, fs=fdfor B0s decays, or fΛ0b=fdforΛ0bdecays, is required. Here, fd, fsand fΛ0b represent the rates at which a b quark hadronizes into a B0, B0s or Λ0b hadron, respectively.
Theoretically, the most robust way to measure the b-quark fragmentation fractions is to exploit the well-tested
prediction from heavy quark effective theory [1–8] that, to first order, all b hadrons containing a single heavy quark have equal semileptonic decay widths. Such analyses have been carried out by the LHCb experiment atffiffiffi
s p
¼ 7 TeV [9] and 13 TeV [10], where it was found thathfs=fdi ≃ 0.26 and hfΛ0
b=fdi ≃ 0.6, averaged over the
pseudorapidity (η) and transverse momentum (pT) region 2 < η < 5 and 3 < pT< 25 GeV=c. An alternative tech-nique, which relies on factorization and SU(3) flavor symmetry in the B0s → D−sπþ and B0→ D−Kþ decays
[11], has also been used to measure fs=fd, yielding a value consistent with that obtained in semileptonic decays.
With the large samples of b hadrons collected by the LHCb experiment, a number of new decay modes ofΞ0b, Ξ−
b, and evenΩ−b baryons have been searched for, and in many cases these searches have led to first observations
[12–20]. However, when new decay modes of these baryons are observed, absolute branching fractions cannot be determined due to a lack of knowledge of the fragmen-tation fractions fΞ0
b, fΞ−b and fΩ−b. For example, in one such
measurement, evidence of the strangeness-changing weak decay Ξ−b → Λ0bπ− was reported[16], with the result that ðfΞ−
b=fΛ0bÞBðΞ
−
b→Λ0bπ−Þ¼ð5.71.8þ0.8−0.9Þ×10−4. To com-pute the decay widthΓðΞ−b→Λ0bπ−Þ and compare to theo-retical predictions requires knowledge of the ratio fΞ−
b=fΛ0b.
In principle, the same procedure used to measure fs=fd and fΛ0
b=fdcan be applied to semileptonicΞ
0
b→ Ξþcμ−¯νμX
*Full author list given at the end of the article.
Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.
andΞ−b → Ξ0cμ−¯νμX decays to measure fΞ0
b=fdand fΞ − b=fd.
However, an obstacle to such an analysis is the limited knowledge of absolute branching fractions for the decays of the Ξþc or Ξ0c baryon. Recently, the Belle experiment published a first measurement of the absolute branching fractions for three Ξ0c decay modes, each with a relative precision of about 40%[21]. No such measurements exist yet for theΞþc baryon. Precise measurements of branching fractions for bothΞþc andΞ0c decays should be feasible in the Belle II experiment [22].
Production ratio measurements of the hadronic Ξ0
b→ Ξþcπ− and Λb0→ Λþcπ− decays [14], where both the Ξþc andΛþc baryons are reconstructed in the pK−πþ final state, have been used to predict fΞ0
b=fΛ0b. In this case,
theoretical estimates ofBðΞþc → pK−πþÞ are used, result-ing in predictions of fΞ0
b=fΛ0b ¼ 0.065 0.020 [23] and
fΞ0
b=fΛ0b ¼ 0.054 0.020 [24].
An alternative approach to either of these two methods is to exploit the decays Λ0b→ J=ψΛ and Ξ−b → J=ψΞ−, where the Ξ− baryon is detected in its decay to Λπ−. Charge-conjugate processes are implicitly included. These decay rates are related through SU(3) flavor symmetry, where one finds[25–27]
ΓðΞ− b → J=ψΞ−Þ ΓðΛ0 b→ J=ψΛÞ ¼3 2: ð1Þ The ratio R ≡fΞ − b fΛ0 b BðΞ− b → J=ψΞ−Þ BðΛ0 b→ J=ψΛÞ ¼fΞ−b fΛ0 b ΓðΞ− b → J=ψΞ−Þ ΓðΛ0 b→ J=ψΛÞ τΞ− b τΛ0 b ð2Þ depends on fΞ−
b=fΛ0b, the partial decay widths Γ, and the
lifetimesτ of the indicated b baryons. Experimentally, R is obtained from the ratio of efficiency-corrected yields:
R ¼NðΞ − b → J=ψΞ−Þ NðΛ0b→ J=ψΛÞ ϵΛ0 b ϵΞ− b ; ð3Þ
where ϵ represents the detection efficiency and N is the yield of the indicated decays.
In this article, we report a first measurement of the ratio R in pp collision data collected by the LHCb experiment, corresponding to integrated luminosities offfiffiffi 1.0 fb−1 at
s p
¼ 7 TeV, 2.0 fb−1 at pffiffiffis¼ 8 TeV and 1.6 fb−1 at ffiffiffi
s p
¼ 13 TeV. The measurement of R, along with the SU(3) assumption in Eq. (1) and the known Λ0b and Ξ−b baryon lifetimes[28], is used to infer the value of fΞ−
b=fΛ0b.
The same data samples are also used to measure the production asymmetry between Ξ−b and ¯Ξþb baryons, and to make the most precise measurement of the Ξ−b mass.
The LHCb detector [29,30] is a single-arm forward spectrometer designed for the study of particles containing
b or c quarks. The detector includes a high-precision tracking system consisting of a silicon-strip vertex detector surround-ing the pp interaction region, a large-area silicon-strip detector located upstream of a dipole magnet with a bending power of about 4 Tm, and three stations of silicon-strip detectors and straw drift tubes 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 GeV=c. The minimum distance of a track to a primary vertex (PV), the impact parameter (IP), is measured with a resolution of ð15 þ 29=pTÞ μm, where pT is expressed in GeV=c. Different types of charged hadrons are distinguished using information from two ring-imaging Cherenkov detec-tors. Photons, electrons and hadrons are identified by a calorimeter system consisting of scintillating-pad and pre-shower detectors, an electromagnetic and a hadronic calo-rimeter. Muons are identified by a system composed of alternating layers of iron and multiwire proportional cham-bers. The online event selection is performed by a trigger which consists of a hardware stage, based on information from the calorimeter and muon systems, followed by a software stage, which applies a full event reconstruction.
Simulation is required to model the effects of the detector acceptance and the imposed selection requirements. In the simulation, pp collisions are generated using PYTHIA[31]
with a specific LHCb configuration [32]. Decays of unstable particles are described by EVTGEN[33], in which final-state radiation is generated using PHOTOS [34]. The interaction of the generated particles with the detector, and its response, are implemented using the GEANT4 toolkit
[35]as described in Ref. [36].
The Ξ−b → J=ψΞ−ð→ Λπ−Þ and Λ0b→ J=ψΛ decays both contain a J=ψ meson and a Λ baryon in the decay chain, and are kinematically similar. To reduce systematic uncertainties, selection requirements are tailored to exploit the common particles in the final state of theΛ0b andΞ−b decays. At the trigger level, both modes are required to satisfy requirements based solely on the J=ψ → μþμ− decay. Firstly, the hardware stage must register either a single high-pT muon or aμþμ− pair. The software stage
[37] then requires a μþμ− pair whose decay vertex is displaced from all PVs in the event, and that has an invariant mass consistent with the known J=ψ mass[28]. Selected events may contain more than one PV. Each particle is associated to the PV for which the corresponding value of χ2IP is smallest, where χ2IP is defined as the difference in the vertex-fitχ2of a given PV reconstructed with and without the particle under consideration.
In the offline analysis, each muon must have pTin excess of550 MeV=c and have IP to all PVs in the event that exceeds approximately three times the expected uncertainty. The μþμ− pair must form a good-quality vertex and have an invariant mass within40 MeV=c2of the known J=ψ mass, corresponding to about three times the mass resolution.
