12th Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle
Santiago de Compostela, 18-22 September 2023
Experimental status of and
Abstract
The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements and are essential to test the unitary of CKM matrix. Before 2014, many results of and had been reported at BaBar, Belle, and CLEO experiments. The precisions of the most accurate results of and are 4.4% and 3.3%, respectively. After that, benefitting from larger data samples collected at BESIII, the precisions of and are improved to 1.8% and 0.9%, respectively.
1 Introduction
The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix is an essential component of the Standard Model (SM) and can only be measured in experiment. It describes how quarks mix between their flavor eigenstates and weak interaction eigenstates when participating in weak interactions. The elements of the CKM matrix are expected to satisfy unitarity, ensuring that quarks in the fundamental particles exist in only three generations. Therefore, the precise measurements of CKM matrix elements are important to test the unitarity of the CKM matrix, thereby test the SM and search for possible new physics.
The (semi)-leptonic decays offer an important test-bed to investigate both the strong and weak interactions in the decays of charm quark. In the SM, the partial widths of the decay and the decay can be written as [1]
(1.1) |
and
(1.2) |
respectively, where is the Fermi coupling constant, is the lepton mass, is the mass, is the decay constant, and is the magnitude of the CKM matrix element. In recent years, BaBar, Belle, CLEO, and BESIII collaborations have reported lots of results of based on the (semi)-leptonic charm decays. This paper summarizes those experimental results of and .
2 Results before BESIII
In 2008 and 2009, CLEO-c reported the results of by using of collision data collected at the center-of-mass energy of GeV [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. In 2010, using of collision data collected at the center-of-mass energy of GeV, BarBar reported the results of [7]. In 2013, Belle also reported the results of [7]. The measured are summarized in Table 1. Up to 2013, the most accurate results of and are obtained to be [2] and [8], respectively, and the corresponding precision of is 4.4(3.3)%.
3 Results after BESIII
From 2004 to 2009, BEPC and BES have undergone major renovations and upgraded to BESIII and BEPCII, respectively. From 2010 to 2023, BESIII has collected large data samples at the center-of-mass energy of GeV, 4.009 GeV, 4.13-4.23 GeV, and 4.6-4.7 GeV.
Using 2.93 fb-1 of data sample taken at 3.773 GeV, BESIII reported a series results of and . In 2014, BESIII studied the decay [9], with signal yield , and the of . In 2019, BESIII firstly observed the signal [10], with signal yield , and the of . From 2015 to 2020, BESIII studied some semi-leptonic decays of [11], [12], [14], [15], [11], [12], [16], and [17]. The measured and are summarized in Table. 2. The most accurate result of is given by Ref. [11], corresponding to a precision of 1.8%. And the most accurate results of are given by Refs. [11, 17], corresponding to a precision of 0.9%.
Decay chain | [28] | (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
[11] | 0.6300(51) | 0.2278(34)(23) | 1.8 | |
[12] | 0.2243(58)(26) | 2.8 | ||
Decay Chain | [28] | (%) | ||
[13] | 0.7452(31) | 0.217(26)(4) | 12.1 | |
Decay Chain | [29] | (%) | ||
[14] | 0.36(5) | 0.2264(338)(318) | 20.5 | |
[15] | 0.242(41)(34) | 21.8 | ||
Decay Chain | [28] | (%) | ||
[11] | 0.7452(31) | 0.9622(57)(67) | 0.9 | |
[12] | 0.9461(67)(153) | 1.8 | ||
[16] | 0.9769(90)(153) | 1.8 | ||
[17] | 0.9592(65)(56) | 0.9 | ||
Decay Chain | [30] | (%) | ||
[18] | 0.495(5) | 0.9010(582)(569) | 9.0 | |
Decay Chain | [30] | (%) | ||
[18] | 24.4 |
Using the data sample taken around 4.178 GeV, BESIII reported the results of and by using the (semi)-leptonic decays. In 2019, BESIII studied the decays of [19], [18] and [13] with a 3.19 fb-1 data sample taken at 4.178 GeV. In 2021, BESIII studied the leptonic decays of [20], [20], [21], and [22] by using a 6.32 fb-1 data sample taken at 4.178-4.226 GeV. In 2023, BESIII reported three new results from the leptonic decays of [23], [24], [25], [26], and [27] using a 7.33 fb-1 data sample taken at 4.128-4.226 GeV. The most accurate result of in those leptonic decays is given by Ref. [23], and the corresponding precision is 1.4%.
