---
abstract: 'In past few years the flavor physics made important transition from the work on confirmation the standard model of particle physics to the phase of search for effects of a new physics beyond standard model. In this paper we review current state of the physics of $b$-hadrons with emphasis on results with a sensitivity to new physics.'
author:
- |
    [*Michal Kreps*]{}\
    KIT, Wolfgang-Gaede-Stra[ß]{}e 1, 77131 Karlsruhe, Germany
title: 'B Physics (Experiment)'
---

Introduction
============

The start of the $b$-physics dates back to 1964 when decay of the long lived kaon to two pions and thus the $CP$ violation was observed [@Christenson:1964fg]. It didn’t took very long until a proposal for theoretical explanation of $CP$ violation was made. In their famous work, Kobayashi and Maskawa showed that with 4 quarks there is no reasonable way to include the $CP$ violation [@Kobayashi:1973fv]. Together with it they also proposed several models to explain the $CP$ violation in kaon system, amongst which the 6 quark model got favored over time.

The explanation of the $CP$ violation in the six quark model of Kobayashi and Maskawa builds on the idea of quark mixing introduced by Cabibbo. The quark mixing introduces difference between eigenstates of the strong and weak interaction. The $CP$ violation requires a complex phase in order to provide a difference between process and its charge conjugate. In the four quark model, the quark mixing is described by $2\times2$ unitarity matrix. With only four quarks, states can be always rotated in order to keep the mixing matrix real and thus quark mixing cannot accommodate the $CP$ violation. Other arguments, which we are not going to discuss here, prevent also suitable inclusion of the $CP$ violation in other parts of the theory. With extension to six quarks, the mixing matrix becomes $3\times3$ unitarity matrix, called Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix, $V_{CKM}$. In this case there is no possibility to rotate away all phases and one complex phase always remains in the matrix. This complex phase of $V_{CKM}$ provides the $CP$ violation in the standard model. The idea has two important implications. First, in addition to three quarks known in early 1970’s and predicted charm quark it postulates existence of other two quarks, called bottom and top. Second, despite the tiny $CP$ violation in the kaon system, proposed mechanism predicts large $CP$ violation in the $B$ system. It took almost three decades, but both predictions were experimentally confirmed, first by discovering the bottom quark in 1977 [@Herb:1977ek] followed by the top quark discovery in 1995 [@Abachi:1994td; @Abe:1995hr] and finally by the measurement of large $CP$ violation in the $B^0$ system in 2001 [@Aubert:2001sp; @Abe:2001xe].

In order to test the Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism of the $CP$ violation many measurements are performed. In those main aim is to determine the $V_{CKM}$ with a highest possible precision. Tests are often presented in a form of the so called unitarity triangle. It follows from the unitarity requirement of the $V_{CKM}$. The product of the two columns of the matrix has to be zero in the standard model. As elements of the matrix are complex numbers, this requirement graphically represents triangle in the complex plane. In the last decade the flavor physics moved towards search for inconsistencies which would indicate presence of a new physics. We omit the charm mixing and $CP$ violation and prospects of starting experiments which are discussed elsewhere in these proceedings. Here we concentrate on the big picture with some emphasis on tensions in various measurements performed by , Belle, CDF, CLEO-c and DØ experiments.

Sides of the unitarity triangle
===============================

Looking to the unitarity triangle there are two sets of quantities one can determine, namely angles and sides. In this section we will discuss the status of sides determinations. The sides itself are determined by the $V_{td}$, $V_{ub}$ and $V_{cb}$ elements of the $V_{CKM}$. To determine those quantities, two principal measurements are used. First type is the measurement of the $B^0$ oscillation frequency which determines the $V_{td}$. Second type is the measurement of branching fraction of semileptonic $B$ decays, which can be translated to the $V_{ub}$ or $V_{cb}$. As there are no recent results on the $B$ mixing, we concentrate on semileptonic decays and determination of the $V_{ub}$ and $V_{cb}$.