Reconstructed charged particles are classified into two categories in this analysis. The “long” category refers to tracks that have reconstructed segments in both the vertex detector and the tracking stations upstream and downstream of the LHCb magnet. The “downstream” category consists of those tracks that are not reconstructed in the vertex detector, and thus only include information from the tracking detectors just before and after the LHCb magnet. While most of the reconstructed particles from the pp interactions are in the long category, the decay products of long-lived strange particles tend to be mostly reconstructed as downstream tracks. Because of the presence of vertex detector measurements, the trajectories, and hence the IP, of long tracks are measured with better precision than those of downstream tracks.
Candidate Λ → pπ− decays are formed by combining downstream p and π−candidates with pTin excess of 500 and100 MeV=c, respectively. Both tracks are required to be significantly detached from all PVs in the event. Together they must form a good-quality vertex and must satisfy the requirementjMðpπ−Þ − mΛj < 8 MeV=c2, cor-responding to approximately three times the mass reso-lution. Here and throughout the text, M represents an invariant mass and m represents the known mass of the indicated particle[28].
TheΞ−baryon is reconstructed through its decay toΛπ−. Due to the longΞ−andΛ lifetimes, only Λ candidates formed from downstream tracks are used, as they contribute about 90% to theΞ− sample inΞ−b decays. To maintain a uniform selection, the same requirement is imposed onΛ decays in the Λ0b mode. Theπ− meson from the Ξ− decay may be reconstructed as either a long or a downstream track. For the Ξ−
b mass and production asymmetry measurements, both categories are used. However, for the measurement of R, only the long-track sample is used, since the efficiency for detecting the π− meson in the decay Ξ− → Λπ− enters directly in Eq. (3), and long-track efficiencies have been precisely calibrated using a tag-and-probe method[38]. No explicit momentum requirement is applied to theπ−meson, since it typically has low momentum. When necessary, the notationπ−L andπ−Dis used to distinguish between long (L) and downstream (D)π− tracks. Tracks in theπ−Lsample are required to be significantly detached from all PVs in the event, corresponding to a requirement that the impact parameter exceeds about four times the corresponding uncertainty; no such requirement is necessary on the π−D sample. Exploiting the largeΞ− baryon lifetime,Ξ− candi-dates must have tPV> 6 ps, where tPV is the decay time measured relative to the associated PV. Lastly, Ξ− candidates are required to satisfy the mass requirement jMðΛπ−
L;DÞ − Mðpπ−Þ þ mΛ− mΞ−j < 10 MeV=c2, corre-sponding to about three times the mass resolution, and have positive decay time, measured relative to theΞ−bdecay vertex. TheΛ0b (Ξ−b) candidates are formed by combining J=ψ and Λ (Ξ−) candidates. A vertex fit of good quality is required. To suppress background from prompt J=ψ
production, the b hadron is required to have a reconstructed decay time larger than 0.2 ps, which is about four times the resolution. Finally, to have a well-defined fiducial region, the Λ0b and Ξ−b candidates are required to be within the kinematic region2 < η < 6 and pT< 20 GeV=c. Multiple candidates in a single event occur in less than 1% of selected events, and all candidates are kept. To improve the mass resolution, an additional kinematic fit is performed on each candidate, employing both vertex and mass con-straints on the J=ψ, Λ and Ξ−candidates[39]. The resulting mass resolution is about8 MeV=c2for both modes.
The invariant-mass spectra of selected Λ0b and Ξ−b candidates are shown in Fig.1. The data are partitioned into the combined 7, 8 TeV data samples and the 13 TeV data sample, and show the distributions forΛ0bcandidates, andΞ−b candidates formed from either long or downstream pions. A simultaneous fit to all six distributions is per-formed in order to determine the signal yields. Each of the signal shapes is described by the sum of two Crystal Ball (CB) functions [40]with a common peak position and a common width. The tail parameters, which describe the non-Gaussian portion of the signal on either side of the signal peak, are independent for the two CB components. The parameters of the signal shape are determined from large samples of simulated signal decays. The background is described by an exponential function, with the shape parameter left free in the fit to data.
The signal-shape fit parameters are (i) the peak positions, ¯m, of the Λ0
b mass in the 7, 8 TeV and 13 TeV data; (ii) a single mass difference,δm ≡ ¯mΞ−
b − ¯mΛ0b; and (iii) a scale
factor applied to the simulated width of the CB functions, which allows the mass resolution in data to be slightly different than in simulation. The values of ¯mΛ0
b are allowed
to differ for the 7, 8 TeV data and the 13 TeV data, since the statistical uncertainty on each is about four times smaller than the systematic uncertainty from the momentum scale calibration[41]. However, that same calibration renders the corresponding uncertainty onδm negligible.
The fitted signal yields and the values of ¯mΛ0
b are shown
in TableI. From the fit, it is determined that δm ¼ 177.30 0.39 MeV=c2; mðΞ−bÞ ¼ 5796.70 0.39 MeV=c2;
where the uncertainties are statistical only, and we have used mðΞ−bÞ ¼ δmþmΛ0
b, with mΛ0b¼ 5619.60 0.17 MeV=c
2
[28]. The value ofδm is corrected by þ0.12 0.06 MeV=c2 to account for a bias observed in the obtained value ofδm, as seen in the fit to large samples of simulated signal decays. The uncertainty on this value is due to the size of the simulated samples.
The ratio of efficiencies in Eq. (3) is determined from weighted simulations of the signal decays. The Λ0b
simulation is weighted in bins of (η, pT) of the b baryon to reproduce the 2D distribution observed in the data, after the background contribution is subtracted using the sPlot method[42]. We assume that theΞ−b spectrum is the same
as that of the Λ0b, and variations are investigated when assessing systematic uncertainties. By studying the distri-butions of the fraction of the momentum carried by the decay products in each part of the decay chain, it is found
] 2 c mass [MeV/ Λ ψ / J 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 ) 2 c Candidates / (2 MeV/ 500 1000 1500
LHCb
=7,8 TeV s Data Full PDF Λ ψ / J → 0 b Λ ] 2 c mass [MeV/ Λ ψ / J 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 ) 2 c Candidates / (2 MeV/ 500 1000 1500LHCb
=13 TeV s Data Full PDF Λ ψ / J → 0 b Λ ] 2 c mass [MeV/ − Ξ ψ / J 5700 5800 5900 ) 2 c Candidates / (5 MeV/ 20 40 60LHCb
=7,8 TeV s Data Full PDF − Ξ ψ / J → − b Ξ ) L − π Λ → − Ξ ( ] 2 c mass [MeV/ − Ξ ψ / J 5700 5800 5900 ) 2 c Candidates / (5 MeV/ 20 40 60LHCb
=13 TeV s Data Full PDF − Ξ ψ / J → − b Ξ ) L − π Λ → − Ξ ( ] 2 c mass [MeV/ − Ξ ψ / J 5700 5800 5900 ) 2 c Candidates / (5 MeV/ 20 40 60 80LHCb
=7,8 TeV s Data Full PDF − Ξ ψ / J → − b Ξ ) D − π Λ → − Ξ ( ] 2 c mass [MeV/ − Ξ ψ / J 5700 5800 5900 ) 2 c Candidates / (5 MeV/ 50 100LHCb
=13 TeV s Data Full PDF − Ξ ψ / J → − b Ξ ) D − π Λ → − Ξ (FIG. 1. Invariant-mass distributions for (top)Λ0b→ J=ψΛ candidates; (middle) Ξ−b → J=ψΞ−,Ξ−→ Λπ−L; and (bottom)Ξ−b → J=ψΞ−, Ξ−→ Λπ−
D. The subscript on theπ−refers to whether the corresponding track is long or downstream. The left column shows the combined
that the simulation differs from the corresponding spectra observed in data. The simulation is weighted to match the distributions observed in data for the momentum ratio pJ=ψ=pΛ0b and the momentum asymmetry ðpp− pπ−Þ=ðppþ pπ−Þ in the Λ decay. After this weight-ing is applied, a large number of other observables are compared, such as decay times, flight distances, p, and pT, and good agreement is found between bothΛ0bandΞ−b data and simulation. For the Ξ−b sample, only the ðη; pTÞ and ðpp− pπ−Þ=ðppþ pπ−Þ weights are needed to obtain good agreement with the data.
