$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(2\pi^+ 2\pi^- \pi^0)/\Gamma(K^- \pi^+) \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 10.7 \pm 1.2 \pm 0.5 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{193}/\Gamma_{38} \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{RUBIN} \quad 06 \quad \text{CLEO} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } \psi(3770) \end{array} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\pi^+ \pi^- 3\pi^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 15.3 \pm 1.7 \pm 1.3 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{194}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{ABLIKIM} \quad 22\text{BG BES3} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } 3.773 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(2\pi^+ 2\pi^- 2\pi^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 47.7 \pm 3.1 \pm 2.1 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{195}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{ABLIKIM} \quad 22\text{BG BES3} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } 3.773 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\eta\pi^+ \pi^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 10.6 \pm 1.2 \pm 0.7 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{196}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{ABLIKIM} \quad 20\text{AA BES3} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-4</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>11.6 &plusmn; 0.7</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10.6 &plusmn; 1.8 &plusmn; 0.7</td><td>96</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20AA BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr><tr><td>12.0 &plusmn; 0.7 &plusmn; 0.4</td><td>450</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20G BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr><tr><td>10.9 &plusmn; 1.3 &plusmn; 0.9</td><td>257</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>08 CLEO</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at &psi;(3770)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\eta\pi^+ \pi^-)/\Gamma(K^- \pi^+) \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 6.49 \pm 0.09 \pm 0.12 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{196}/\Gamma_{104} \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad LI \quad 21G BELL \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } \Gamma(nS) \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\eta 2\pi^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{CL%} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 3.8 \pm 1.1 \pm 0.7 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{199}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad 1 \text{ ABLIKIM} \quad 18 \text{ BES3} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •
<23.8 90 ABLIKIM 20AA BES3 e⁺ e⁻, 3773 MeV

¹Significance of signal reported by ABLIKIM 18x is 3.8σ.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0 \eta)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-3}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 3.23 \pm 0.17 \pm 0.14 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{200}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad 510 \quad 20V BES3 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\eta 3\pi^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 23.6 \pm 2.2 \pm 1.7 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{201}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad 155 \quad 22\text{BG BES3} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } 3.773 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\eta 2\pi^+ 2\pi^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 6.0 \pm 1.0 \pm 0.6 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{202}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad 49 \quad 22\text{BG BES3} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } 3.773 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\omega\eta)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-3}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 1.98 \pm 0.18 \text{ OUR AVERAGE} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{192}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.1.} \end{array} $$

<table><tbody><tr><td>2.15 &plusmn; 0.17 &plusmn; 0.15</td><td>2.2k</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>18L BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.78 &plusmn; 0.19 &plusmn; 0.15</td><td>600</td><td>1 SMITH</td><td>18</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\omega\pi^+ \pi^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-3}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 1.33 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.12 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{197}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad ABLIKIM \quad 20AA BES3 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\omega\pi^+ \pi^-)/\Gamma(K^- \pi^+) \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 4.1 \pm 1.2 \pm 0.4 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{197}/\Gamma_{38} \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{RUBIN} \quad 06 \quad \text{CLEO} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } \psi(3770) \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\omega\pi^0 \pi^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE} \quad \text{CL%} \\ \quad <1.10 \times 10^{-3} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{198}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad ABLIKIM \quad 20AA BES3 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(3\pi^+ 3\pi^-)/\Gamma(K^- 2\pi^+ \pi^-) \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-3}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 5.23 \pm 0.59 \pm 1.35 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{203}/\Gamma_{78} \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{LINK} \quad 04B FOCS \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ \gamma A, \bar{E}_{\gamma} \approx 180 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(3\pi^+ 3\pi^-)/\Gamma(K^- 3\pi^+ 2\pi^-) \\ \text{VALUE} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 1.93 \pm 047 \pm 0.48 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{203}/\Gamma_{117} \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad 04B FOCS \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ \gamma A, \bar{E}_{\gamma} \approx 180 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •
1.93 ± 047 ± 0.48 ¹LINK 04B FOCS γA, Eγ ≈ 180 GeV

¹This Link 04B result is not independent of other results in these Listings.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\eta'(958)\pi^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 9.2 \pm 1.0 \text{ OUR FIT} \\ \quad 9.3 \pm 1.1 \pm 0.9 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{204}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad 469 \pm 56 \quad 18L BES3 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •
8.1 ± 1.5 ± 0.6 50 ± 9 ARTUSO 08 CLEO See MENDEZ 10

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\eta'(958)\pi^0)/[\Gamma(K^- \pi^+) + \Gamma(K^+ \pi^-)] \\ \text{Unseen decay modes of the } \eta'(958) \text{ are included.} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 2.32 \pm 0.25 \text{ OUR FIT} \\ \quad 2.3 \pm 0.3 \pm 0.2 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{204}/\Gamma_{38}+\Gamma_{289} \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{MENDEZ} \quad 10 \quad \text{CLEO} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } 3774 \text{ MeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\eta'(958)\pi^+ \pi^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{Unseen decay modes of the } \eta'(958) \text{ are included.} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 4.5 \pm 1.6 \pm 0.5 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{205}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{ARTUSO} \quad 08 \quad \text{CLEO} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } \psi(3770) \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(2\eta)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{Unseen decay modes of the } \eta \text{ are included.} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 21.1 \pm 1.9 \text{ OUR FIT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{206}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 2.2.} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

<table><tbody><tr><td>22.0 ± 0.7 ± 0.6</td><td>3.4k</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>18L BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td colspan="4">We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>16.7 ± 1.4 ± 1.3</td><td>255 ± 22</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>08</td><td>CLEO See MENDEZ 10</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(2\eta)/[\Gamma(K^- \pi^+) + \Gamma(K^+ \pi^-)] \\ \text{Unseen decay modes of the } \eta \text{ are included.} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 5.3 ± 0.5 \text{ OUR FIT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{206}/\Gamma_{38}+\Gamma_{289} \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 2.2.} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } 3774 \text{ MeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(2\eta\pi^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 7.3 \pm 1.6 \pm 1.5 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{207}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad 1 \text{ ABLIKIM} \quad 18 \text{ BES3} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

¹Significance of signal reported by ABLIKIM 18x is 5.5σ.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(2\eta\pi^+ \pi^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 8.5 \pm 1.3 \pm 0.4 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{208}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{ABLIKIM} \quad 22\text{BG BES3} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } 3.773 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\eta)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE} \quad \text{CL%} \\ \quad <1.3 \times 10^{-4} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{209}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{ABLIKIM} \quad 18 \text{ BES3} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\eta\eta'(958))/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{Unseen decay modes of the } \eta \text{ and } \eta'(958) \text{ are included.} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 10.1 \pm 1.9 \text{ OUR FIT} \\ \quad 9.4 \pm 2.5 \pm 1.1 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{210}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{ABLIKIM} \quad 18L BES3 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •
12.6 ± 2.5 ± 1.1 46 ± 9 ARTUSO 08 CLEO See MENDEZ 10

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\eta\eta'(958))/[\Gamma(K^- \pi^+) + \Gamma(K^+ \pi^-)] \\ \text{Unseen decay modes of the } \eta \text{ and } \eta'(958) \text{ are included.} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 2.5 \pm 0.5 \text{ OUR FIT} \\ \quad 2.7 \pm 0.6 \pm 0.3 \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{210}/\Gamma_{38}+\Gamma_{289} \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{MENDEZ} \quad 10 \quad \text{CLEO} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{ at } 3774 \text{ MeV} \end{array} $$

Hadronic modes with a $K\bar{K}$ pair

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(K^+ K^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-3}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 4.08 \pm 0.06 \text{ OUR FIT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{211}/\Gamma \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.6.} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

<table><tbody><tr><td>4.233 ± 0.021 ± 0.064</td><td>56k</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>18W BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td colspan="4">We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>4.08 ± 0.08 ± 0.09</td><td>4.7k</td><td>BONVICINI</td><td>08</td><td>CLEO See MENDEZ 10</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(K^+ K^-)/\Gamma(K^- \pi^+) \\ \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-3}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \\ \quad 0.1033 \pm 0.0013 \text{ OUR FIT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \Gamma_{211}/\Gamma_{38} \\ \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \\ \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.6.} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} \text{COMMENT} \\ e^+ e^- \text{, 3773 MeV} \end{array} $$

¹0.1010 ± 0.0016 OUR AVERAGE Error includes scale factor of 1.4. See the ideogram below.