The determination of the $V_{ub}$ and $V_{cb}$ is based on the $b\rightarrow ul\nu$ and $b\rightarrow cl\nu$ transitions. Advantage of semileptonic transitions is in confinement of the all soft QCD effects into single form factor. In general two complementary approaches exists. The first one is inclusive measurements, where one tries to measure the inclusive rate of the $B\rightarrow X_{(c,u)}l\nu$ rate with $X_{(c,u)}$ denoting any possible hadron containing charm or up quark . The second approach uses exclusive measurements where one picks up a well defined hadron like $D^{*}$ in the case of $V_{cb}$ measurement. The two approaches are complementary with inclusive being theoretically clean in a first order, while exclusive being much cleaner for experiment, but more difficult for theory. In addition, part of the good properties of the inclusive approach on the theory side is destroyed by a necessity of kinematic requirements on the experimental side. As one needs good control over background in those measurements, it is practically domain of B-factories running with the $e^+e^-$ at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance.

Coming to the current status, determinations of the $V_{cb}$ as well as the $V_{ub}$ has some issues and inconsistencies [@Barberio:2008fa]. In the inclusive determination of the $V_{cb}$ the fit to all information has consistently too small $\chi^2$. On the other hand in the exclusive determination using $B\rightarrow
D^*l\nu$ decays, different measurements are not fully consistent with $\chi^2/ndf=56.9/21$. This inconsistency is due to the differences between Belle and results rather than inconsistence between old and new measurements. The world average determined from the inclusive measurement is $V_{cb}=(41.5\pm0.44 \pm0.58)\cdot 10^{-3}$, from the $B\rightarrow
Dl\nu$ we obtain $V_{cb}=(39.4\pm1.4\pm0.9)\cdot 10^{-3}$ and from the $B\rightarrow D^*l\nu$ $V_{cb}=(38.6\pm0.5\pm1.0)\cdot 10^{-3}$. As can be seen, despite the tension in the experimental information from $B\rightarrow D^*l\nu$ decays, the two exclusive determinations agree with each other, but the inclusive approach yields value which is about $2.3\sigma$ higher than the one from exclusive determination.

While the determination of the $V_{ub}$ is in principle same as the determination of the $V_{cb}$, in practice the $V_{ub}$ is much more difficult due to the smallness of the $b\rightarrow ul\nu$ branching fraction compared to the $b\rightarrow cl\nu$. The $b\rightarrow
cl\nu$ in this case is a significant background. Kinematic selection to reduce this background destroys possibilities of theory for the precise and reliable calculations. On the inclusive determination side, there are several groups which perform fits to the experimental data of inclusive decays.

![Distribution of the remaining energy in the $B\rightarrow\tau\nu$ searches using semileptonic tag at Belle (left) and fully hadronic tag at (right).[]{data-label="fig:Btaunu"}](kreps_michal.fig1.eps){width="65.00000%"}

[![Distribution of the remaining energy in the $B\rightarrow\tau\nu$ searches using semileptonic tag at Belle (left) and fully hadronic tag at (right).[]{data-label="fig:Btaunu"}](kreps_michal.fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="37.00000%"} ![Distribution of the remaining energy in the $B\rightarrow\tau\nu$ searches using semileptonic tag at Belle (left) and fully hadronic tag at (right).[]{data-label="fig:Btaunu"}](kreps_michal.fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}]{}

On the exclusive side, experiment provides new result on the $B\rightarrow\pi l\nu$ and $B\rightarrow\rho l\nu$. Using their partial branching fraction in different momentum transfer regions together with lattice QCD calculations they derive $|V_{ub}|=(2.95 \pm 0.31) \times 10^{-3}$ [@Aubert:2010uj], which is about $2\sigma$ below the inclusive determinations. If this stands, than we have another discrepancy in the sides of unitarity triangle.