The resulting efficiencies are summarized in Table II. The efficiencies associated with the detector acceptance, the reconstruction and selection, and the trigger require-ments are given, along with the total selection efficiencies. The relative efficiency is approximately 14% for both the 7, 8 TeV and 13 TeV data sets. For the 7, 8 TeV values, the efficiencies represent the weighted average value. This small value is due to the combination of the relatively low momentum and usage of only long tracks for theπ−meson in theΞ− decay.
From the signal yields and relative efficiencies, the ratios R are computed to be
R ¼ ð10.8 0.9Þ × 10−2 ½pffiffiffis¼ 7; 8 TeV; R ¼ ð13.1 1.1Þ × 10−2 ½pffiffiffis¼ 13 TeV; where the uncertainties are statistical only.
The difference between theΞ−b andΛ0b baryon produc-tion asymmetries is determined using the relaproduc-tion
AprodðΞ−
bÞ − AprodðΛ0bÞ ¼ αðΞ−bÞ − αðΛ0bÞ − Adetðπ−Þ; ð4Þ whereαðΞ−bÞ ½αðΛ0bÞ is the raw yield asymmetry between the Ξ−b → J=ψΞ− and ¯Ξþb → J=ψ ¯Ξþ [Λ0b→ J=ψΛ and
¯Λ0
b→ J=ψ ¯Λ] decays. In the difference of the raw yield asymmetries, theΛ detection asymmetry cancels since the kinematical properties are similar. Theπ−detection asym-metry, Adetðπ−Þ, has been measured[43,44], and, while it is consistent with zero, an asymmetry of up to about 1% in this low momentum region cannot be discounted. In the above expression, it is expected, and assumed, that there is no direct CP violation in these decays.
The raw yield asymmetries are obtained by fitting for the signal yields separately for the beauty baryon and anti-baryon subsamples. The fit is similar to that which was described previously, except that the CB width scale factors are fixed to the values obtained from the fit to the full sample, since the mass resolution can be assumed to be the same for the b baryons and antibaryons. The fitted signal yields are shown in TableIII, along with the resulting raw asymmetries. The differences in production asymmetries are readily found to be
½AprodðΞ− bÞ − AprodðΛ0bÞ ¼ ð−1.3 5.6Þ% ½ ffiffiffi s p ¼ 7;8 TeV; ½AprodðΞ− bÞ − AprodðΛ0bÞ ¼ ð−6.3 4.9Þ% ½ ffiffiffi s p ¼ 13 TeV; where the uncertainties are due to the signal yields obtained in this analysis.
To obtain AprodðΞ−bÞ, previous measurements of AprodðΛ0
bÞ at ffiffiffi s p
¼ 7 and 8 TeV are used [45]. Since the value of AprodðΛ0
bÞ averaged over the LHCb acceptance is not expected to change significantly with center-of-mass energy[46], and the measured values of AprodðΛ0bÞ obtained
at pffiffiffis¼ 7 and 8 TeV are compatible [45], they are averaged, taking the systematic uncertainties as fully correlated, to obtain AprodðΛ0
bÞ ¼ ð2.4 1.4 0.9Þ%. An alternate measurement of AprodðΛ0
bÞ yielded results that are consistent with the above value[47]. The value at 7, 8 TeV is also used for theΞ−b asymmetry measurement at 13 TeV, and a systematic uncertainty, which is discussed below, is assigned. TheΞ−b asymmetries are found to be
TABLE I. Fitted signal yields and peak position of the Λ0b signal peak, as obtained from the fit described in the text. The subscript on theπ−refers to whether the corresponding track is long or downstream. The uncertainties shown are statistical only.
7, 8 TeV 13 TeV NðΛ0b→ J=ψΛÞ 13307 137 14793 150 NðΞ−b → J=ψΞ−; Ξ−→ Λπ−LÞ 203 16 258 22 NðΞ−b → J=ψΞ−; Ξ−→ Λπ−DÞ 266 20 357 26 ¯mΛ0 b (MeV=c 2) 5619.52 0.09 5619.28 0.09
TABLE II. Selection efficiencies as obtained from the simulation ofΛ0b→ J=ψΛ and Ξ−b → J=ψΞ−,Ξ−→ Λπ−L
decays atpffiffiffis¼ 7, 8 TeV and 13 TeV. The efficiencies (ϵ) listed are those associated with the detector acceptance (acc), the reconstruction and selection (sel), the trigger (trig), their product, and the relative efficiency.
7, 8 TeV 13 TeV Final state Λ0b→ J=ψΛ Ξ−b → J=ψΞ− Λ0b→ J=ψΛ Ξ−b → J=ψΞ− ϵacc(%) 18.9 0.1 17.3 0.1 19.8 0.1 18.0 0.1 ϵsel(%) 2.86 0.02 0.42 0.01 2.91 0.01 0.42 0.01 ϵtrig(%) 73.2 0.3 75.6 0.7 75.4 0.2 77.8 0.5 ϵ (10−2%) 39.5 0.4 5.56 0.11 43.5 0.3 5.85 0.06 ϵΞ− b=ϵΛ0b (%) 14.1 0.3 13.4 0.2
AprodðΞ− bÞ ¼ ð1.1 5.6Þ% ½ ffiffiffi s p ¼ 7; 8 TeV; AprodðΞ− bÞ ¼ ð−3.9 4.9Þ% ½ ffiffiffi s p ¼ 13 TeV: In the mass measurement, most sources of systematic uncertainty cancel, since it relies on the mass difference, δm. The modulus of the correction of 0.12 MeV=c2 described previously is assigned as a systematic uncer-tainty. The signal shape uncertainty is quantified by performing an alternate fit using the sum of two Gaussian functions. Apart from a common peak value, all shape parameters are left free in the fit. The difference with respect to the nominal value, 0.06 MeV=c2, is assigned as a systematic uncertainty. The background shape uncertainty is assessed by using a first-order polynomial in place of the nominal exponential function, and is found to change the result by0.01 MeV=c2. The systematic uncer-tainties due to the momentum scale and energy loss have been evaluated previously[48]and are found to contribute 0.01 MeV=c2each. Knowledge of theΞ−mass contributes an uncertainty of0.07 MeV=c2. Adding these uncertainties in quadrature, the total systematic uncertainty on δm is 0.15 MeV=c2.
For the measurement of R, several sources of uncertainty are considered, which are summarized in Table IV. The efficiency for all decay products to be within the LHCb acceptance is derived from the simulation, and could depend on the polarization of the Λ0b or Ξ−b baryon. To investigate this effect, variations in the Λ0b and Ξ−b
polarization are considered, including full polarization, zero polarization, and using the helicity amplitudes pre-sented in Ref.[49]. All three variations are found to give statistically compatible acceptance corrections. The assigned uncertainty of 3.0% reflects the statistical pre-cision of the test.
The systematic uncertainty due to the signal and back-ground functions is estimated by using alternate choices for each, as described above for the uncertainty onδm, leading to an uncertainty of 2.0%. TheΛ0bandΞ−b simulations are weighted as discussed previously and reproduce well the kinematical distributions of the final-state particles seen in data. However, due to lowΞ−b signal yields, variations with respect to the nominal weighting are considered. In particular, a 3% change in the relative efficiency is seen when applying an additional weight to the Ξ−b pseudorapidity spectrum that is permissible by the data. A significantly smaller difference is seen when weighting theΞ−bbaryon’s pTspectrum. A 3% uncertainty is therefore assigned to account for potential differences in theðη; pTÞ spectrum ofΛ0b andΞ−b baryons.