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.122 ± 0.011 ± 0.004</td><td>242 ± 20</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>05F BES</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ ψ(3770)</td></tr><tr><td>0.0992 ± 0.0011 ± 0.0012</td><td>16k ± 200</td><td>ACOSTA</td><td>05C CDF</td><td>p<sub>γ</sub>, √s<sub>γ</sub> = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.0993 ± 0.0014 ± 0.0014</td><td>11k</td><td>LINK</td><td>03 FOCS</td><td>γ nucleus, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 180 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.1040 ± 0.0033 ± 0.0027</td><td>1900</td><td>CSORNA</td><td>02 CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>0.09 ± 0.003 ± 0.003</td><td>3317</td><td>AITALA</td><td>98C E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.116 ± 0.007 ± 0.007</td><td>1102</td><td>ASNER</td><td>96b CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>0.109 ± 0.007 ± 0.009</td><td>581</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>94C E687</td><td>γ Be E<sub>γ</sub> = 220 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.107 ± 0.010 ± 0.009</td><td>193</td><td>ANJOS</td><td>91D E691</td><td>Photoproduction</td></tr><tr><td>0.117 ± 0.010 ± 0.007</td><td>249</td><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>90 CLEO</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> 10.5-11 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td colspan="4">We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>0.107 ± 0.029 ± 0.015</td><td>103</td><td>ADAMOVICH</td><td>92 OMEG π<sup>-</sup> 340 GeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.138 ± 0.027 ± 0.010</td><td>155</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>92 E687 γ Be</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.16 ± 0.05</td><td>34</td><td>ALVAREZ</td><td>91B NA14 Photoproduction</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.10 ± 0.02 ± 0.01</td><td>131</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>90C ARG e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10 GeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.122 ± 0.018 ± 0.012</td><td>118</td><td>BALTRUSAIT...85E MRK3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 3.77 GeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.113 ± 0.030</td><td>79d MRK2</td><td>ABRAMS</td><td>90d MRK2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 3.77 GeV</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
0.1010±0.0016 (Error scaled by 1.4)

<figure><img src="image_545.png" /></figure>

Values above of weighted average, error, and scale factor are based upon the data in this ideogram only. They are not necessarily the same as our 'best' values, obtained from a least-squares constrained fit utilizing measurements of other (related) quantities as additional information.

$$ \Gamma(K^{+}K^{-})/\left[\Gamma(K^{-}\pi^{+}) + \Gamma(K^{+}\pi^{-})\right] \qquad \Gamma_{211}/(\Gamma_{38}+\Gamma_{289}) $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 10.29 \pm 0.13 \text{ OUR FIT} \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.6.} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 10.41 \pm 0.11 \pm 0.12 \quad 13.8\text{k} \quad \text{MENDEZ} \quad 10 \quad \text{CLEO} \quad e^{+}e^{-} \text{ at } 3774 \text{ MeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \Gamma(K^{+}K^{-})/\Gamma(\pi^{+}\pi^{-}) \qquad \Gamma_{211}/\Gamma_{141} $$

The unused results here are redundant with $\Gamma(K^{+}K^{-})/\Gamma(K^{-}\pi^{+})$ and $\Gamma(\pi^{+}\pi^{-})/\Gamma(K^{-}\pi^{+})$ measurements by the same experiments.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} $$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>2.760 ± 0.040 ± 0.034</td><td>7334</td><td>ACOSTA</td><td>05c</td><td>CDF</td><td>ρp, √s=1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.81 ± 0.10 ± 0.06</td><td></td><td>LINK</td><td>03</td><td>FOCS</td><td>γ nucleus, Eγ ≈ 180 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.96 ± 0.16 ± 0.15</td><td>710</td><td>CSORNA</td><td>02</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ γ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>2.75 ± 0.15 ± 0.16</td><td></td><td>AITALA</td><td>98c</td><td>E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.53 ± 0.46 ± 0.19</td><td></td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>94c</td><td>E687</td><td>γBe Eγ = 220 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.23 ± 0.81 ± 0.46</td><td></td><td>ADAMOVICH</td><td>92</td><td>OMEG</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> 340 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.95 ± 0.34 ± 0.22</td><td></td><td>ANJOS</td><td>91d</td><td>E691</td><td>Photoproduction</td></tr><tr><td>2.5 ± 0.7</td><td></td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>90c</td><td>ARG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.35 ± 0.37 ± 0.28</td><td></td><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>90</td><td>CLEO</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> 10.5-11 GeV</td></tr></table>

$$ \Gamma(2K_S^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{212}/\Gamma $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 1.41 \pm 0.05 \text{ OUR FIT} \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.1.} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 1.67 \pm 0.11 \pm 0.11 \quad 576 \quad \text{ABLIKIM} \quad 17\text{A} \quad \text{BES3} \quad e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow \psi(3770) \end{array} $$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$$ \begin{array}{l} 1.46 \pm 0.32 \pm 0.09 \quad 68 \pm 15 \quad \text{BONVICINI} \quad 08 \quad \text{CLEO} \quad \text{See MENDEZ 10} \end{array} $$

$$ \Gamma(2K_S^0)/[\Gamma(K^{-}\pi^{+}) + \Gamma(K^{+}\pi^{-})] \qquad \Gamma_{212}/(\Gamma_{38}+\Gamma_{289}) $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 0.357 \pm 0.013 \text{ OUR FIT} \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.1.} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 0.41 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.02 \quad 215 \pm 23 \quad \text{MENDEZ} \quad 10 \quad \text{CLEO} \quad e^{+}e^{-} \text{ at } 3774 \text{ MeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \Gamma(2K_S^0)/\Gamma(K_S^0\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{212}/\Gamma_{44} $$

This is the same as $\Gamma(K^0\bar{K}^0)/\Gamma(\bar{K}^0\pi^+\pi^-)$ because $D^0 \rightarrow K_S^0\bar{K}_L^0$ is forbidden by CP conservation.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 0.506 \pm 0.033 \text{ OUR FIT} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 1.20 \pm 0.22 \text{ OUR AVERAGE} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 1.44 \pm 0.32 \pm 0.16 \quad 79 \pm 17 \quad \text{LINK} \quad 05\text{A FOCS} \quad \gamma \text{Be, } \bar{E}_{\gamma} \approx 180 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 1.01 \pm 0.22 \pm 0.16 \quad 26 \quad \text{ASNER} \quad 96\text{B CLE2} \quad e^{+}e^{-} \approx \gamma(4S) \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 3.9 \pm 1.3 \pm 1.3 \quad 20 \pm 7 \quad \text{FRABETTI} \quad 94\text{J E687} \quad \gamma \text{Be } \bar{E}_{\gamma} = 220 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>2.1 <sup>+1.1</sup><sub>-0.8</sub> ± 0.2</td><td>5</td><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>90</td><td>CLEO</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> 10.5-11 GeV</td></tr></table>

$$ \Gamma(2K_S^0)/\Gamma(K_S^0\pi^0) \qquad \Gamma_{212}/\Gamma_{39} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 1.14 \pm 0.04 \text{ OUR FIT} \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.1.} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 1.101 \pm 0.023 \pm 0.030 \quad 4.8\text{k} \quad \text{DASH} \quad 17 \quad \text{BELL} \quad \text{At/near } \Upsilon(4S), \Upsilon(5S) \end{array} $$

$$ \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^+) / \Gamma(K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{213}/\Gamma_{38} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 0.084 \pm 0.013 \text{ OUR FIT} \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.1.} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 0.08 \pm 0.03 \quad 1 \text{ ANJOS} \quad 91 \quad \text{E691} \quad \gamma \text{Be } 80-240 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