Another way of accessing $V_{ub}$ is to use $B^+\rightarrow\tau\nu$ leptonic decays which proceed through weak annihilation. In the standard model its rate is given by expression $$BF=\frac{G_F^2m_B}{8\pi}m_l^2\left(1-\frac{m_l^2}{m_B^2}\right)^2f_B^2|V_{ub}|^2\tau_B,$$ where all quantities except of $f_B^2$ and $V_{ub}$ are well known. Typically one takes input on the $f_B^2$ and $V_{ub}$ from other measurements and puts constraints on a new physics. Alternatively one can take measured branching fraction together with the prediction for $f_B^2$ and extract $V_{ub}$. B-factories provided recently evidence for this decay. Both, Belle and reconstruct one $B$ in a semileptonic or a fully hadronic decay, called tagged, together with identified charged products of the $\tau$ decay. In such events, all what should be remaining are neutrinos and therefore one expects zero additional energy in the event. In Fig. \[fig:Btaunu\] we show examples of the distribution of additional energy. The Belle experiment sees evidence on the level of $3.5\sigma$ in both tags [@Ikado:2006un; @Adachi:2008ch] while experiment obtains excess of about $2.2\sigma$ [@Aubert:2007xj; @Aubert:2008gx]. The world average of the branching fraction of $(1.73\pm0.35)\cdot 10^{-4}$ is little higher than the SM prediction of $(1.20\pm0.25)\cdot 10^{-4}$ and yields $V_{ub}$ which is in some tension with other determinations.

The result of the $B^+\rightarrow\tau\nu$ branching fraction brings up the question whether theory prediction from the lattice QCD for the $f_B^2$ is correct. One way to test predictions is to turn to charm sector where we expect smaller contributions from a new physics. Decay $D_s^+\rightarrow \tau^+\nu$ is a usual testing ground for calculations. The branching fraction is given by same formula as for $B^+\rightarrow\tau\nu$ with replacing $f_B^2$ and $V_{ub}$ by their appropriate counterparts. The branching fraction for $D_s^+\rightarrow
\tau^+\nu$ was measured by CLEO, and Belle experiments and there used to be some discrepancy between the prediction for $f_{D_s}$ and its value extracted from the $D_s^+\rightarrow
\tau^+\nu$ data. Summary of the evolution of this discrepancy is shown in Fig. \[fig:fds\] [@Kronfeld:2009cf]. Current situation is not too critical anymore as the discrepancy went down from $4\sigma$ to $2\sigma$.

![Confidence regions in the plane of strong phase $\delta$ and the CKM angle $\gamma/\phi_3$ from Belle experiment (left) and 1-CL for the CKM angle $\gamma$ from experiment (right). On the left plot, contours correspond to 1, 2 and 3 standard deviations. On the right plot, separate contours for decays $B^+\rightarrow D^0K^+$, $B^+\rightarrow D^{*0}K^+$, $B^+\rightarrow D^0K^{*+}$ and combination of all is shown.[]{data-label="fig:gamma"}](kreps_michal.fig3.eps){width="80.00000%"}

![Confidence regions in the plane of strong phase $\delta$ and the CKM angle $\gamma/\phi_3$ from Belle experiment (left) and 1-CL for the CKM angle $\gamma$ from experiment (right). On the left plot, contours correspond to 1, 2 and 3 standard deviations. On the right plot, separate contours for decays $B^+\rightarrow D^0K^+$, $B^+\rightarrow D^{*0}K^+$, $B^+\rightarrow D^0K^{*+}$ and combination of all is shown.[]{data-label="fig:gamma"}](kreps_michal.fig4a.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Confidence regions in the plane of strong phase $\delta$ and the CKM angle $\gamma/\phi_3$ from Belle experiment (left) and 1-CL for the CKM angle $\gamma$ from experiment (right). On the left plot, contours correspond to 1, 2 and 3 standard deviations. On the right plot, separate contours for decays $B^+\rightarrow D^0K^+$, $B^+\rightarrow D^{*0}K^+$, $B^+\rightarrow D^0K^{*+}$ and combination of all is shown.[]{data-label="fig:gamma"}](kreps_michal.fig4b.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}

With this we conclude discussion of sides of the unitarity triangle, where despite lot of the experimental work and large progress several tensions remains.

Angles of the unitarity triangle
================================

The angles of the unitarity triangle are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha&=&\arg\left(-{V_{td}V^*_{tb}}/{V_{ud}V^*_{ub}}\right),\\
\beta&=&\arg\left(-{V_{cd}V^*_{cb}}/{V_{td}V^*_{tb}}\right),\\
\gamma&=&\arg\left(-{V_{ud}V^*_{ub}}/{V_{cd}V^*_{cb}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ As they are give by the phases of complex numbers, their determination is possible only through $CP$ violation measurements. Here we omit determination of the angle $\alpha$, briefly mention status of the angle $\beta$ and concentrate on the angle $\gamma$ which received most of the new experimental information.