Uncertainties in the detection efficiency of theπ−meson from theΞ−decay enters directly into the result for the ratio R. The tracking efficiency in simulation has been calibrated using a tag-and-probe method [38] using J=ψ → μþμ− decays; however, the calibration only covers the kinematic region p > 5 GeV=c and 1.9 < η < 4.9. Outside this region, no correction to the tracking efficiency in simu-lation is applied and an uncertainty of 5% is assigned to the tracking efficiency. This value is justified based upon a comparison of the reconstructed momentum spectrum of π− mesons from Λ0
b→ J=ψΛ decays in data and simu-lation, where theΛ baryons are formed from long tracks. These tracks serve as a good proxy for theπ− meson from Ξ−baryon decay, since they also have low momentum and large impact parameter. Averaging over the tracks within and outside the range covered by the tracking calibration, an uncertainty of 4.5% on the π− tracking efficiency is obtained. As a cross-check, the analysis is repeated using onlyπ−candidates in the range covered by the calibration, and the R values are consistent with the nominal results.
Potential uncertainties due to the Ξ− mass requirement may arise from differences in the Ξ− mass resolution, or possibly a (Cabibbo-suppressed) nonresonant Λπ− TABLE III. Yields ofΛ0b and Ξ−b decays, split by the charge of the final state, and their asymmetries, for the
combined 7, 8 TeV data samples and the 13 TeV data sample. Uncertainties are statistical only. Λ0 b→ J=ψΛ Ξ−b → J=ψΞ− Λ0 b ¯Λ0b Ξ−b ¯Ξþb N ffiffips¼7;8 TeV 6827 94 6480 92 236 18 230 18 α ffiffips¼7;8 TeV ð2.6 1.0Þ% ð1.3 5.4Þ% N ffiffips¼13 TeV 7602 102 7182 99 304 21 326 22 α ffiffips¼13 TeV ð2.8 1.0Þ% ð−3.5 4.8Þ%
TABLE IV. Summary of relative systematic uncertainties on the production ratio R.
Source Value (%)
Λ0
b,Ξ−b polarization 3.0
Signal and background shape 2.0
Ξ−
b production spectra 3.0
π−tracking efficiency 4.5
Ξ− mass resolution and nonresonantΛπ− 3.0
Ξ− selections 1.4
Ξ−
b lifetime 0.5
Simulated sample sizes 2.0
contribution. To quantify the potential size of such effects, the Ξ−b signal yield in the Ξ− sideband region, 10 < jMðΛπ−
L;DÞ − Mðpπ−Þ þ mΛ− mΞ−j < 20 MeV=c2 is measured. The yield in that region, which is consistent with zero, is taken as a systematic uncertainty. Other Ξ− selections are very loose and are studied by comparing background-subtracted distributions of relevant variables in data with those in simulation. From the observed differences an uncertainty of 1.4% is assigned. The uncertainty on R due to the knowledge of the Ξ−b lifetime, τΞ−
b ¼ 1.571 0.040 ps[28], is estimated by weighting the
simulation to replicate 0.04 ps shorter and longer lifetimes. The effect on R of the Λ0blifetime uncertainty is negligible. Lastly, the simulated sample sizes contribute 2.0% uncer-tainty to the relative efficiency.
The uncertainty on the Ξ−b production asymmetry receives contributions from the π− detection asymmetry and the measurement of AprodðΛ0
bÞ. The pion detection asymmetry uncertainty is assigned to be 1%, as mentioned previously. Taking the sum in quadrature of the statis-tical and systematic uncertainties in the value of AprodðΛ0
bÞ ¼ ð2.4 1.4 0.9Þ%, a 1.7% systematic uncer-tainty is assigned. Since the average value of AprodðΛ0
bÞ at ffiffiffi
s p
¼ 7 and 8 TeV [45]could differ from that at 13 TeV
[46], an additional systematic uncertainty of 1.5% is assigned to the measured value of AprodðΞ−
bÞ at 13 TeV. The total systematic uncertainty in AprodðΞ−
bÞ is therefore 1.9% and 2.5% for the 7, 8 TeV and 13 TeV data samples, respectively.
In summary, data samples collected at pffiffiffis¼ 7, 8 and 13 TeV have been used to measure the ratio of production rates of Ξ−b andΛ0b baryons in the pseudorapidity and pT region,2 < η < 6 and pT< 20 GeV=c, to be
R ¼ ð10.8 0.9 0.8Þ × 10−2 ½pffiffiffis¼ 7; 8 TeV; R ¼ ð13.1 1.1 1.0Þ × 10−2 ½pffiffiffis¼ 13 TeV; where the uncertainties are statistical and systematic. From the values of R, the ratios of fragmentation fractions are determined to be fΞ− b fΛ0 b ¼ ð6.7 0.5 0.5 2.0Þ × 10−2 ½pffiffiffis¼ 7; 8 TeV; fΞ− b fΛ0 b ¼ ð8.2 0.7 0.6 2.5Þ × 10−2 ½pffiffiffis¼ 13 TeV: The last uncertainty, due to the assumed SU(3) flavor symmetry and taken to be 30%, is an estimate of the typical size of SU(3)-breaking effects between decays related by this symmetry. The LHCb results show no significant dependence on the center-of-mass energy in the 7 to 13 TeV range. These results are consistent with the
predictions in Refs. [23,24], which used production ratio measurements of Ξ0b → Ξþcπ− and Λ0b→ Λþcπ− decays at 7 and 8 TeV [14] and an estimated value for BðΞþ
c → pK−πþÞ. Assuming that fΞ0b≈ fΞ−b, these results indicate that in the forward region, b quarks fragment into Ξbbaryons at about 15% of the rate at which they fragment intoΛ0b baryons. Previous measurements of R by the CDF
[50] and D0 [51] collaborations are about two standard deviations larger than the results reported here; however, those measurements are performed in p ¯p collisions atffiffiffi
s p
¼ 2 TeV and in the central rapidity region jηj < 2. The mass difference,δm, and the corresponding value of theΞ−b mass, mðΞ−bÞ, are measured to be
δm ¼ 177.30 0.39 0.15 MeV=c2;
mðΞ−bÞ ¼ 5796.70 0.39 0.15 0.17 MeV=c2; where the last uncertainty is due to theΛ0b mass. ThisΞ−b mass measurement includes the data used in Ref.[48], and therefore supersedes those results. This measurement rep-resents the most precise determination of theΞ−bmass, and is consistent with the previous most precise measurement of the mass difference of178.36 0.46 0.16 MeV=c2[15]. The Ξ−b production asymmetry is also measured for the first time. The values at the lower and higher center-of-mass energies are AprodðΞ− bÞ ¼ ð1.1 5.6 1.9Þ% ½ ffiffiffi s p ¼ 7; 8 TeV; AprodðΞ− bÞ ¼ ð−3.9 4.9 2.5Þ% ½ ffiffiffi s p ¼ 13 TeV: The asymmetries are consistent with zero at the level of a few percent.
We thank M. Voloshin for interesting and helpful discussions on theoretical aspects of this work. 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); MEN/IFA (Romania); MSHE (Russia);
MinECo (Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); 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), RRCKI and Yandex LLC (Russia), CSCS (Switzerland), IFIN-HH (Romania), CBPF (Brazil), PL-GRID (Poland) and OSC (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 AvH Foundation (Germany); EPLANET, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and ERC (European Union); ANR, Labex P2IO and OCEVU, and R´egion Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (France); Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of CAS,
CAS PIFI, and the Thousand Talents Program (China); RFBR, RSF and Yandex LLC (Russia); GVA, XuntaGal and GENCAT (Spain); the Royal Society and the Leverhulme Trust (United Kingdom); Laboratory Directed Research and Development program of LANL (USA).