¹The factor 100 at the top of column 2 of Table I of ANJOS 91 should be omitted.

$$ \Gamma(\phi\pi^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{280}/\Gamma $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-3}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 1.168 \pm 0.028 \pm 0.028 \quad 3.3\text{k} \quad \text{ABLIKIM} \quad 19\text{B1} \quad \text{BES3} \quad e^{+}e^{-} \text{ at } 3773 \text{ MeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \Gamma(\phi\pi^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{281}/\Gamma $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-4}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} 1.81 \pm 0.46 \pm 0.06 \quad 102 \quad \text{ABLIKIM} \quad 19\text{B1} \quad \text{BES3} \quad e^{+}e^{-} \text{ at } 3773 \text{ MeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^+) / \Gamma(K_S^0 \pi^+ \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{213}/\Gamma_{44} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 0.118 \pm 0.017 \text{ OUR FIT} \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.1.} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 0.119 \pm 0.021 \text{ OUR AVERAGE} \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.3.} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 0.108 \pm 0.019 \quad 61 \quad \text{AMMAR} \quad 91 \quad \text{CLEO} \quad e^{+}e^{-} \approx 10.5 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} 0.16 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.02 \quad 39 \quad \text{ALBRECHT} \quad 90\text{C} \quad \text{ARG} \quad e^{+}e^{-} \approx 10 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

$$ \Gamma(\bar{K}^*(892)^0 K_S^0, \bar{K}^0 \rightarrow K^-\pi^+) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{214}/\Gamma_{213} $$

Fit fraction from Dalitz plot analyses. The fraction for the $K_S^0\pi^+$ mass between 792 and 992 MeV is 0.370 ± 0.003 ± 0.012.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} 2.47 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.23 \quad 113\text{k} \quad 1 \text{ AAIJ} \quad 16\text{N} \quad \text{LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty.

$$ \Gamma(K^*(892)^0 K_S^-, K^+ \rightarrow K^-\pi^+) / \Gamma(K_S^0 \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{215}/\Gamma_{213} $$

Fit fraction from Dalitz plot analyses.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} 56.9 \pm 0.6 \pm 1.1 \quad 113\text{k} \quad 1 \text{ AAIJ} \quad 16\text{N} \quad \text{LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty.

$$ \Gamma(\bar{K}^*(1410)^0 K_S^0, \bar{K}^0 \rightarrow K^-\pi^+) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{216}/\Gamma_{213} $$

Fit fraction from Dalitz plot analyses.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} 3.8 \pm 0.5 \pm 5.6 \quad 113\text{k} \quad 1 \text{ AAIJ} \quad 16\text{N} \quad \text{LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a uncertainty (which in this case dominates)

$$ \Gamma(K^*(1410)^+ K^-, K^+ \rightarrow K_S^0 \pi^-) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{217}/\Gamma_{213} $$

Fit fraction from Dalitz plot analyses.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} 9.6 \pm 1.1 \pm 5.4 \quad 113\text{k} \quad 1 \text{ AAIJ} \quad 16\text{N} \quad \text{LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty (which in this case dominates).

$$ \Gamma((K^-\pi^+)_S - \text{wave } K_S^0) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{218}/\Gamma_{213} $$

Fit fraction from Dalitz plot analyses.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} 18 \pm 2 \pm 8 \quad 113\text{k} \quad 1 \text{ AAIJ} \quad 16\text{N} \quad \text{LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty (which in this case dominates).

$$ \Gamma((K_S^0 \pi^+)_S - \text{wave } K_S^0) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{219}/\Gamma_{213} $$

Fit fraction from Dalitz plot analyses.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} 11.7 \pm 1.0 \pm 2.3 \quad 113\text{k} \quad 1 \text{ AAIJ} \quad 16\text{N} \quad \text{LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty.

$$ \Gamma(a_0(980)^- \pi^+, a_0^- \rightarrow K_S^0 K^-) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{220}/\Gamma_{213} $$

Fit fraction from Dalitz plot analyses.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} 4.0 \pm 0.7 \pm 4.1 \quad 113\text{k} \quad 1 \text{ AAIJ} \quad 16\text{N} \quad \text{LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty (which in this case dominates).

$$ \Gamma(a_0(1450)^- \pi^+, a_0^- \rightarrow K_S^0 K^-) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{221}/\Gamma_{213} $$

Fit fraction from Dalitz plot analyses.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} 0.74 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.57 \quad 113\text{k} \quad 1 \text{ AAIJ} \quad 16\text{N} \quad \text{LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty (which in this case dominates).

$$ \Gamma(a_2(1320)^- \pi^+, a_2^- \rightarrow K_S^0 K^-) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{222}/\Gamma_{213} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} 0.15 \pm 0.06 \pm 0.14 \quad 113\text{k} \quad 1 \text{ AAIJ} \quad 16\text{N} \quad \text{LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty.

$$ \Gamma(\rho(1450)^- \pi^+, \rho^- \rightarrow K_S^0 K^-) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{223}/\Gamma_{213} $$

Fit fraction from Dalitz plot analyses.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \text{VALUE (units 10}^{-2}\text{)} \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{l} 1.4 \pm 0.2 \pm 0.7 \quad 113\text{k} \quad 1 \text{ AAIJ} \quad 16\text{N} \quad \text{LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty.
$$ \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{224} / \Gamma_{38} $$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$$ 0.05 \pm 0.025 \qquad 1 \text{ ANJOS} \quad 91 \quad \text{E691} \quad \gamma \text{ Be } 80-240 \text{ GeV} $$

¹ The factor 100 at the top of column 2 of Table I of ANJOS 91 should be omitted.

$$ \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{224} / \Gamma_{44} $$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$$ 0.098 \pm 0.020 \qquad 55 \quad \text{AMMAR} \quad 91 \quad \text{CLEO} \quad e^+ e^- \approx 10.5 \text{ GeV} $$

$$ \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^- \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{224} / \Gamma_{213} $$

0.654 ± 0.007 OUR FIT

0.654 ± 0.007 OUR AVERAGE

$$ 0.655 \pm 0.004 \pm 0.006 \quad 76k, 113k \quad \text{AAIJ} \quad 16N \quad \text{LHCB} \quad \text{pp at } 7, 8 \text{ TeV} $$

$$ 0.592 \pm 0.044 \pm 0.018 \qquad \text{INSLER} \quad 12 \quad \text{CLEO} \quad e^+ e^- \to D^0 \bar{D}^0 \text{ at } 3.77 \text{ GeV} $$

$$ \Gamma(K^*(892)^0 K_S^0, K^{*0} \to K^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(\bar{K}^*(892)^0 K_S^0, \bar{K}^{*0} \to K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{225} / \Gamma_{214} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{CL\%} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{0.356 \pm 0.034 \pm 0.007} & & \mathbf{1 \text{ INSLER}} & \mathbf{12} & \mathbf{CLEO} \quad e^+ e^- \to D^0 \bar{D}^0, 3.77 \text{ GeV} \end{array} $$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$$ <0.010 \qquad 90 \quad \text{AMMAR} \quad 91 \quad \text{CLEO} \quad e^+ e^- \approx 10.5 \text{ GeV} $$

¹ Uses quantum correlations in $e^+ e^- \to D^0 \bar{D}^0$ at the $\psi(3770)$, where the signal side D decays to $K_S^0 K \pi$ and the tag-side D decays to $K \pi, K \pi \pi \pi, K \pi \pi^0$, and 10 additional CP-even, CP-odd, and mixed CP modes involving $K_S^0$ or $K_L^0$.

$$ \Gamma(K^*(892)^0 K_S^0, K^{*0} \to K^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{225} / \Gamma_{224} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{5.17 \pm 0.21 \pm 0.47} & & \mathbf{76k} & \mathbf{1 \text{ AAIJ}} & \mathbf{16N \quad LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹ AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty.