The angle $\beta$ is practically give by the $V_{td}$ phase. One of the process where this CKM matrix element enters is the $B^0$ mixing. Its best determination comes from the measurement of $CP$ violation due to the interference of decays with and without mixing to a common final state. Using decays to $c\overline c$ resonance with neutral kaon extracts using final dataset $\sin
2\beta=0.687\pm0.028\pm0.012$ [@Aubert:2009yr]. The latest measurement from Belle experiment gives $\sin2\beta=0.642\pm0.031\pm0.017$ [@Chen:2006nk]. It is worth to note that both experiments are still statistically limited.

Determination of the angle $\gamma$ provides important information for tests of a physics beyond standard model. It is determined from the interference of tree level $b\rightarrow c$ and $b\rightarrow u$ transitions and thus having small sensitivity to a new physics. While several different decays are suggested for the determination, all current experimental information comes from the $B^+\rightarrow D^0K^+$. In those decays, the $b\rightarrow c$ transition provides $B^+\rightarrow D^0K^+$ decay while the $b\rightarrow u$ transitions yields $B^+\rightarrow \overline{D}^0K^+$ final state. Thus measurement of the $CP$ violation in the final states which are common to $D^0$ and $\overline{D}^0$ is needed. Three different final states are currently used. The first one uses q Cabibbo favored $\overline{D}^0\rightarrow
K^-\pi^-$ with q doubly Cabibbo suppressed $D^0\rightarrow
K^-\pi^+$ [@Atwood:1996ci; @Atwood:2000ck]. The second method uses a Cabibbo suppressed $D^0$ decays like $\pi^+\pi^-$, $K^+K^-$ [@Gronau:1990ra]. The third approach uses a Dalitz plot analysis of a $D^0\rightarrow K_s\pi^+\pi^-$ [@Giri:2003ty]. The main limitation is that rates are small and up to now there was no significant measurement of the $CP$ violation in those decays. Recently Belle and experimental announced $\approx 3.5\sigma$ evidence for the $CP$ violation in the $B^+\rightarrow D^0K^+$ decays with $D^0\rightarrow
K_s\pi^+\pi^-$ [@delAmoSanchez:2010rq; @Poluektov:2010wz]. The extracted confidence regions on the angle $\gamma$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:gamma\]. Belle experiment extracts $\gamma=(78^{+11}_{-12}\pm4\pm9)^\circ$ and obtains $\gamma=(68\pm14\pm4\pm3)^\circ$.

$B_s$ sector
============

The $CP$ violation in the $B_s$ meson sector is currently the most exciting place and widely discussed in relation to a new physics. Two results, which are in many models of a new physics related are the measurement of the $CP$ violation in the $B_s\rightarrow J/\psi\phi$ decays and the flavor specific asymmetry in a semileptonic $B_s$ decays.

The origin of the first one is in the interference of the decays with and without $B_s$ mixing. The standard model predicts only tiny $CP$ violation which comes from the fact that all CKM matrix elements entering are almost real. The previous results from Tevatron experiments showed about $1.5$-$1.8\sigma$ deviation from the standard model [@cdf:betas; @d0:betas] with combination being $2.2\sigma$ away. Recently CDF collaboration updated its result with more data and few improvements, which yield the better constraints on the $CP$ violation in $B_s\rightarrow J/\psi\phi$. Resulting 2-dimensional $\Delta\Gamma_s$-$\beta_s$ contour is shown in Fig. \[fig:bs\]. Overall CDF experiment now observes better agreement between the data and standard model with difference of about $0.8\sigma$. More details on this update can be find in Ref. [@proc:Elisa].

![The $\Delta\Gamma_s$-$\beta_s$ confidence regions in $B_s\rightarrow J/\psi\phi$ decays from CDF experiment using $5.2$ fb$^{-1}$ of data (right). Latest results on the flavor specific asymmetry in semileptonic $B_{(s)}$ decays from DØ experiment (right).[]{data-label="fig:bs"}](kreps_michal.fig5a.eps "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The $\Delta\Gamma_s$-$\beta_s$ confidence regions in $B_s\rightarrow J/\psi\phi$ decays from CDF experiment using $5.2$ fb$^{-1}$ of data (right). Latest results on the flavor specific asymmetry in semileptonic $B_{(s)}$ decays from DØ experiment (right).[]{data-label="fig:bs"}](kreps_michal.fig5b.eps "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}