[1] V. A. Khoze and M. A. Shifman, Heavy quarks,Sov. Phys. Usp. 26, 387 (1983).
[2] I. I. Bigi and N. G. Uraltsev, Gluonic enhancements in non-spectator beauty decays—An inclusive mirage though an exclusive possibility,Phys. Lett. B 280, 271 (1992). [3] I. I. Bigi, N. G. Uraltsev, and A. I. Vainshtein,
Nonpertur-bative corrections to inclusive beauty and charm decays. QCD versus phenomenological models,Phys. Lett. B 293, 430 (1992); Erratum,Phys. Lett. B 297, 477(E) (1992). [4] B. Blok and M. Shifman, The rule of discarding1=Nc in
inclusive weak decays (I),Nucl. Phys. B399, 441 (1993). [5] B. Blok and M. Shifman, The rule of discarding1=Nc in
inclusive weak decays (II),Nucl. Phys. B399, 459 (1993). [6] M. Neubert, B decays and the heavy quark expansion,Adv.
Ser. Dir. High Energy Phys. 15, 239 (1998).
[7] N. Uraltsev, Heavy quark expansion in beauty and its decays, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” 137, 329 (1998),arXiv:hep-ph/9804275. [8] G. Bellini, I. I. Y. Bigi, and P. J. Dornan, Lifetimes of charm
and beauty hadrons,Phys. Rep. 289, 1 (1997).
[9] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of b hadron production fractions in 7 TeV pp collisions,Phys. Rev. D 85, 032008 (2012).
[10] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of b-hadron fractions in 13 TeV pp collisions, arXiv: 1902.06794.
[11] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of the fragmentation fraction ratio fs=fd and its dependence
on B meson kinematics, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2013) 001.
[12] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Study of beauty baryon decays to D0ph− andΛþch−final states,Phys. Rev. D 89, 032001 (2014).
[13] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Searches for Λ0b and Ξ0
b decays to K0Spπ− and K0SpK− final states with first
observation of the Λ0b→ K0Spπ− decay, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2014) 087.
[14] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Precision Measurement of the Mass and Lifetime of theΞ0bBaryon,Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 032001 (2014).
[15] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Precision Measurement of the Mass and Lifetime of theΞ−b Baryon,Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 242002 (2014).
[16] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Evidence for the Strangeness-Changing Weak Decay Ξ−b → Λ0bπ−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 241801 (2015).
[17] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Observations ofΛ0b→ ΛKþπ− and Λ0
b→ ΛKþK−decays and searches for other
Λ0
b and Ξ0b decays to Λhþh− final states,J. High Energy
Phys. 05 (2016) 081.
[18] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of the DecayΞ−b → pK−K−,Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 071801 (2017). [19] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of the
Ξ−
b → J=ψΛK− decay,Phys. Lett. B 772, 265 (2017).
[20] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of branching fractions of charmless four-body Λ0b and Ξ0b decays,J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2018) 098.
[21] Y. B. Li et al. (Belle Collaboration), First measurements of absolute branching fractions ofΞ0cat Belle,Phys. Rev. Lett.
122, 082001 (2019).
[22] T. Abe et al. (Belle II Collaboration), Belle II technical design report,arXiv:1011.0352.
[23] D. Wang, Sum rules for CP asymmetries of charmed baryon decays in the flavor SU(3) limit, arXiv:1901.01776. [24] H.-Y. Jiang and F.-S. Yu, Fragmentation-fraction ratio fΞb=fΛ0b
in b- and c-baryon decays,Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 224 (2018). [25] M. J. Savage and M. B. Wise, SU(3) predictions for
non-leptonic B meson decays to charmed baryons,Nucl. Phys. B326, 15 (1989).
[26] M. Voloshin, Remarks on measurement of the decay Ξ−
b → Λ0bπ−,arXiv:1510.05568.
[27] Y. K. Hsiao, P. Y. Lin, L. W. Luo, and C. Q. Geng, Frag-mentation fractions of two-body b-baryon decays, Phys. Lett. B 751, 127 (2015).
[28] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018). [29] A. A. Alves, Jr. et al. (LHCb Collaboration), The LHCb
detector at the LHC, J. Instrum. 3, S08005 (2008). [30] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), LHCb detector
performance,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1530022 (2015). [31] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4
physics and manual, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2006) 026; A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008).
[32] I. Belyaev et al., Handling of the generation of primary events in Gauss, the LHCb simulation framework,J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331, 032047 (2011).
[33] D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation package,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 462, 152 (2001).
[34] P. Golonka and Z. Was, PHOTOS Monte Carlo: A precision tool for QED corrections in Z and W decays,Eur. Phys. J. C 45, 97 (2006).
[35] J. Allison et al. (Geant4 Collaboration), Geant4 develop-ments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 270 (2006); S. Agostinelli et al. (Geant4 Collaboration), Geant4:
A simulation toolkit,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 506, 250 (2003).
[36] M. Clemencic, G. Corti, S. Easo, C. R. Jones, S. Miglioranzi, M. Pappagallo, and P. Robbe, The LHCb simulation appli-cation, Gauss: Design, evolution and experience, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331, 032023 (2011).
[37] R. Aaij et al., The LHCb trigger and its performance in 2011,J. Instrum. 8, P04022 (2013).
[38] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of the track reconstruction efficiency at LHCb, J. Instrum. 10, P02007 (2015).
[39] W. D. Hulsbergen, Decay chain fitting with a Kalman filter,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 552, 566 (2005). [40] T. Skwarnicki, A study of the radiative cascade transitions between the Upsilon-prime and Upsilon resonances, Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow, 1986. [41] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Precision measurement
of D meson mass differences, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2013) 065.
[42] M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, sPlot: A statistical tool to unfold data distributions, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 555, 356 (2005).
[43] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of the CP Asymmetry in B0s– ¯B0s Mixing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117,
061803 (2016).
[44] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of Ds
production asymmetry in pp collisions at pffiffiffis¼ 7 and 8 TeV,J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2018) 008.
[45] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of B0, B0s, BþandΛ0bproduction asymmetries in 7 and 8 TeV pp
collisions,Phys. Lett. B 774, 139 (2017).
[46] W. K. Lai and A. K. Leibovich,Λþc= ¯Λ−c and Λ0b= ¯Λ0b
pro-duction asymmetry at the LHC from heavy quark recombi-nation,Phys. Rev. D 91, 054022 (2015).
[47] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Study of the produc-tions of Λ0b and ¯B0 hadrons in pp collisions and first measurement of the Λ0b→ J=ψpK− branching fraction,
Chin. Phys. C 40, 011001 (2016).
[48] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurements of the Λ0
b, Ξ−b, and Ω−b Baryon Masses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,
182001 (2013).
[49] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurements of the Λ0
b→ J=ψΛ decay amplitudes and the Λ0b polarisation
in pp collisions atpffiffiffis¼ 7 TeV,Phys. Lett. B 724, 27 (2013). [50] T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Observation of the
Ω−
b and measurement of the properties of theΞ−b and Ω−b
baryons,Phys. Rev. D 80, 072003 (2009).
[51] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Direct Observation of the Strange b Baryon Ξ−b,Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 052001
(2007).