$$ \Gamma(K^*(892)^0 K^+, K^{*-} \to K_S^0 \pi^-) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{226} / \Gamma_{224} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{28.6 \pm 0.4 \pm 1.5} & & \mathbf{76k} & \mathbf{1 \text{ AAIJ}} & \mathbf{16N \quad LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹ AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty.

$$ \Gamma(K^*(1410)^0 K_S^0, K^{*0} \to K^+ \pi^+) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{227} / \Gamma_{224} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{2.2 \pm 0.6 \pm 3.7} & & \mathbf{76k} & \mathbf{1 \text{ AAIJ}} & \mathbf{16N \quad LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹ AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty (which in this case dominates).

$$ \Gamma(K^*(1410)^- K^+, K^{*-} \to K_S^0 \pi^-) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{228} / \Gamma_{224} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{11.9 \pm 1.5 \pm 9.1} & & \mathbf{76k} & \mathbf{1 \text{ AAIJ}} & \mathbf{16N \quad LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹ AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty (which in this case dominates).

$$ \Gamma((K^+ \pi^-)_{S-wave} K_S^0) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{229} / \Gamma_{224} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{17 \pm 2 \pm 8} & & \mathbf{76k} & \mathbf{1 \text{ AAIJ}} & \mathbf{16N \quad LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹ AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty.

$$ \Gamma((K_S^0 \pi^-)_{S-wave} K^+) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{230} / \Gamma_{224} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{6.3 \pm 0.9 \pm 2.3} & & \mathbf{76k} & \mathbf{1 \text{ AAIJ}} & \mathbf{16N \quad LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹ AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty.

$$ \Gamma(a_0(980)^+ \pi^-, a_0^+ \to K_S^0 K^+) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{231} / \Gamma_{224} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{26 \pm 2 \pm 18} & & \mathbf{76k} & \mathbf{1 \text{ AAIJ}} & \mathbf{16N \quad LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹ AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty (which in this case dominates).

$$ \Gamma(a_0(1450)^+ \pi^-, a_0^+ \to K_S^0 K^+) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{232} / \Gamma_{224} $$

Fit fraction from Dalitz plot analyses.

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{1.5 \pm 0.3 \pm 1.1} & & \mathbf{76k} & \mathbf{1 \text{ AAIJ}} & \mathbf{16N \quad LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹ AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty (which in this case dominates).

$$ \Gamma(\rho(1700)^+ \pi^-, \rho^+ \to K_S^0 K^+) / \Gamma(K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{233} / \Gamma_{224} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{0.53 \pm 0.11 \pm 0.23} & & \mathbf{76k} & \mathbf{1 \text{ AAIJ}} & \mathbf{16N \quad LHCB} \quad \text{Dalitz plot fit} \end{array} $$

¹ AAIJ 16N gives results for two S-wave parameterisations. We take the values from the model with LASS parametrization, and the difference as a systematic uncertainty.

$$ \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^0) / \Gamma(K^- \pi^+ \pi^0) \qquad \Gamma_{234} / \Gamma_{59} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{2.37 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.04} & & \mathbf{11k \pm 122} & \mathbf{AUBERT, B} & \mathbf{06X BABR} \quad e^+ e^- \approx \mathcal{T}(45) \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \bullet \bullet \bullet & & & & \bullet \bullet \bullet \\ 0.95 \pm 0.26 & & & & 151 \quad \text{ASNER} & & 96B CLE2 \quad e^+ e^- \approx \mathcal{T}(45) \end{array} $$

$$ \Gamma(K^*(892)^+ K^-, K^*(892)^+ \to K^+ \pi^0) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^0) \qquad \Gamma_{235} / \Gamma_{234} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{44.4 \pm 0.8 \pm 0.6} & & \mathbf{AUBERT} & \mathbf{07T BABR} & \mathbf{Dalitz fit II, 11k evts} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \bullet \bullet \bullet & & & & \bullet \bullet \bullet \\ 46.1 \pm 3.1 & & & & 1 \text{ CAWLFIELD} & 06A CLEO \quad \text{Dalitz fit, } 627 \pm 30 \text{ evts} \end{array} $$

¹ The error on this CAWLFIELD 06A result is statistical only.

$$ \Gamma(K^*(892)^- K^+, K^*(892)^- \to K^- \pi^0) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^0) \qquad \Gamma_{236} / \Gamma_{234} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{15.9 \pm 0.7 \pm 0.6} & & \mathbf{AUBERT} & \mathbf{07T BABR} & \mathbf{Dalitz fit II, 11k evts} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \bullet \bullet \bullet & & & & \bullet \bullet \bullet \\ 12.3 \pm 2.2 & & & & 1 \text{ CAWLFIELD} & 06A CLEO \quad \text{Dalitz fit, } 627 \pm 30 \text{ evts} \end{array} $$

¹ The error on this CAWLFIELD 06A result is statistical only.

$$ \Gamma((K^+ \pi^0)_{S-wave} K^-) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^0) \qquad \Gamma_{237} / \Gamma_{234} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{71.1 \pm 3.7 \pm 1.9} & & \mathbf{1 \text{ AUBERT}} & \mathbf{07T BABR} & \mathbf{Dalitz fit II, 11k evts} \end{array} $$

¹ The only major difference between fits I and II in the AUBERT 07T analysis is in this mode, where the fit-I fraction is (16.3 ± 3.4 ± 2.1)%.

$$ \Gamma((K^- \pi^0)_{S-wave} K^+) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^0) \qquad \Gamma_{238} / \Gamma_{234} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{3.9 \pm 0.9 \pm 1.0} & & \mathbf{AUBERT} & \mathbf{07T BABR} & \mathbf{Dalitz fit II, 11k evts} \end{array} $$

$$ \Gamma(f_0(980)\pi^0, f_0 \to K^+ K^-) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^0) \qquad \Gamma_{239} / \Gamma_{234} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{10.5 \pm 1.1 \pm 1.2} & & \mathbf{1 \text{ AUBERT}} & \mathbf{07T BABR} & \mathbf{Dalitz fit II, 11k evts} \end{array} $$

¹ When AUBERT 07T replace the $f_0(980)\pi^0$ mode with $a_0(980)\pi^0$, the fit fraction is a negligibly different (11.0 ± 1.5 ± 1.2)%.

$$ \Gamma(\phi^0, \phi \to K^+ K^-) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^0) \qquad \Gamma_{240} / \Gamma_{234} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{19.4 \pm 0.6 \pm 0.5} & & \mathbf{AUBERT} & \mathbf{07T BABR} & \mathbf{Dalitz fit II, 11k evts} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \bullet \bullet \bullet & & & & \bullet \bullet \bullet \\ 14.9 \pm 1.6 & & & & 1 \text{ CAWLFIELD} & 06A CLEO \quad \text{Dalitz fit, } 627 \pm 30 \text{ evts} \end{array} $$

¹ The error on this CAWLFIELD 06A result is statistical only.

$$ \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^0 \text{nonresonant}) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^0) \qquad \Gamma_{241} / \Gamma_{234} $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{0.360 \pm 0.037} & & & & \mathbf{1 \text{ CAWLFIELD}} & \mathbf{06A CLEO} \quad \text{Dalitz fit, } 627 \pm 30 \text{ evts} \end{array} $$

¹ The error is statistical only. CAWLFIELD 06A also fits the Dalitz plot replacing this flat nonresonant background with broad S-wave $\kappa^\pm \to K^\pm \pi^0$ resonances. There is no significant improvement in the fit, and $K^\pm \pi^0$ and $\phi^0$ results are not much changed.

$$ \Gamma(2K_S^0 \pi^+) / \text{total} \qquad \Gamma_{242} / \Gamma $$

$$ \begin{array}{lcccc} \text{VALUE} & \text{EVTS} & \text{DOCUMENT ID} & \text{TECN} & \text{COMMENT} \\ \hline \mathbf{<1.45 \times 10^{-4}} & & \mathbf{90} & \mathbf{ABLIKIM} & \mathbf{22Y BE53} \\ \mathbf{<5.9 \times 10^{-4}} & & \mathbf{90} & \mathbf{ASNER} & \mathbf{96B CLE2} \quad e^+ e^- \approx \mathcal{T}(45) \end{array} $$
# Meson Particle Listings