4 Summary
From 2010 to 2023, BESIII systematically studied the leptonic and semi-leptonic decays of charmed mesons by using 2.93(7.33) fb-1 data samples at the center-of-mass energy of GeV. The experimental measurement precisions of and are improved to 1.8% and 0.9%, respectively. The determined are consistent with the previous results. Figure 1 shows the comparisons of the results from different experiments. From 2022 to 2024, BESIII has collected 17 fb-1 of data sample at 3.773 GeV. The precision of and will be further improved with the full 20 fb-1 of data samples at 3.773 GeV at BESIII.



References
- [1] D. Silverman, H. Yao, et al., (1988). Phys. Rev. D 38, 214. https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.38.214.
- [2] B. I. Eisenstein et al. (CLEO Collaboration), (2008). Phys. Rev. D, 78, 052003. https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.052003
- [3] D. Besson et al. (CLEO Collaboration), (2009). Phys. Rev. D, 80, 032005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.032005
- [4] J. P. Alexander et al. (CLEO Collaboration), (2009). Phys. Rev. D, 79, 052001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.052001
- [5] P. U. E. Onyisi et al. (CLEO Collaboration), (2009). Phys. Rev. D, 79, 052002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.052002
- [6] P. Naik et al. (CLEO Collaboration), (2009). Phys. Rev. D, 80, 112004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.112004
- [7] P. del Amo Sanchez et al. (BarBar Collaboration), (2010,2015). Phys. Rev. D, 82, 091103, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 019901. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.091103 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.019901
- [8] A. Zupanc et al. (Belle Collaboration), (2013). J. High Energ. Phys. 139. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2013)139
- [9] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2014). Phys. Rev. D 89, 051104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.051104
- [10] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2019). Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 21, 211802. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.211802
- [11] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2015). Phys. Rev. D 92, 7, 072012. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.072012
- [12] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2017). Phys. Rev. D 96, 012002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.012002
- [13] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2019). Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 6, 061801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.061801
- [14] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2018). Phys. Rev. D 97, 9, 092009. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.092009
- [15] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2020). Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 23, 231801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.231801
- [16] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2015). Phys. Rev. D 92, 072012. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.072012
- [17] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2015). Phys. Rev. D 92, 112008. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.112008
- [18] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2019). Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 011804. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.011804
- [19] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2019). Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 071802. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.071802
- [20] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2021). Phys. Rev. D 104, 052009. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.052009
- [21] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2021). Phys. Rev. D 104, 032001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.032001
- [22] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2021). Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 171801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.171801
- [23] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2023). Phys. Rev. D 108, 112001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.112001
- [24] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2023). Phys. Rev. D 108, 092014. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.092014
- [25] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2023). J. High Energ. Phys. 09, 124. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2023)124
- [26] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2023). Phys. Rev. D 108, 092003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.092003
- [27] M. Abikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), (2023). Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 091802. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.091802
- [28] Alexei Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice and MILC Collaborations), (2023). Phys. Rev. D 107, 094516. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.094516
- [29] Mikhail A. Ivanov, Jürgen G. Körner,and Jignesh N. Pandya et al., (2019). Front.Phys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11467-019-0908-1
- [30] Duplančić, G., Melić et al., (2015). J. High Energ. Phys. 11, 138. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2015)138