Results as of winter 2007 (MORIOND07/FPCP07)
Please include the following reference when using the CKMfitter plots:

CKMfitter Group (J. Charles et al.),
Eur. Phys. J. C41, 1131 (2005) [hepph/0406184],
updated results and plots available at: http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr
Menu:
The results of the global CKM analysis include: Wolfenstein parameters, UT angles,
(combinations of) CKM elements, theory parameters and rare
branching fractions.
Detailed background information on the methodology and
the treatment of experimental and theoretical uncertainties
is provided in hepph/0406184.

Numerical Results 

Constraint from the B^{+}→τ^{+} ν branching fraction:
α,β,γ convention:  φ_{1},φ_{2},φ_{3} convention:  
Constraint in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane from the simultaneous use of the the B^{+}→τ^{+}ν branching fraction and Δm_{d}. 
eps gif 
eps gif 
The global CKM fit in the large (ρbar,ηbar) plane:
α,β,γ convention:  φ_{1},φ_{2},φ_{3} convention:  
Constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane including (a.o.) the most recent α/Φ_{2} and γ/Φ_{3}related inputs in the global CKM fit. 
eps gif 
eps gif 
The global CKM fit in the small (ρbar,ηbar) plane (zoom):
α,β,γ convention:  φ_{1},φ_{2},φ_{3} convention:  
Zoomed constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane including the most recent α/Φ_{2} and γ/Φ_{3}related inputs in the global CKM fit. 
eps gif 
eps gif 
Zoomed constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane not including the angle measurements in the global fit. 
eps gif 
eps gif 
Constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane including only the angle measurements. 
eps gif 
eps gif 
Constraints from CP conserving quantities (V_{ub} / V_{cb}, Δm_{d}, (Δm_{d} and Δm_{s}) and B^{+} →τ^{+} ν) in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane. 
eps gif 
eps gif 
Constraints from CP violating quantities (sin(2β), α, γ and ε_{k}) in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane. 
eps gif 
eps gif 
Constraints from "Tree" quantities in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane (γ(DK) and α from the isospin analysis with the help of sin2β (charmonium), which gives another tree only γ measurement (the only assumption is that the ΔI=3/2 b>d EW penguin amplitude is negligible)). 
eps gif 
eps gif 
Constraints from "Loop" quantities in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane. 
eps gif 
eps gif 
Zoomed constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane including the angle measurements but sin2β in the global fit. 
eps gif 
eps gif 
Constraints on the angle α/Φ_{2} from charmless B decays:
Constraint on α/Φ_{2} from B→ππ. 
eps gif 
The corresponding isospin triangles taking the world averages for the branching fractions and direct CP asymmetries. 
eps gif eps gif 
Constraint on α/Φ_{2} from B→ρρ. 
eps gif 
The corresponding isospin triangles taking the world averages for the branching fractions and direct CP asymmetries. 
eps gif eps gif 
Constraint on α/Φ_{2} from B→ρπ (U and I only). The global constraint on α from B→ρπ is a combination of the most recent BABAR and Belle data. This combination is not just a naive average in α but a combination in the 26 experimentally measured U and I coefficients which are correlated among each others. The correlation matrices are provided by both experiments, BABAR and Belle. The combined constraint has a preferred region around 120 degrees, and two suppressed regions around 30 and 85 degrees. 
eps gif 
Constraints on α/Φ_{2} from B→ππ (WA), ρπ(WA, Dalitz), ρρ(WA), compared to the prediction from the CKM fit (not including these measurements). The combined constraint on α from B→ρπ does not perfectly fit with the constraints on α from B→ππ and B→ρρ obtained from the isospin analysis. The 120 degree solution does not fit perfectly well with B→ρρ and falls in between two B→ππ solutions. On the other hand, the 85 degree solution is in good agreement with both, B→ππ and B→ρρ. As a consequence, one obtains two preferred regions for α: around 88 degrees and around 115 degrees. 
eps gif 
Constraints on the angle γ/Φ_{3} from B decays to charm :
Constraints on γ/Φ_{3} from world average D(*)K decays (GLW+ADS) and Dalitz analyses compared to the prediction from the global CKM fit (not including these measurements). 
eps gif 
New physics in B^{0} B^{0}bar Mixing
New physics (NP) in B^{0}_{q}B^{0}_{q}bar Mixing
(q = d, s) can be described modelindependently by introducing two new parameters
measuring the relative strength (r_{q}^{2}) and the relative phase
(2*Θ_{q}) between the B^{0} B^{0}bar mixing
matrix element containing contributions from the Standard Model (SM) as well as
from NP contributions (full) compared to SM contributions only:


Assuming that NP is shortdistance dominated it only contributes to M_{12} whereas Γ_{12} is unaffected. As a consequence:


An alternative parametrisation is given by:


Constraints from V_{ud}, V_{us}, V_{cb}, V_{ub}, Δm_{d}=Δm_{d}^{SM} * r_{d}^{2} and sin(2β+2Θ_{d}) in the (r_{d}^{2},2*Θ_{d}) plane. The inputs have been taken from CKM2006. The corresponding constraint in the (ρbar,ηbar) is just given by the circle obtained from the inputs V_{ud}, V_{us}, V_{cb}, V_{ub} alone since there are four free parameters in the fit (ρbar,ηbar,r_{d}^{2},2*Θ_{d}) but only three constraints (V_{ub}, sin(2β+2Θ_{d}), Δm_{d}=Δm_{d}^{SM} * r_{d}^{2}) depend on those. As a consequence, the allowed region in the (r_{d}^{2},2*Θ_{d}) plane is rather large. 
gif gif 

When using in addition the following inputs: cos(2β) > 0 (suggested by data), α (ππ, 3π, ρρ), and γ, the allowed regions are substantially reduced in the (r_{d}^{2},2*Θ_{d}) plane. 
eps gif 

There are two allowed regions left. One region is close to the SM expectation (r_{d}^{2}=1,2*Θ_{d}=0) and another one clearly differing from the SM solution. Both regions show a doublepeak substructure. This structure is caused by the current α input which has two preferred regions in alpha. 

The nonSMlike region can be suppressed by A_{SL}^{d}, the dilepton CP asymmetry, in the B_{d} sector. The inclusive dilepton asymmetry A_{SL} measured by D0 which is a mixture of A_{SL}^{d} and A_{SL}^{s} can be used as well. When combining both inputs one has to allow also for NP in the B_{s} sector. Hence, a combined analysis for the B_{d} and B_{s} sector is performed. 

The additional inputs used are then A_{SL}^{d}, A_{SL}, A_{SL}^{s} measured by D0 (which has currently a quite large uncertainty), Δm_{s}=Δm_{s}^{SM}*r_{s}^{2}, and ΔΓ_{s}^{CP}' = ΔΓ_{s}^{SM}*cos^{2}(2*Θ_{s}) (measured by D0). The result in the (r_{d}^{2},2*Θ_{d}) plane shows that the nonSM solution is significantly suppressed. Also the relative Confidence Level between the two peaks inside the SMlike region changes as the dilepton asymmetries prefer a negative sign. 
eps gif 

This is better illustrated in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane: 
eps gif 

The corresponding plot in the (h_{d},2*σ_{d}) plane. 
eps gif 

The constraint in the (r_{s}^{2},2*Θ_{s}) plane shows a strong constraint on r_{s}^{2} due to the Δm_{s} measurement from CDF. Since the central value of ΔΓ_{s}^{CP}' is larger than the ΔΓ_{s}^{SM} prediction regions around 2*Θ_{s}=+π/2 are currently disfavoured. 
eps gif 

The corresponding constraint in the (h_{s},2*σ_{s}) plane. 
eps gif 