## D⁰

$$ \Gamma(K^+K^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{243}/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-4</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.59&plusmn;0.18&plusmn;0.05</td><td>13</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20V</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K^+K^-)/\Gamma(K^-\pi^+\eta) \qquad \Gamma_{243}/\Gamma_{104} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>9.57<sup>+0.36</sup><sub>-0.33</sub>&#x2080;0.20</td><td>1.4k</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LI</td><td>21G</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\phi(1020)\eta)/\Gamma(K^-\pi^+\eta) \qquad \Gamma_{244}/\Gamma_{104} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>9.8&plusmn;0.6&plusmn;0.1</td><td>1.4k</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1L</td><td>21G</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. LI 21G reports $[\Gamma(D^0 \to \phi(1020)\eta)/\Gamma(D^0 \to K^-\pi^+\eta)] \times [B(\phi(1020) \to K^+K^-)] = (4.82 \pm 0.23 \pm 0.16) \times 10^{-3}$ which we divide by our best value $B(\phi(1020) \to K^+K^-) = (49.1 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-2}$. Our first error is their experiment's error and our second error is the systematic error from using our best value.

$$ \Gamma(K^+K^-\eta\text{nonresonant})/\Gamma(K^-\pi^+\eta) \qquad \Gamma_{245}/\Gamma_{104} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.26<sup>+0.45</sup><sub>-0.38</sub>&#x2080;0.11</td><td>1.4k</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LI</td><td>21G</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(2K_S^0\eta)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{246}/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-4</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.33&plusmn;0.59&plusmn;0.18</td><td>7</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20V</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^0\pi^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{247}/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-4</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>6.9&plusmn;0.7&plusmn;0.4</td><td>132</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20AC</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-)/\Gamma(K^-2\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{248}/\Gamma_{78} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.00&plusmn;0.13</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>&gamma;Be, E<sub>&gamma;</sub> &asymp; 180 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>2.95&plusmn;0.11&plusmn;0.08</td><td>2669 &asymp; 101</td></tr><tr><td>3.13&plusmn;0.37&plusmn;0.36</td><td>136 &asymp; 15</td></tr><tr><td>3.5 &plusmn; 0.4 &plusmn; 0.2</td><td>244 &asymp; 26</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>1LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>&gamma;Be, E<sub>&gamma;</sub> &asymp; 180 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>AITALA</td><td>980</td><td>&pi;<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>95C</td><td>&gamma;Be, E<sub>&gamma;</sub> &asymp; 200 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>4.4 &plusmn; 1.8 &plusmn; 0.5</td><td>19 &plusmn; 8</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>05F</td><td>BES</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; &psi;(3770)</td></tr><tr><td>4.1 &plusmn; 0.7 &plusmn; 0.5</td><td>114 &plusmn; 20</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>94L</td><td>ARG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; 10 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.14&plusmn;1.0</td><td>89 &plusmn; 29</td><td>AMMAR</td><td>91</td><td>CLEO</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; 10.5 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.8 &plusmn; 0.8</td><td>19</td><td>ANJOS</td><td>91</td><td>E691</td><td>&gamma;Be 80-240 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. LINK 05G uses a smaller, cleaner subset of 1279 &plusmn; 48 events for the amplitude analysis that gives the results in the next data blocks.

$$ \Gamma(\phi(\pi^+\pi^-)S_{\text{wave}}, \phi \to K^+K^-)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{249}/\Gamma_{248} $$

This is the fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4.0&plusmn;0.6&plusmn;2.1</td><td>3k</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>10.3&plusmn;1.0&plusmn;0.8</td><td>3k</td><td>2 ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr><tr><td>1 &plusmn; 1</td><td>1.3k</td><td>LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

2. See DARGENT 17

$$ \Gamma((\phi\rho^0)_S, \phi \to K^+K^-)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{250}/\Gamma_{248} $$

This is the fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>28.1&plusmn;1.3&plusmn;1.7</td><td>2.9k</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.2DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>38.3&plusmn;2.5&plusmn;3.8</td><td>1.3ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Fitting 2959 evs.</td></tr><tr><td>29 &plusmn; 2 &plusmn; 1</td><td>LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>Fits 1279 &plusmn; 48 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. ARTUSO 12 and DARGENT 17 use the same dataset, but ARTUSO 12 uses a formulation for the D-wave component that is in fact a mix of S- and D-wave, while DARGENT 17 uses a pure D-wave. This explains the discrepancy in their $\rho\phi$ S- and D-wave components.

2. Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

3. See DARGENT 17

$$ \Gamma((\phi\rho^0)_P, \phi \to K^+K^-)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{251}/\Gamma_{248} $$

This is the fit fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.6&plusmn;0.3&plusmn;0.7</td><td>2.9k</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

$$ \Gamma((\phi\rho^0)_D, \phi \to K^+K^-)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{252}/\Gamma_{248} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.7&plusmn;0.4&plusmn;0.4</td><td>2.9k</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.2DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>3.4&plusmn;0.7&plusmn;0.6</td><td>1,3 ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Fitting 2959 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. ARTUSO 12 use a formulation for the D-wave component that is in fact a mix of S- and D-wave, while DARGENT 17 uses a pure D-wave.

2. Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

3. See DARGENT 17

$$ \Gamma(K^*(892)^0\bar{K}^*(892)^0, K^*0 \to K^\pm\pi^-)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{253}/\Gamma_{248} $$

This is the fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3&plusmn;2&plusmn;1</td><td>LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>Fits 1279 &plusmn; 48 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>3&plusmn;2&plusmn;1</td><td>LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>Fits 1279 &plusmn; 48 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K^+K^-\rho^03\text{-body})/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{254}/\Gamma_{248} $$

This is the fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2&plusmn;2&plusmn;2</td><td>LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>Fits 1279 &plusmn; 48 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>2&plusmn;2&plusmn;2</td><td>LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>Fits 1279 &plusmn; 48 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\phi(980)\pi^+\pi^-, \phi_0 \to K^+K^-)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{255}/\Gamma_{248} $$

This is the fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>15&plusmn;3&plusmn;2</td><td>LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>Fits 1279 &plusmn; 48 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>15&plusmn;3&plusmn;2</td><td>LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>Fits 1279 &plusmn; 48 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma((K^*(892)^0\bar{K}^*(892)^0)_{S-\text{wave}}, K^*0 \to K^\pm\pi^-)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{256}/\Gamma_{248} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>9.06&plusmn;0.35</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>9.18&plusmn;0.21&plusmn;0.28</td><td>163k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>19C</td><td>LHCB</td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr><tr><td>4.5 &plusmn; 0.8 &plusmn; 2.0</td><td>3k</td><td>1DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>6.1 &plusmn; 0.8 &plusmn; 0.9</td><td>3k</td><td>2 ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

2. See DARGENT 17

$$ \Gamma((K^*(892)^0\bar{K}^*(892)^0)_{P-\text{wave}}, K^* \to K^\pm\pi^-)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{257}/\Gamma_{248} $$

This is the fit fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4.87&plusmn;0.24</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4.90&plusmn;0.16&plusmn;0.18</td><td>163k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>19C</td><td>LHCB</td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr><tr><td>3.6 &plusmn; 0.7 &plusmn; 1.5</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

$$ \Gamma((K^*(892)^0\bar{K}^*(892)^0)_{D-\text{wave}}, K^* \to K^\pm\pi^-)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{258}/\Gamma_{248} $$

This is the fit fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.89&plusmn;0.13</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>1.85&plusmn;0.09&plusmn;0.10</td><td>163k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>19C</td><td>LHCB</td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr><tr><td>4.0 &plusmn; 0.6 &plusmn; 0.7</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

$$ \Gamma(K^*(892)^0K\pi^\pm 3\text{-body}, K^*0 \to K^\pm\pi^-)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{259}/\Gamma_{248} $$