The second measurement we present here is measurement of the flavor specific asymmetry in semileptonic $b$-hadron decays. In the standard model as well as in a large class of new physics models this quantity is predicted to be small. It can be generated or by a direct $CP$ violation or by an asymmetry in the mixing rate between $b$- and $\overline{b}$-mesons. Typically direct $CP$ violation is zero as we talk about the most allowed decay amplitude $b\rightarrow cl\nu$ which would need a second contribution to interfere with. As it is not easy to construct a model where a second amplitude with reasonable size would exists typically the direct $CP$ violation is predicted to be zero. The effect of different mixing rates is small for the $B^0$ due to the small decay width difference and small in the standard model for the $B_s$ due to the small phase involved. DØ experiment announced a new measurement this year, with a highly improved treatment of systematic uncertainties. They measure $A_{fs}^b=(-96\pm25\pm15)\times
10^{-4}$ which is significantly different from the standard model expectation of $A_{fs}^b=(-2.3^{+0.5}_{-0.6})\times
10^{-4}$ [@Lenz:2006hd]. If this result is confirmed, it is clear sign of the physics beyond the standard model. For more details see Ref. [@proc:bertram].

Rare decays
===========

Rare FCNC transitions are best known outside the flavor physics community for searches of a physics beyond standard model. Prime example is rare $B_s\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$ decay, where previous results could put strong constraints on some new physics model, even with limits, which are far from the standard model expectations. The standard model prediction for the branching fraction of $B_s\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$ is $(3.6\pm0.3)\times 10^{-9}$ [@Buras:2009us]. The main difficulty is in suppressing and controlling background. The search for this decays is dominated by the Tevatron experiments. Recently DØ experiment updated their result using 6.1 fb$^{-1}$ of data which yields upper limit on the branching fraction of $5.2\cdot 10^{-8}$ at 95% C.L. [@Abazov:2010fs]. The best limit at this moment is one from the CDF experiment using 3.7 fb$^{-1}$ of data and the upper limit of $4.3\cdot 10^{-8}$ at 95% C.L. [@cdf:bsmumu]. Those are about an order of magnitude above the standard model prediction.

Another example of an FCNC rare process which generates lot of excitement these days is a class of the decays governed by the $b\rightarrow sl^+l^-$ quark level transition with $l$ being a charged lepton. Decays $B^{0,\pm}\rightarrow
K^{0,\pm}\mu^+\mu^-$ and $B^{0,\pm}\rightarrow
K^{*0,\pm}\mu^+\mu^-$ were already observed. Recently CDF experiment observed also decay $B_s\rightarrow\phi\mu^+\mu^-$ with $\approx 6.3\sigma$ significance using 4.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data [@cdf:bkmumu]. The measured branching fraction is $(1.44\pm0.33\pm0.46)\cdot10^{-6}$. As those decays proceed even in the standard model through more than one amplitude, there is a rich phenomenology of interferences. From the interference effects, the forward-backward asymmetry of the muons as a function of dimuon invariant mass is the one which is responsible for the excitement. It is measurement in Belle [@Wei:2009zv], [@Aubert:2008ju] and CDF [@cdf:bkmumu] experiments and we show results in Fig. \[fig:afb\].

![The forward-backward asymmetry of the muon in $B\rightarrow K^*\mu+\mu^-$ decays as a function of dimuon invariant mass from CDF (left), Belle (middle) and (right). The points represent measurement, the red line in CDF and Belle case and the blue line in result show the standard model prediction and the other curves represent a different beyond standard model scenarios. The areas without data points correspond to the charmonium regions which are excluded from the analysis.[]{data-label="fig:afb"}](kreps_michal.fig6a.eps "fig:"){width="25.00000%"} ![The forward-backward asymmetry of the muon in $B\rightarrow K^*\mu+\mu^-$ decays as a function of dimuon invariant mass from CDF (left), Belle (middle) and (right). The points represent measurement, the red line in CDF and Belle case and the blue line in result show the standard model prediction and the other curves represent a different beyond standard model scenarios. The areas without data points correspond to the charmonium regions which are excluded from the analysis.[]{data-label="fig:afb"}](kreps_michal.fig6b.eps "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The forward-backward asymmetry of the muon in $B\rightarrow K^*\mu+\mu^-$ decays as a function of dimuon invariant mass from CDF (left), Belle (middle) and (right). The points represent measurement, the red line in CDF and Belle case and the blue line in result show the standard model prediction and the other curves represent a different beyond standard model scenarios. The areas without data points correspond to the charmonium regions which are excluded from the analysis.[]{data-label="fig:afb"}](kreps_michal.fig6c.eps "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}