R. Aaij,28C. Abellán Beteta,46B. Adeva,43 M. Adinolfi,50 C. A. Aidala,77Z. Ajaltouni,6 S. Akar,61P. Albicocco,19 J. Albrecht,11F. Alessio,44M. Alexander,55A. Alfonso Albero,42G. Alkhazov,41P. Alvarez Cartelle,57A. A. Alves Jr.,43 S. Amato,2S. Amerio,24Y. Amhis,8L. An,18L. Anderlini,18G. Andreassi,45M. Andreotti,17J. E. Andrews,62F. Archilli,28 P. d’Argent,13J. Arnau Romeu,7A. Artamonov,40M. Artuso,63K. Arzymatov,37E. Aslanides,7M. Atzeni,46B. Audurier,23
S. Bachmann,13 J. J. Back,52S. Baker,57V. Balagura,8,b W. Baldini,17A. Baranov,37R. J. Barlow,58G. C. Barrand,8 S. Barsuk,8W. Barter,58M. Bartolini,20F. Baryshnikov,74V. Batozskaya,32B. Batsukh,63A. Battig,11V. Battista,45A. Bay,45 J. Beddow,55F. Bedeschi,25I. Bediaga,1A. Beiter,63L. J. Bel,28S. Belin,23N. Beliy,66V. Bellee,45N. Belloli,21,IK. Belous,40 I. Belyaev,34E. Ben-Haim,9G. Bencivenni,19S. Benson,28S. Beranek,10A. Berezhnoy,35R. Bernet,46D. Berninghoff,13 E. Bertholet,9A. Bertolin,24C. Betancourt,46F. Betti,16,44M. O. Bettler,51M. van Beuzekom,28Ia. Bezshyiko,46S. Bhasin,50 J. Bhom,30M. S. Bieker,11S. Bifani,49P. Billoir,9A. Birnkraut,11A. Bizzeti,18,uM. Bjørn,59M. P. Blago,44T. Blake,52
F. Blanc,45 S. Blusk,63D. Bobulska,55V. Bocci,27O. Boente Garcia,43T. Boettcher,60A. Bondar,39,xN. Bondar,41 S. Borghi,58,44 M. Borisyak,37M. Borsato,43M. Boubdir,10 T. J. V. Bowcock,56C. Bozzi,17,44S. Braun,13M. Brodski,44 J. Brodzicka,30A. Brossa Gonzalo,52D. Brundu,23,44E. Buchanan,50A. Buonaura,46C. Burr,58A. Bursche,23J. Buytaert,44
W. Byczynski,44S. Cadeddu,23H. Cai,68R. Calabrese,17,g R. Calladine,49M. Calvi,21,iM. Calvo Gomez,42,m A. Camboni,42,mP. Campana,19D. H. Campora Perez,44L. Capriotti,16,e A. Carbone,16,e G. Carboni,26R. Cardinale,20 A. Cardini,23P. Carniti,21,I K. Carvalho Akiba,2G. Casse,56 M. Cattaneo,44G. Cavallero,20R. Cenci,25,pD. Chamont,8 M. G. Chapman,50M. Charles,9Ph. Charpentier,44G. Chatzikonstantinidis,49M. Chefdeville,5 V. Chekalina,37C. Chen,3 S. Chen,23S.-G. Chitic,44V. Chobanova,43M. Chrzaszcz,44A. Chubykin,41P. Ciambrone,19X. Cid Vidal,43G. Ciezarek,44
F. Cindolo,16P. E. L. Clarke,54M. Clemencic,44H. V. Cliff,51J. Closier,44V. Coco,44J. A. B. Coelho,8 J. Cogan,7 E. Cogneras,6 L. Cojocariu,33P. Collins,44 T. Colombo,44A. Comerma-Montells,13A. Contu,23 G. Coombs,44 S. Coquereau,42G. Corti,44M. Corvo,17,gC. M. Costa Sobral,52B. Couturier,44G. A. Cowan,54D. C. Craik,60 A. Crocombe,52M. Cruz Torres,1R. Currie,54C. D’Ambrosio,44F. Da Cunha Marinho,2C. L. Da Silva,78E. Dall’Occo,28
J. Dalseno,43,v A. Danilina,34A. Davis,58O. De Aguiar Francisco,44 K. De Bruyn,44S. De Capua,58M. De Cian,45 J. M. De Miranda,1L. De Paula,2M. De Serio,15,dP. De Simone,19C. T. Dean,55W. Dean,77D. Decamp,5L. Del Buono,9
B. Dey,69A. Di Canto,44P. Di Nezza,19 S. Didenko,74 H. Dijkstra,44F. Dordei,23M. Dorigo,44,yA. Dosil Suárez,43 L. Douglas,55A. Dovbnya,47K. Dreimanis,56L. Dufour,44G. Dujany,9 P. Durante,44J. M. Durham,78D. Dutta,58 R. Dzhelyadin,40M. Dziewiecki,13A. Dziurda,30A. Dzyuba,41S. Easo,53U. Egede,57V. Egorychev,34 S. Eidelman,39,x
S. Eisenhardt,54U. Eitschberger,11R. Ekelhof,11L. Eklund,55S. Ely,63A. Ene,33S. Escher,10S. Esen,28T. Evans,61 A. Falabella,16N. Farley,49S. Farry,56D. Fazzini,21,44,I P. Fernandez Declara,44 A. Fernandez Prieto,43F. Ferrari,16,e L. Ferreira Lopes,45F. Ferreira Rodrigues,2 M. Ferro-Luzzi,44S. Filippov,36R. A. Fini,15M. Fiorini,17,gM. Firlej,31 C. Fitzpatrick,45 T. Fiutowski,31F. Fleuret,8,bM. Fontana,44 F. Fontanelli,20,hR. Forty,44V. Franco Lima,56M. Frank,44
C. Frei,44J. Fu,22,qW. Funk,44 C. Färber,44M. F´eo,44E. Gabriel,54A. Gallas Torreira,43D. Galli,16,e S. Gallorini,24 S. Gambetta,54Y. Gan,3 M. Gandelman,2 P. Gandini,22Y. Gao,3 L. M. Garcia Martin,76B. Garcia Plana,43 J. García Pardiñas,46J. Garra Tico,51L. Garrido,42D. Gascon,42C. Gaspar,44L. Gavardi,11G. Gazzoni,6 D. Gerick,13 E. Gersabeck,58M. Gersabeck,58T. Gershon,52D. Gerstel,7Ph. Ghez,5V. Gibson,51O. G. Girard,45P. Gironella Gironell,42
L. Giubega,33K. Gizdov,54V. V. Gligorov,9 D. Golubkov,34A. Golutvin,57,74A. Gomes,1,a I. V. Gorelov,35C. Gotti,21,I E. Govorkova,28J. P. Grabowski,13R. Graciani Diaz,42L. A. Granado Cardoso,44E. Graug´es,42E. Graverini,46 G. Graziani,18A. Grecu,33R. Greim,28P. Griffith,23L. Grillo,58L. Gruber,44B. R. Gruberg Cazon,59O. Grünberg,71C. Gu,3 E. Gushchin,36A. Guth,10Yu. Guz,40,44T. Gys,44C. Göbel,65T. Hadavizadeh,59C. Hadjivasiliou,6G. Haefeli,45C. Haen,44
S. C. Haines,51B. Hamilton,62X. Han,13T. H. Hancock,59S. Hansmann-Menzemer,13N. Harnew,59T. Harrison,56 C. Hasse,44M. Hatch,44J. He,66M. Hecker,57K. Heinicke,11A. Heister,11K. Hennessy,56L. Henry,76E. van Herwijnen,44
J. Heuel,10M. Heß,71A. Hicheur,64R. Hidalgo Charman,58D. Hill,59M. Hilton,58P. H. Hopchev,45J. Hu,13W. Hu,69 W. Huang,66Z. C. Huard,61W. Hulsbergen,28T. Humair,57M. Hushchyn,38D. Hutchcroft,56D. Hynds,28P. Ibis,11 M. Idzik,31 P. Ilten,49A. Inglessi,41 A. Inyakin,40K. Ivshin,41 R. Jacobsson,44J. Jalocha,59E. Jans,28B. K. Jashal,76
A. Jawahery,62F. Jiang,3 M. John,59D. Johnson,44C. R. Jones,51 C. Joram,44 B. Jost,44N. Jurik,59S. Kandybei,47 M. Karacson,44J. M. Kariuki,50S. Karodia,55N. Kazeev,38M. Kecke,13F. Keizer,51M. Kelsey,63M. Kenzie,51T. Ketel,29
E. Khairullin,37B. Khanji,44C. Khurewathanakul,45K. E. Kim,63T. Kirn,10 V. S. Kirsebom,45 S. Klaver,19 K. Klimaszewski,32T. Klimkovich,12 S. Koliiev,48 M. Kolpin,13R. Kopecna,13P. Koppenburg,28I. Kostiuk,28,48 S. Kotriakhova,41M. Kozeiha,6 L. Kravchuk,36M. Kreps,52F. Kress,57P. Krokovny,39,xW. Krupa,31W. Krzemien,32
W. Kucewicz,30,lM. Kucharczyk,30V. Kudryavtsev,39,x A. K. Kuonen,45 T. Kvaratskheliya,34,44 D. Lacarrere,44 G. Lafferty,58A. Lai,23D. Lancierini,46 G. Lanfranchi,19 C. Langenbruch,10T. Latham,52C. Lazzeroni,49R. Le Gac,7 A. Leflat,35R. Lef`evre,6F. Lemaitre,44O. Leroy,7T. Lesiak,30B. Leverington,13P.-R. Li,66,abY. Li,4 Z. Li,63X. Liang,63
T. Likhomanenko,73R. Lindner,44F. Lionetto,46 V. Lisovskyi,8G. Liu,67X. Liu,3 D. Loh,52A. Loi,23I. Longstaff,55 J. H. Lopes,2 G. H. Lovell,51D. Lucchesi,24,o M. Lucio Martinez,43Y. Luo,3 A. Lupato,24E. Luppi,17,gO. Lupton,44 A. Lusiani,25X. Lyu,66F. Machefert,8 F. Maciuc,33V. Macko,45 P. Mackowiak,11S. Maddrell-Mander,50O. Maev,41,44 K. Maguire,58D. Maisuzenko,41M. W. Majewski,31S. Malde,59B. Malecki,44A. Malinin,73T. Maltsev,39,xH. Malygina,13
G. Manca,23,fG. Mancinelli,7 D. Marangotto,22,q J. Maratas,6,w J. F. Marchand,5 U. Marconi,16C. Marin Benito,8 M. Marinangeli,45P. Marino,45J. Marks,13P. J. Marshall,56G. Martellotti,27M. Martinelli,44D. Martinez Santos,43 F. Martinez Vidal,76A. Massafferri,1 M. Materok,10R. Matev,44A. Mathad,52Z. Mathe,44C. Matteuzzi,21 A. Mauri,46