This is the fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>11&plusmn;2&plusmn;1</td><td>LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>Fits 1279 &plusmn; 48 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$$ \Gamma(K^*(892)^0(K^-\pi^+)_S, K^-\pi^+)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{260}/\Gamma_{248} $$

This is the fit fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.8&plusmn;1.2&plusmn;2.1</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

$$ \Gamma((K^-\pi^+)_P, (K^+\pi^-)_S)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{261}/\Gamma_{248} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>10.9&plusmn;1.2&plusmn;1.7</td><td>1ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Fitting 2959 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.2DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K&pi;&pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. See DARGENT 17

$$ \Gamma(K_1(1270)^\pm K\pm, K_1^\pm \to K^\pm\pi^+\pi^-)/\Gamma(K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \Gamma_{262}/\Gamma_{248} $$

This is the fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>33&plusmn;6&plusmn;4</td><td>1LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>Fits 1279 &plusmn; 48 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>33&plusmn;6&plusmn;4</td><td>1LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>Fits 1279 &plusmn; 48 evs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. This LINK 05G value includes $K_1(1270)^\pm \to \rho^0K^\pm \to K_0^0(1430)^0\pi^\pm$, and $K^*(892)^0\pi^\pm$.
$$ \Gamma(K_1(1270)^+ K^-, K_1^+ \rightarrow K^{*0} \pi^+) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{263/\Gamma_{248}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.5&plusmn;1.4&plusmn;3.4</td><td>3k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>7.3&plusmn;0.8&plusmn;1.9</td><td>3k</td><td>2 ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; events</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

² See DARGENT 17

$$ \Gamma(K_1(1270)^+ K^-, K_1^+ \rightarrow K^*(1430)^0 \pi^+, K^{*0} \rightarrow K^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{264/\Gamma_{248}} $$

This is the fit fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>6.1&plusmn;1.2&plusmn;1.8</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

$$ \Gamma(K_1(1270)^+ K^-, K_1^+ \rightarrow \rho^0 K^+) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{265/\Gamma_{248}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>9.1&plusmn;1.5&plusmn;1.9</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>4.7&plusmn;0.7&plusmn;0.8</td><td>2 ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Fitting 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

² See DARGENT 17

$$ \Gamma(K_1(1270)^+ K^-, K_1^+ \rightarrow \omega(782) K^+, \omega \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{266/\Gamma_{248}} $$

This is the fit fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.6&plusmn;0.3&plusmn;0.4</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

$$ \Gamma(K_1(1270)^- K^+, K_1^- \rightarrow \bar{K}^{*0} \pi^-) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{267/\Gamma_{248}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.9&plusmn;0.3&plusmn;0.4</td><td>1 ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Fitting 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ See DARGENT 17

$$ \Gamma(K_1(1270)^- K^+, K_1^- \rightarrow \rho^0 K^+) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{268/\Gamma_{248}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.4&plusmn;0.7&plusmn;1.3</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>6.0&plusmn;0.8&plusmn;0.6</td><td>2 ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Fitting 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

² See DARGENT 17

$$ \Gamma(K_1(1400)^\pm K^\mp, K_1^\pm \rightarrow K^\pm \pi^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{269/\Gamma_{248}} $$

This is the fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>22&plusmn;3&plusmn;4</td><td>LINK</td><td>05G</td><td>FOCS</td><td>Fits 1279 &plusmn; 48 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K_1(1400)^+ K^-, K_1^+ \rightarrow K^*(892)^0 \pi^+, K^{*0} \rightarrow K^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{270/\Gamma_{248}} $$

This is the fit fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>18.7 &plusmn; 1.5</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>19.08 &plusmn; 0.60 &plusmn; 1.46</td><td>163k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>19C</td><td>LHCB 4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; evts</td></tr><tr><td>12.4 &plusmn; 2.6 &plusmn; 6.3</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

$$ \Gamma(K^*(1410)^+ K^-, K^{*+} \rightarrow K^{*0} \pi^+) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{271/\Gamma_{248}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>4.2&plusmn;0.7&plusmn;0.8</td><td>1,2 ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Fitting 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ DARGENT 17 find K*(1410)+π⁻ and K*(1680)+π⁻, which both peak outside the D⁰ → K Kππ kinematic range, effectively indistinguishable; we list their result under K*(1680)+π⁻.

² See DARGENT 17

$$ \Gamma(K^*(1410)^- K^+, K^{*-} \rightarrow \bar{K}^{*0} \pi^-) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{272/\Gamma_{248}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.82&plusmn;0.19&plusmn;0.39</td><td>163k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>19C</td><td>LHCB 4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>4.7 &plusmn; 0.7 &plusmn; 0.7</td><td>3k</td><td>1 ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ See DARGENT 17.

$$ \Gamma(K_1(1680)^+ K^-, K_1^+ \rightarrow K^{*0} \pi^+, K^{*0} \rightarrow K^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{273/\Gamma_{248}} $$

This is the fit fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.6&plusmn;0.8&plusmn;1.0</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1,2 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ DARGENT 17 find K*(1410)+π⁻ and K*(1680)+π⁻, which both peak outside the D⁰ → K Kππ kinematic range, effectively indistinguishable.

² Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

$$ \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^- \text{ non-resonant}) / \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{274/\Gamma_{248}} $$

This is the fit fraction from a coherent amplitude analysis.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>11.1&plusmn;1.2&plusmn;2.2</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K &pi; &pi; evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

$$ \Gamma(2K_5^0 \pi^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{275/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-4</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.3&plusmn;0.9&plusmn;0.3</td><td>63</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20AC</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(2K_5^0 \pi^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(K_5^0 \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{275/\Gamma_{44}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.72&plusmn;0.05</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.71&plusmn;0.03&plusmn;0.04</td><td>6095</td><td>SANGAL</td><td>23</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S, 5S), 10.520 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>4.16&plusmn;0.70&plusmn;0.42</td><td>113</td><td>LINK</td><td>05A</td><td>FOCS &gamma; Be, E&#773;<sub>&gamma;</sub> &plusmn; 180 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>6.2 &plusmn; 2.0 &plusmn; 1.6</td><td>25</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>94I</td><td>ARG e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; 10 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K_5^0 K^- \pi^+ \pi^0) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{276/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.32&plusmn;0.14&plusmn;0.07</td><td>195</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20AC</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K_5^0 K^+ \pi^- \pi^0) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{277/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-4</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>6.5&plusmn;0.7&plusmn;0.2</td><td>119</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20AC</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K_5^0 K^- 2\pi^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(K_5^0 2\pi^+ 2\pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{278/\Gamma_{111}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.054</td><td>90</td><td>LINK</td><td>04D</td><td>FOCS &gamma; A, E&#773;<sub>&gamma;</sub> &asymp; 180 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{279/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.0031 &plusmn; 0.0020</td><td>1</td><td>BARLAG</td><td>92C</td><td>ACCM &pi;<sup>-</sup> Cu 230 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ BARLAG 92C computes the branching fraction using topological normalization.

$$ \Gamma(\phi\pi^0) / \Gamma(K^+ K^-) \quad \Gamma_{280/\Gamma_{211}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.194&plusmn;0.006&plusmn;0.009</td><td>1254</td><td>TAJIMA</td><td>04</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.194&plusmn;0.006&plusmn;0.009</td><td>1254</td><td>TAJIMA</td><td>04</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\phi\eta) / \Gamma(K^+ K^-) \quad \Gamma_{281/\Gamma_{211}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.59&plusmn;1.14&plusmn;0.18</td><td>31</td><td>TAJIMA</td><td>04</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\phi\omega) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{282/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-4</sup>)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>6.48&plusmn;0.96&plusmn;0.40</td><td>196</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>22</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;21</td><td>90</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>94I</td><td>ARG e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; 10 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ ABLIKIM 22 determines the longitudinal polarization fraction of the φ and ω, f_L = 0.00 ± 0.10 ± 0.08, corresponding to f_L < 0.24 at 95% CL.