While not statistically significant, all three experiments show some departure in the same direction from the standard model. It is going to be interesting to follow future measurements of this quantity.

Conclusions
===========

Globally, except of the flavor specific asymmetry in semileptonic $b$-decays, there is not a significant discrepancy in the global picture of $CP$ violation. On the other hand, there are few discrepancies which are worth to follow in the future. In Fig. \[fig:ckmfit\] we show the global status of the CKM fit [@Charles:2004jd]. Other determination [@Ciuchini:2000de; @Lunghi:2009ke] provide similar picture.

![The global status of the unitarity triangle fit from CKMFitter group (left), the graphical representation of the $B\rightarrow \tau\nu$ versus $\sin2\beta$ disagreement (middle) and the situation with indirect and direct determinations of the parameter proportional to $\epsilon_K$ from UTFit group (right). In the middle plot, colored confidence regions show expectation for the $B\rightarrow
\tau\nu$ branching fraction from the fit where two quantities are excluded while the point shows experimental results. In the right plot, the colored areas show confidence region of the $B_K$ from the fit without constraint from the $CP$ violation in the kaon system and the cross represents experimental measurement of the quantity.[]{data-label="fig:ckmfit"}](kreps_michal.fig7a.eps "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The global status of the unitarity triangle fit from CKMFitter group (left), the graphical representation of the $B\rightarrow \tau\nu$ versus $\sin2\beta$ disagreement (middle) and the situation with indirect and direct determinations of the parameter proportional to $\epsilon_K$ from UTFit group (right). In the middle plot, colored confidence regions show expectation for the $B\rightarrow
\tau\nu$ branching fraction from the fit where two quantities are excluded while the point shows experimental results. In the right plot, the colored areas show confidence region of the $B_K$ from the fit without constraint from the $CP$ violation in the kaon system and the cross represents experimental measurement of the quantity.[]{data-label="fig:ckmfit"}](kreps_michal.fig7b.eps "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The global status of the unitarity triangle fit from CKMFitter group (left), the graphical representation of the $B\rightarrow \tau\nu$ versus $\sin2\beta$ disagreement (middle) and the situation with indirect and direct determinations of the parameter proportional to $\epsilon_K$ from UTFit group (right). In the middle plot, colored confidence regions show expectation for the $B\rightarrow
\tau\nu$ branching fraction from the fit where two quantities are excluded while the point shows experimental results. In the right plot, the colored areas show confidence region of the $B_K$ from the fit without constraint from the $CP$ violation in the kaon system and the cross represents experimental measurement of the quantity.[]{data-label="fig:ckmfit"}](kreps_michal.fig7c.eps "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}

All groups see $\approx 2.5\sigma$ improvement of the fit if either constraint from the $B\rightarrow \tau\nu$ or $\sin2\beta$ is removed from the fit. Other main small discrepancies are in the $V_{ub}$ and the $CP$ violation parameter $\epsilon_K$ in the kaon system. It is worth to note that the discrepancy between measured $\sin(2\beta)$ and its prediction from the fit without $\sin(2\beta)$ was pointed out already in 2007 [@Lunghi:2007ak].

On the limited space we could not discuss the charm quark sector, which has strong potential. Its status and prospects at the time of conference can be find in Ref. [@proc:Mannel]. The prospects of the LHC in the bottom quark sector were discussed in several contribution, with most relevant one with respect to this work being Ref. [@proc:Conti]. With large expectations whole community is positive about future interesting results and the importance of the flavor physics for discovering and/or understanding a physics beyond standard model.

Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============

The author would like to thank organizers for the kind invitation to the conference and would like to acknowledge support from the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Germany.

