Paper detail

Current status of $\varepsilon_K$ with lattice QCD inputs

We present the Standard Model evaluation of the indirect CP violation parameter $\varepsilon_K$ using inputs determined from lattice QCD together with experiment: $|V_{us}|$, $|V_{cb}|$, $ξ_0$, and $\hat{B}_K$. We use the Wolfenstein parametrization ($|V_{cb}|$, $λ$, $\barρ$, $\barη$) for the CKM matrix elements. For the central value, we take the angle-only fit of the UTfit collaboration, and use $|V_{us}|$ from the $K_{\ell 3}$ and $K_{μ2}$ decays as an independent input to fix $λ$. For the error estimate, we use results of the global unitarity triangle fits from the CKMfitter and UTfit collaborations. We find that the Standard Model (SM) prediction of $\varepsilon_K$ with exclusive $V_{cb}$ (lattice QCD results) is lower than the experimental value by $3.6(2)σ$. However, with inclusive $V_{cb}$ (results of the heavy quark expansion), the tension between the SM prediction of $\varepsilon_K$ and its experimental value disappears.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.