Radiative modes

$$ \Gamma(\rho^0 \gamma) / \Gamma(\pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{283/\Gamma_{141}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.25&plusmn;0.21&plusmn;0.05</td><td>500</td><td>NANUT</td><td>17</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS), n=2,3,4,5</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\omega\gamma) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{284/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;2.4 &times; 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ASNER</td><td>98</td><td>CLE2</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\phi\gamma) / \Gamma(K^- \pi^+) \quad \Gamma_{285/\Gamma_{38}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-4</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>7.1 &plusmn; 0.5</td><td>OUR</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.15&plusmn;0.78&plusmn;0.69</td><td>243 &plusmn; 25</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AZ</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; 10.6 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\phi\gamma) / \Gamma(K^+ K^-) \quad \Gamma_{285/\Gamma_{211}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>6.9 &plusmn; 0.5</td><td>OUR</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6.88&plusmn;0.47&plusmn;0.21</td><td>524</td><td>NANUT</td><td>17</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS), n=2,3,4,5</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Meson Particle Listings

## D⁰

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

6.31 $^{+1.70}_{-1.48}$ ± 0.36 28 TAJIMA 04 BELL See NANUT 17

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(K*(892)⁰γ)/Γ(K⁻π⁺)</th><th colspan="2">Γ<sub>286</sub>/Γ<sub>38</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (units 10⁻³)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>10.5 ±1.7</b></td><td><b>OUR AVERAGE</b></td><td colspan="3">Error includes scale factor of 3.1.</td></tr><tr><td>11.9 ±0.5 ±0.5</td><td>9.1k</td><td>NANUT</td><td>17</td><td>BELL e⁺e⁻ at γ(nS), n=2,3,4,5</td></tr><tr><td>8.43 ±0.51 ±0.70</td><td>2.2k</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AZ</td><td>BABR e⁺e⁻ ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Doubly Cabibbo-suppressed / Mixing modes

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(K⁺ℓ⁻ν<sub>ℓ</sub> via D<sup>0</sup>)/Γ(K⁻ℓ⁺ν<sub>ℓ</sub>)</th><th colspan="2">Γ<sub>287</sub>/Γ<sub>19</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>&lt; 6.1 × 10<sup>-4</sup></b></td><td>90</td><td>1 BITENC</td><td>08</td><td>BELL e⁺e⁻, 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;50 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>2 AITALA</td><td>96c</td><td>E791 π⁻ nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹The BITENC 08 right-sign sample includes about 15% of D⁰ → K⁻π⁰ℓ⁺νₚ and other decays.

²AITALA 96c uses D⁺* → D⁰π⁺ (and charge conjugate) decays to identify the charm at production and D⁰ → K⁻ℓ⁺νₚ (and charge conjugate) decays to identify the charm at decay.

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(K⁺ or K*(892)⁺e⁻ν<sub>e</sub> via D<sup>0</sup>)/[Γ(K⁻e⁺ν<sub>e</sub>) + Γ(K*(892)⁻e⁺ν<sub>e</sub>)]</th><th colspan="2">Γ<sub>288</sub>/(Γ<sub>20</sub>+Γ<sub>22</sub>)</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>&lt;0.001</b></td><td>90</td><td>BITENC</td><td>05</td><td>BELL e⁺e⁻ ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>-0.0013 &lt;R&lt; +0.0012</td><td>90</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AB</td><td>BABR e⁺e⁻ ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.0078</td><td>90</td><td>CAWLFIELD</td><td>05</td><td>CLEO e⁺e⁻ ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.0042</td><td>90</td><td>AUBERT,B</td><td>04Q</td><td>BABR See AUBERT 07AB</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)/Γ(K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="2">Γ<sub>289</sub>/Γ<sub>38</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>3.79±0.18</b></td><td><b>OUR FIT</b></td><td colspan="3">Error includes scale factor of 3.3.</td></tr><tr><td><b>3.79±0.18</b></td><td><b>OUR AVERAGE</b></td><td colspan="3">Error includes scale factor of 3.3. See the ideogram below.</td></tr><tr><td>4.15±0.10</td><td>12.7±0.3k</td><td>1 AALTONEN</td><td>08E</td><td>CDF pπ, √s = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.53±0.08±0.04</td><td>4030±90</td><td>2 AUBERT</td><td>07W</td><td>BABR e⁺e⁻ ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.77±0.08±0.05</td><td>4024±88</td><td>1 ZHANG</td><td>06</td><td>BELL e⁺e⁻</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>4.05±0.21±0.11</td><td>2.0±0.1k</td><td>3 ABULENCIA</td><td>06X</td><td>CDF See AALTONEN 08E</td></tr><tr><td>3.81±0.17<sup>+0.08</sup><sub>-0.16</sub></td><td>845±40</td><td>2 LI</td><td>05A</td><td>BELL See ZHANG 06</td></tr><tr><td>4.29<sup>+0.63</sup><sub>-0.61</sub>±0.27</td><td>234</td><td>4 LINK</td><td>05H</td><td>FOCS γ nucleus</td></tr><tr><td>3.57±0.22±0.27</td><td></td><td>5 AUBERT</td><td>03Z</td><td>BABR See AUBERT 07W</td></tr><tr><td>4.04±0.85±0.25</td><td>149</td><td>6 LINK</td><td>01</td><td>FOCS γ nucleus</td></tr><tr><td>3.32<sup>+0.63</sup><sub>-0.65</sub>±0.40</td><td>45</td><td>1 GODANG</td><td>00</td><td>CLE2 e⁺e⁻</td></tr><tr><td>6.8<sup>+3.4</sup><sub>-3.3</sub>±0.7</td><td>34</td><td>2 AITALA</td><td>98</td><td>E791 π⁻ nucl., 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>4.15±0.10</td><td>12.7±0.3k</td><td>1 AALTONEN</td><td>08E</td><td>CDF pπ, √s = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.53±0.08±0.04</td><td>4030±90</td><td>2 AUBERT</td><td>07W</td><td>BABR e⁺e⁻ ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.77±0.08±0.05</td><td>4024±88</td><td>1 ZHANG</td><td>06</td><td>BELL e⁺e⁻</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>4.05±0.21±0.11</td><td>2.0±0.1k</td><td>3 ABULENCIA</td><td>06X</td><td>CDF See AALTONEN 08E</td></tr><tr><td>3.81±0.17<sup>+0.08</sup><sub>-0.16</sub></td><td>845±40</td><td>2 LI</td><td>05A</td><td>BELL See ZHANG 06</td></tr><tr><td>4.29<sup>+0.63</sup><sub>-0.61</sub>±0.27</td><td>234</td><td>4 LINK</td><td>05H</td><td>FOCS γ nucleus</td></tr><tr><td>3.57±0.22±0.27</td><td></td><td>5 AUBERT</td><td>03Z</td><td>BABR See AUBERT 07W</td></tr><tr><td>4.04±0.85±0.25</td><td>149</td><td>6 LINK</td><td>01</td><td>FOCS γ nucleus</td></tr><tr><td>3.32<sup>+0.63</sup><sub>-0.65</sub>±0.40</td><td>45</td><td>1 GODANG</td><td>00</td><td>CLE2 e⁺e⁻</td></tr><tr><td>6.8<sup>+3.4</sup><sub>-3.3</sub>±0.7</td><td>34</td><td>2 AITALA</td><td>98</td><td>E791 π⁻ nucl., 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹GODANG 00, ZHANG 06, and AALTONEN 08E allow CP violation.

²AITALA 98, LI 05A, and AUBERT 07W assume no CP violation.

³This ABULENCIA 06x result assumes no mixing.

⁴This LINK 05H result assumes no mixing but allows CP violation. If neither mixing nor CP violation is allowed, R = (4.29 ± 0.63 ± 0.28) × 10⁻³.

⁵This AUBERT 03z result allows CP violation. If CP violation is not allowed, R = 0.00359 ± 0.00020 ± 0.00027.

