Menu:
Numerical results:
The results of the global CKM analysis include:

Numerical Results 
The global CKM fit in the large (ρbar,ηbar) plane:
Constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane. The Vub constraint has been splitted in the two contributions: Vub from inclusive and exclusive semileptonic decays (plain dark green) and Vub from B^{+}→τ^{+} ν (hashed green). The red hashed region of the global combination corresponds to 68% CL. 


Constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane. The red hashed region of the global combination corresponds to 68% CL. 

The global CKM fit in the small (ρbar,ηbar) plane (zoom):
Zoomed constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane. The Vub constraint has been splitted in the two contributions: Vub from inclusive and exclusive semileptonic decays (plain dark green) and Vub from B^{+}→τ^{+} ν (hashed green). The red hashed region of the global combination corresponds to 68% CL. 


Zoomed constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane. The red hashed region of the global combination corresponds to 68% CL. 


Zoomed constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane not including the angle measurements in the global fit. 


Zoomed constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane including only the angle measurements in the global fit. 


Zoomed constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane including the CP conserving quantities in the global fit, i.e., V_{ub} (semileptonic and B^{+}→τ^{+} ν), Δm_{d}, Δm_{d} & Δm_{s}. 


Zoomed constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane including the CP violating quantities in the global fit, i.e., sin(2β), α, γ and ε_{K}. 


Zoomed 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)). 


Zoomed constraints from "Loop" quantities in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane. 


Zoomed constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane not including the braching ratio of B^{+} → τ^{+}ν in the global fit. 


Zoomed constraints in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane not including the measurement of sin2β in the global fit. 

The global CKM fit in the large ρ_{s}bar,η_{s}bar) plane:
Constraints in the (ρ_{s}bar,η_{s}bar) plane. The red hashed region of the global combination corresponds to 68% CL. 

Constraint from the B^{+}→τ^{+} ν branching ratio:
There is a discrepancy in the CKM global fit, because of the world average for sin2β and the world average for BR(B→τν). 
There is a specific correlation between the two quantities in the global fit that is a bit at odds with the direct experimental determination. This is best viewed in the (sin2β,BR(B→τν)) plane, regarding the prediction from the global fit without using these measurements. The cross corresponds to the experimental values with 1 sigma uncertainties. 


The shape of the correlation can be understood by considering the ratio BR(B→τν)/Δm_{d}, where the decay constant f_{Bd} cancels, leaving limited theoretical uncertainties (the ratio depends only on the bag parameter B_{Bd}). Thus from the observables BR(B→τν) and Δm_{d} one gets an interesting constraint in the (ρbar,ηbar) plane, which does not match perfectly with the global fit output. 


To have a closer look, one can write the full formula for the ratio where one explicitly sees that the correlation between BR(B→τν) and the angle β is controlled by the values of B_{Bd}, and the angles α and γ. This can be checked explicitly by comparing the above analytical formula with the colored region in the (sin2β,BR(B→τν)) plane. In other words the discrepancy is not driven by the value of semileptonic V_{ub}, nor by the decay constant f_{Bd}. 

To quantify the discrepancy one can compare the indirect fit prediction for BR(B→τν) with the measurement. The deviation here is 2.8 sigmas. 


A simpler test is the comparison of the prediction of B_{Bd} from the above analytical formula (having only BR(B→τν), Δm_{d}, α, β, γ and V_{ud} as inputs, that is an almost completely theoryfree determination of B_{Bd}) with the current lattice determination B_{Bd} = 1.221 ^{+0.087}_{0.085}. For this test the deviation is 2.8 sigmas, dominated by the error on BR(B→τν), α, γ and B_{Bd}. 


From the above branching ratio one can derive a value for f_{Bd} (281^{+26}_{29} MeV) as well and compare it with respect to our Lattice QCD average (191± 21 MeV). 


Finally one can compare the contributions to the global fit and our Lattice averages on the quantities f_{Bd} vs.f_{Bd} Sqrt(B_{Bd}). 