[99]{}

J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch and R. Turlay, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**13**]{} (1964) 138. M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.  [**49**]{} (1973) 652. S. W. Herb [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**39**]{} (1977) 252. S. Abachi [*et al.*]{} \[D0 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**74**]{} (1995) 2422 \[arXiv:hep-ex/9411001\]. F. Abe [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**74**]{} (1995) 2626 \[arXiv:hep-ex/9503002\]. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[ Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**86**]{} (2001) 2515 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0102030\]. K. Abe [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**87**]{} (2001) 091802 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0107061\]. E. Barberio [*et al.*]{} \[Heavy Flavor Averaging Group\], arXiv:0808.1297 \[hep-ex\] and online update at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[ Collaboration\], arXiv:1005.3288 \[hep-ex\]. K. Ikado [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**97**]{} (2006) 251802 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0604018\]. I. Adachi [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], arXiv:0809.3834 \[hep-ex\]. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[ Collaboration\], Phys. Rev.  D [**77**]{} (2008) 011107 \[arXiv:0708.2260 \[hep-ex\]\]. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[ Collaboration\], Phys. Rev.  D [**81**]{} (2010) 051101 \[arXiv:0809.4027 \[hep-ex\]\]. A. S. Kronfeld, arXiv:0912.0543 \[hep-ph\]. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[ Collaboration \], Phys. Rev.  [**D79** ]{} (2009) 072009. \[arXiv:0902.1708 \[hep-ex\]\].

K. -F. Chen [*et al.*]{} \[ Belle Collaboration \], Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**98** ]{} (2007) 031802. \[hep-ex/0608039\]

D. Atwood, I. Dunietz, A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**78** ]{} (1997) 3257-3260. \[hep-ph/9612433\]. D. Atwood, I. Dunietz, A. Soni, Phys. Rev.  [**D63** ]{} (2001) 036005. \[hep-ph/0008090\].

M. Gronau, D. London., Phys. Lett.  [**B253** ]{} (1991) 483-488.

A. Giri, Y. Grossman, A. Soffer [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev.  [**D68** ]{} (2003) 054018. \[hep-ph/0303187\].

P. del Amo Sanchez [*et al.*]{} \[ Collaboration \], Submitted to: Phys.Rev.Lett.. \[arXiv:1005.1096 \[hep-ex\]\]. A. Poluektov [*et al.*]{} \[ The Belle Collaboration \], Phys. Rev.  [**D81** ]{} (2010) 112002. \[arXiv:1003.3360 \[hep-ex\]\].

The CDF Collaboration, CDF Public Note 9458.

V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[ D0 Collaboration \], Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**101** ]{} (2008) 241801. \[arXiv:0802.2255 \[hep-ex\]\].

E. Puschel, in these proceedings; The CDF Collaboration, CDF Public Note 10206.

A. Lenz, U. Nierste, JHEP [**0706** ]{} (2007) 072. \[hep-ph/0612167\].

I. Bertram, in these proceedings; V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[D0 Collaboration\], arXiv:1005.2757 \[hep-ex\]. A. J. Buras, Prog. Theor. Phys.  [**122** ]{} (2009) 145-168. \[arXiv:0904.4917 \[hep-ph\]\].

V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[D0 Collaboration\], arXiv:1006.3469 \[hep-ex\]. The CDF Collaboration, CDF Public Note 9892.

The CDF Collaboration, CDF Public Note 10047.

J. -T. Wei [*et al.*]{} \[ BELLE Collaboration \], Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**103** ]{} (2009) 171801. \[arXiv:0904.0770 \[hep-ex\]\].

B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[ Collaboration \], Phys. Rev.  [**D79** ]{} (2009) 031102. \[arXiv:0804.4412 \[hep-ex\]\].

J. Charles [*et al.*]{} \[ CKMfitter Group Collaboration \], Eur. Phys. J.  [**C41** ]{} (2005) 1-131. \[hep-ph/0406184\] and updates at http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr.

M. Ciuchini [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**0107**]{} (2001) 013 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0012308\] and updates at http://www.utfit.org. E. Lunghi and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**104**]{} (2010) 251802 \[arXiv:0912.0002 \[hep-ph\]\]. E. Lunghi and A. Soni, JHEP [**0709**]{} (2007) 053 \[arXiv:0707.0212 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Mannel, in these proceedings.

G. Conti, in these proceedings.