E. Maurice,8,b B. Maurin,45M. McCann,57,44A. McNab,58R. McNulty,14J. V. Mead,56B. Meadows,61C. Meaux,7 N. Meinert,71D. Melnychuk,32M. Merk,28A. Merli,22,q E. Michielin,24D. A. Milanes,70E. Millard,52M.-N. Minard,5 L. Minzoni,17,gD. S. Mitzel,13A. Mogini,9R. D. Moise,57T. Mombächer,11I. A. Monroy,70S. Monteil,6M. Morandin,24 G. Morello,19M. J. Morello,25,tO. Morgunova,73J. Moron,31A. B. Morris,7R. Mountain,63F. Muheim,54M. Mukherjee,69 M. Mulder,28 C. H. Murphy,59D. Murray,58A. Mödden,11D. Müller,44J. Müller,11K. Müller,46V. Müller,11P. Naik,50 T. Nakada,45R. Nandakumar,53A. Nandi,59T. Nanut,45I. Nasteva,2M. Needham,54N. Neri,22,qS. Neubert,13N. Neufeld,44 R. Newcombe,57T. D. Nguyen,45C. Nguyen-Mau,45,nS. Nieswand,10R. Niet,11N. Nikitin,35A. Nogay,73N. S. Nolte,44
D. P. O’Hanlon,16A. Oblakowska-Mucha,31V. Obraztsov,40S. Ogilvy,55R. Oldeman,23,f C. J. G. Onderwater,72 A. Ossowska,30J. M. Otalora Goicochea,2 T. Ovsiannikova,34P. Owen,46A. Oyanguren,76P. R. Pais,45T. Pajero,25,t A. Palano,15M. Palutan,19G. Panshin,75A. Papanestis,53M. Pappagallo,54L. L. Pappalardo,17,gW. Parker,62C. Parkes,58,44 G. Passaleva,18,44A. Pastore,15M. Patel,57C. Patrignani,16,eA. Pearce,44A. Pellegrino,28G. Penso,27M. Pepe Altarelli,44
S. Perazzini,44D. Pereima,34P. Perret,6 L. Pescatore,45K. Petridis,50A. Petrolini,20,hA. Petrov,73 S. Petrucci,54 M. Petruzzo,22,q B. Pietrzyk,5 G. Pietrzyk,45M. Pikies,30M. Pili,59D. Pinci,27J. Pinzino,44F. Pisani,44A. Piucci,13 V. Placinta,33S. Playfer,54J. Plews,49M. Plo Casasus,43F. Polci,9 M. Poli Lener,19 A. Poluektov,7N. Polukhina,74,c
I. Polyakov,63E. Polycarpo,2 G. J. Pomery,50S. Ponce,44 A. Popov,40D. Popov,49,12S. Poslavskii,40E. Price,50 J. Prisciandaro,43C. Prouve,43V. Pugatch,48A. Puig Navarro,46H. Pullen,59G. Punzi,25,pW. Qian,66J. Qin,66R. Quagliani,9
B. Quintana,6N. V. Raab,14B. Rachwal,31J. H. Rademacker,50M. Rama,25M. Ramos Pernas,43M. S. Rangel,2 F. Ratnikov,37,38G. Raven,29M. Ravonel Salzgeber,44M. Reboud,5 F. Redi,45 S. Reichert,11A. C. dos Reis,1F. Reiss,9
C. Remon Alepuz,76Z. Ren,3 V. Renaudin,59S. Ricciardi,53S. Richards,50K. Rinnert,56P. Robbe,8 A. Robert,9 A. B. Rodrigues,45E. Rodrigues,61J. A. Rodriguez Lopez,70M. Roehrken,44S. Roiser,44A. Rollings,59V. Romanovskiy,40
A. Romero Vidal,43 J. D. Roth,77M. Rotondo,19M. S. Rudolph,63 T. Ruf,44J. Ruiz Vidal,76J. J. Saborido Silva,43 N. Sagidova,41B. Saitta,23,fV. Salustino Guimaraes,65C. Sanchez Gras,28C. Sanchez Mayordomo,76B. Sanmartin Sedes,43
R. Santacesaria,27C. Santamarina Rios,43M. Santimaria,19,44 E. Santovetti,26,jG. Sarpis,58 A. Sarti,19,kC. Satriano,27,s A. Satta,26 M. Saur,66D. Savrina,34,35S. Schael,10M. Schellenberg,11 M. Schiller,55 H. Schindler,44 M. Schmelling,12
T. Schmelzer,11B. Schmidt,44 O. Schneider,45A. Schopper,44H. F. Schreiner,61M. Schubiger,45S. Schulte,45 M. H. Schune,8R. Schwemmer,44B. Sciascia,19A. Sciubba,27,kA. Semennikov,34E. S. Sepulveda,9A. Sergi,49N. Serra,46
J. Serrano,7 L. Sestini,24A. Seuthe,11P. Seyfert,44M. Shapkin,40Y. Shcheglov,41T. Shears,56L. Shekhtman,39,x V. Shevchenko,73E. Shmanin,74 B. G. Siddi,17R. Silva Coutinho,46L. Silva de Oliveira,2 G. Simi,24,o S. Simone,15,d
I. Skiba,17N. Skidmore,13T. Skwarnicki,63M. W. Slater,49J. G. Smeaton,51E. Smith,10I. T. Smith,54M. Smith,57 M. Soares,16l. Soares Lavra,1 M. D. Sokoloff,61F. J. P. Soler,55B. Souza De Paula,2 B. Spaan,11E. Spadaro Norella,22,q P. Spradlin,55F. Stagni,44M. Stahl,13S. Stahl,44P. Stefko,45S. Stefkova,57O. Steinkamp,46S. Stemmle,13O. Stenyakin,40 M. Stepanova,41H. Stevens,11A. Stocchi,8 S. Stone,63B. Storaci,46S. Stracka,25 M. E. Stramaglia,45 M. Straticiuc,33 U. Straumann,46S. Strokov,75J. Sun,3L. Sun,68Y. Sun,62K. Swientek,31A. Szabelski,32T. Szumlak,31M. Szymanski,66
S. T’Jampens,5 Z. Tang,3T. Tekampe,11G. Tellarini,17F. Teubert,44E. Thomas,44J. van Tilburg,28M. J. Tilley,57 V. Tisserand,6 M. Tobin,31S. Tolk,44L. Tomassetti,17,g D. Tonelli,25D. Y. Tou,9 R. Tourinho Jadallah Aoude,1 E. Tournefier,5M. Traill,55M. T. Tran,45A. Trisovic,51A. Tsaregorodtsev,7 G. Tuci,25,p A. Tully,51 N. Tuning,28,44 A. Ukleja,32A. Usachov,8A. Ustyuzhanin,37,38U. Uwer,13A. Vagner,75V. Vagnoni,16A. Valassi,44S. Valat,44G. Valenti,16 R. Vazquez Gomez,44P. Vazquez Regueiro,43S. Vecchi,17M. van Veghel,28J. J. Velthuis,50M. Veltri,18,rG. Veneziano,59 A. Venkateswaran,63M. Vernet,6 M. Veronesi,28M. Vesterinen,52J. V. Viana Barbosa,44D. Vieira,66M. Vieites Diaz,43 H. Viemann,71X. Vilasis-Cardona,42,mA. Vitkovskiy,28M. Vitti,51V. Volkov,35A. Vollhardt,46D. Vom Bruch,9B. Voneki,44 A. Vorobyev,41V. Vorobyev,39,xN. Voropaev,41J. A. de Vries,28C. Vázquez Sierra,28R. Waldi,71J. Walsh,25J. Wang,4 M. Wang,3Y. Wang,69Z. Wang,46D. R. Ward,51H. M. Wark,56N. K. Watson,49D. Websdale,57A. Weiden,46C. Weisser,60
M. Whitehead,10G. Wilkinson,59M. Wilkinson,63I. Williams,51M. R. J. Williams,58 M. Williams,60T. Williams,49 F. F. Wilson,53M. Winn,8W. Wislicki,32M. Witek,30G. Wormser,8S. A. Wotton,51K. Wyllie,44D. Xiao,69Y. Xie,69A. Xu,3
M. Xu,69Q. Xu,66Z. Xu,3Z. Xu,5 Z. Yang,3 Z. Yang,62Y. Yao,63L. E. Yeomans,56H. Yin,69 J. Yu,69,aa X. Yuan,63 O. Yushchenko,40K. A. Zarebski,49M. Zavertyaev,12,cD. Zhang,69L. Zhang,3W. C. Zhang,3,zY. Zhang,44A. Zhelezov,13
Y. Zheng,66X. Zhu,3 V. Zhukov,10,35 J. B. Zonneveld,54and S. Zucchelli16,e (LHCb Collaboration)
1Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 2
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China 4
Institute Of High Energy Physics (ihep), Beijing, China
5University Grenoble Alpes, University Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, IN2P3-LAPP, Annecy, France 6
Universit´e Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
7Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS/IN2P3, CPPM, Marseille, France 8
LAL, University Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France
9LPNHE, Sorbonne Universit´e, Paris Diderot Sorbonne Paris Cit´e, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France 10
I. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
11Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany 12
Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
13Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 14
School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
15INFN Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy 16
17INFN Sezione di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy 18
INFN Sezione di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
19INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy 20
INFN Sezione di Genova, Genova, Italy
21INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy 22
INFN Sezione di Milano, Milano, Italy
23INFN Sezione di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy 24
INFN Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy
25INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy 26
INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
27INFN Sezione di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy 28
Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands
29Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands 30
Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
31AGH - University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science,
Kraków, Poland
32National Center for Nuclear Research (NCBJ), Warsaw, Poland 33
Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
34Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia 35
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University (SINP MSU), Moscow, Russia
36Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INR RAS), Moscow, Russia 37
Yandex School of Data Analysis, Moscow, Russia
38National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia 39
Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS), Novosibirsk, Russia
40Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia 41
Konstantinov Nuclear Physics Institute of National Research Centre“Kurchatov Institute”, PNPI, St.Petersburg, Russia
42
ICCUB, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
43Instituto Galego de Física de Altas Enerxías (IGFAE), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela,
Santiago de Compostela, Spain
44European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland 45
Institute of Physics, Ecole Polytechnique F´ed´erale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
46Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland 47
NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine
48Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR), Kyiv, Ukraine 49
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
50H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom 51
Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
52Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom 53
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
54School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom 55
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
56Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom 57
Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
58School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom 59
Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
60Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 61
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
62University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA 63
Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA
64Laboratory of Mathematical and Subatomic Physics, Constantine, Algeria
(associated with Institution Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
65Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil [associated with
Institution Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil]
66University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
(associated with Institution Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China)
67South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China
(associated with Institution Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China)
68School of Physics and Technology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
69Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei, China
(associated with Institution Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China)
70Departamento de Fisica, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia
(associated with Institution LPNHE, Sorbonne Universit´e, Paris Diderot Sorbonne Paris Cit´e, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France)
71
Institut für Physik, Universität Rostock, Rostock, Germany
(associated with Institution Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany)
72Van Swinderen Institute, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
(associated with Institution Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands)
73National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia
(associated with Institution Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia)
74National University of Science and Technology“MISIS”, Moscow, Russia
(associated with Institution Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia)
75National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
(associated with Institution Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia)
76Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular, Centro Mixto Universidad de Valencia - CSIC, Valencia, Spain
(associated with Institution ICCUB, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain)
77University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
(associated with Institution Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States)
78Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, United States
(associated with Institution Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States)
aAlso at Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro (UFTM), Uberaba-MG, Brazil. b
Also at Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Palaiseau, France.
cAlso at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Science (LPI RAS), Moscow, Russia. d
Also at Universit`a di Bari, Bari, Italy.
eAlso at Universit`a di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. f
Also at Universit`a di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
gAlso at Universit`a di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. h
Also at Universit`a di Genova, Genova, Italy.
iAlso at Universit`a di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy. j
Also at Universit`a di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy.
kAlso at Universit`a di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy. l
Also at AGH - University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Kraków, Poland.
m
Also at LIFAELS, La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain.
nAlso at Hanoi University of Science, Hanoi, Vietnam. o
Also at Universit`a di Padova, Padova, Italy.
pAlso at Universit`a di Pisa, Pisa, Italy. q
Also at Universit`a degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.
rAlso at Universit`a di Urbino, Urbino, Italy. s
Also at Universit`a della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy.
tAlso at Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy. u
Also at Universit`a di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
vAlso at H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. w
Also at MSU - Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT), Iligan, Philippines.
xAlso at Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia. y
Also at Sezione INFN di Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
zAlso at School of Physics and Information Technology, Shaanxi Normal University (SNNU), Xi’an, China. aa
Also at Physics and Micro Electronic College, Hunan University, Changsha City, China.