Constraint from decays B →V γ:
No update  See Summer 08 results (here). 
Constraints on the angle α/ϕ_{2} from charmless B decays:
No update  See Moriond 09 results (here). 
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 (GGSZ) compared to the prediction from the global CKM fit (not including these measurements): γ[combined] = (71^{+21}_{25})° 


Constraint on the ratio of interfering amplitudes r_{B} of the decay B → DK from world average D(*)K(*) decays (GLW+ADS) and Dalitz analyses (GGSZ): r_{B}(DK) = 0.103^{+0.015}_{0.024}. 


Constraint on the ratio of amplitudes r_{B} of the decay B → D^{*}K: r_{B}(D^{*}K)= 0.116^{+0.025}_{0.025}. 


Constraint on the ratio of amplitudes r_{B} of the decay B → DK^{*}: r_{B}(DK^{*})= 0.111^{+0.061}_{0.047}. 


Constraint on the strong phase between the interfering amplitudes of the decay B → DK from world average D(*)K(*) decays (GLW+ADS) and Dalitz analyses (GGSZ): δ_{B}(DK) = (115^{+17}_{26})°. 


Constraint on the strong phase between the interfering amplitudes of the decay B → D^{*}K: δ_{B}(D^{*}K) = (49^{+17}_{26})°. 


Constraint on the strong phase between the interfering amplitudes of the decay B → DK^{*}: δ_{B}(DK^{*}) = (93^{+62}_{39})°. 

Constraints on sin(2β+γ):
No update  See Beauty 09 results (here). 
Constraints on New physics in B_{d,s}Meson Mixing:
individual constraints correspond to 68% CL (see: arXiv:1008.1593 [hepph][FPCP10 inputs]). 
Constraints on New Physics in the (ReΔ_{d},ImΔ_{d}) plane. A 2.5 σ deviation is obtained for the 2dimensional SM hypothesis Δ_{d} = 1 (Re(Δ_{d})=1, Im(Δ_{d})=0). Include the new ASL(D0) but not the new D0(6.1 fb^{1})/CDF(5.2 fb^{1}) φ_{s}. 


Constraints on New Physics in the (ReΔ_{s},ImΔ_{s}) plane. A 2.7 σ deviation is obtained for the 2dimensional SM hypothesis Δ_{s} = 1 (Re(Δ_{s})=1, Im(Δ_{s})=0). Include the new ASL(D0) but not the new D0(6.1 fb^{1})/CDF(5.2 fb^{1}) φ_{s}. 


Constraints on New Physics in the (ReΔ_{d},ImΔ_{d}) plane removing BR(B^{+} → τ^{+} ν ) observable from the fit. A 1.1 σ deviation is obtained for the 2dimensional SM hypothesis Δ_{d} = 1 (Re(Δ_{d})=1, Im(Δ_{d})=0). Include the new ASL(D0) but not the new D0(6.1 fb^{1})/CDF(5.2 fb^{1}) φ_{s}. 


Constraints on New Physics in the (ReΔ_{s},ImΔ_{s}) plane removing BR(B^{+} → τ^{+} ν ) observable from the fit. A 2.7 σ deviation is obtained for the 2dimensional SM hypothesis Δ_{s} = 1 (Re(Δ_{s})=1, Im(Δ_{s})=0). Include the new ASL(D0) but not the new D0(6.1 fb^{1})/CDF(5.2 fb^{1}) φ_{s}. 


Constraints on New Physics in the (ReΔ_{d},ImΔ_{d}) plane without including the new ASL(D0). A 2.2 σ deviation is obtained for the 2dimensional SM hypothesis Δ_{d} = 1 (Re(Δ_{d})=1, Im(Δ_{d})=0). Does not include the new D0(6.1 fb^{1})/CDF(5.2 fb^{1}) φ_{s}. 


Constraints on New Physics in the (ReΔ_{s},ImΔ_{s}) plane without including the new ASL(D0). A 1.9 σ deviation is obtained for the 2dimensional SM hypothesis Δ_{s} = 1 (Re(Δ_{s})=1, Im(Δ_{s})=0). Does not include the new D0(6.1 fb^{1})/CDF(5.2 fb^{1}) φ_{s}. 