⁶This LINK 01 result assumes no mixing or CP violation.

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
3.79±0.18 (Error scaled by 3.3)

<figure><img src="image_546.png" /></figure>

Values above of weighted average, error, and scale factor are based upon the data in this ideogram only. They are not necessarily the same as our 'best' values, obtained from a least-squares constrained fit utilizing measurements of other (related) quantities as additional information.

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(K⁺π⁻ via DCS)/Γ(K⁻π⁺)</th><th colspan="2">Γ<sub>290</sub>/Γ<sub>38</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>3.45 ±0.06</b></td><td><b>OUR AVERAGE</b></td><td colspan="3">Error includes scale factor of 1.5. See the ideogram below.</td></tr><tr><td>3.454±0.040±0.020</td><td>722k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>18k</td><td>LHCB pπ at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.53 ±0.13</td><td></td><td>2 KO</td><td>14</td><td>BELL e⁺e⁻ → γ(nS)</td></tr><tr><td>3.51 ±0.35</td><td></td><td>3 AALTONEN</td><td>13AE</td><td>CDF pπ at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.04 ±0.55</td><td>13k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>08E</td><td>CDF pπ, √s = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.03 ±0.16 ±0.10</td><td>4.0k</td><td>4 AUBERT</td><td>07W</td><td>BABR e⁺e⁻ ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.64 ±0.17</td><td>4.0k</td><td>5 ZHANG</td><td>06</td><td>BELL e⁺e⁻</td></tr><tr><td>5.17<sup>+1.47</sup><sub>-1.58</sub> ±0.76</td><td>234</td><td>6 LINK</td><td>05H</td><td>FOCS γ nucleus</td></tr><tr><td>4.8 ±1.2 ±0.4</td><td>45</td><td>7 GODANG</td><td>00</td><td>CLE2 e⁺e⁻</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>3.533±0.054</td><td>236k</td><td>8 AAIJ</td><td>17AO</td><td>LHCB See AAIJ 18K</td></tr><tr><td>3.568±0.066</td><td></td><td>9 AAIJ</td><td>13CE</td><td>LHCB pπ at 7, 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.52 ±0.15</td><td></td><td>10 AAIJ</td><td>13N</td><td>LHCB Repl. by AAIJ 13CE</td></tr><tr><td>2.87 ±0.37</td><td>0.8k</td><td>LI</td><td>05A</td><td>BELL See ZHANG 06</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹This AAIJ 18k value is for direct and indirect CP violation allowed. The value is the same if either one or the other is not allowed, but in each case the error then is (0.028 ± 0.014) × 10⁻³.

²Based on 976 fb⁻¹ of data collected at Y(nS) resonances. Assumes no CP violation.

³Based on 9.6 fb⁻¹ of data collected at the Tevatron. Assumes no CP violation.

⁴Result is the same whether or not CP violation is allowed.

⁵This ZHANG 06 assumes no CP violation.

⁶This LINK 05H result allows CP violation. Allowing mixing but not CP violation, R<sub>D</sub> = (3.81<sup>+1.67</sup><sub>-1.63</sub> ± 0.92) × 10⁻³.

⁷This GODANG 00 result allows CP violation.

⁸The result was established with D⁰ from prompt and secondary D* assuming no CPV or no direct CPV.

⁹Based on 3 fb⁻¹ of data collected at √s = 7, 8 TeV. Assumes no CP violation.

¹⁰Based on 1 fb⁻¹ of data collected at √s = 7 TeV in 2011. Assumes no CP violation.

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
3.45±0.06 (Error scaled by 1.5)

<figure><img src="image_547.png" /></figure>

(Confidence Level = 0.086)
$$\Gamma(K^{+} \pi^{-} \text{ via } \bar{D}^{0})/\Gamma(K^{-} \pi^{+})$$

$$\Gamma_{291}/\Gamma_{38}$$

This is $R_M$ in the note on "$D^0-\bar{D}^0$ Mixing" near the start of the $D^0$ Listings. The experiments here (1) use the charge of the pion in $D^*(2010) \pm \to (D^0 \text{ or } \bar{D}^0)$ $\pi^\pm$ decay to tell whether a $D^0$ or a $\bar{D}^0$ was born; and (2) use the decay-time distribution to disentangle doubly Cabibbo-suppressed decay and mixing. For the limits on $|m_1 - m_2|$ and $(\Gamma_1 - \Gamma_2)/\Gamma$ that come from the best mixing limit, see near the beginning of these $D^0$ Listings.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.00040</td><td>95</td><td>1 ZHANG</td><td>06</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.00046</td><td>95</td><td>2 LI</td><td>05A</td><td>BELL See ZHANG 06</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.0063</td><td>95</td><td>3 LINK</td><td>05H</td><td>FOCS &gamma; nucleus</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.0013</td><td>95</td><td>4 AUBERT</td><td>03Z</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup>, 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.00041</td><td>95</td><td>5 GODANG</td><td>00</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.0092</td><td>95</td><td>6 BARATE</td><td>98W</td><td>ALEP e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at Z<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.005</td><td>90</td><td>7 ANJOS</td><td>88C</td><td>E691 Photoproduction</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. This ZHANG 06 result allows CP violation, but the result does not change if CP violation is not allowed.

2. This LI 05A result allows CP violation. The limit becomes < 0.00042 (95% CL) if CP violation is not allowed.

3. LINK 05H obtains the same result whether or not CP violation is allowed.

4. This AUBERT 03Z result allows CP violation and assumes that the strong phase between $D^0 \to K^+\pi^-$ and $\bar{D}^0 \to K^+\pi^-$ is small, and limits only $D^0 \to \bar{D}^0$ transitions via off-shell intermediate states. The limit on transitions via on-shell intermediate states is 0.0016.

5. This GODANG 00 result allows CP violation and assumes that the strong phase between $D^0 \to K^+\pi^-$ and $\bar{D}^0 \to K^+\pi^-$ is small, and limits only $D^0 \to \bar{D}^0$ transitions via off-shell intermediate states. The limit on transitions via on-shell intermediate states is 0.0017.

6. This BARATE 98W result assumes no interference between the DCS and mixing amplitudes ($y' = 0$ in the note on "$D^0-\bar{D}^0$ Mixing" near the start of the $D^0$ Listings). When interference is allowed, the limit degrades to 0.036 (95%CL).

7. This ANJOS 88c result assumes no interference between the DCS and mixing amplitudes ($y' = 0$ in the note on "$D^0-\bar{D}^0$ Mixing" near the start of the $D^0$ Listings). When interference is allowed, the limit degrades to 0.019.

$$\Gamma(K_S^0 \pi^+ \pi^- \text{ in } D^0 \to \bar{D}^0)/\Gamma(K_S^0 \pi^+ \pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{292}/\Gamma_{44}$$

This is $R_M$ in the note on "$D^0-\bar{D}^0$ Mixing" near the start of the $D^0$ Listings. The experiments here (1) use the charge of the pion in $D^*(2010) \pm \to (D^0 \text{ or } \bar{D}^0)$ $\pi^\pm$ decay to tell whether a $D^0$ or a $\bar{D}^0$ was born; and (2) use the decay-time distribution to disentangle doubly Cabibbo-suppressed decay and mixing. For the limits on $|m_1 - m_2|$ and $(\Gamma_1 - \Gamma_2)/\Gamma$ that come from the best mixing limit, see near the beginning of these $D^0$ Listings.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.0063</td><td>95</td><td>1 ASNER</td><td>05</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &approx; 10 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. This ASNER 05 limit allows CP violation. If CP violation is not allowed, the limit is 0.0042 at 95% CL.

$$\Gamma(K^{+} \pi^{-} \text{ via } \bar{D}^{0})/\Gamma(K^{-} \pi^{+} \pi^{-}) \quad \Gamma_{296}/\Gamma$$

$$\Gamma_{296}/\Gamma$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-4</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

3.06 ± 0.16 OUR FIT Error includes scale factor of 1.4.

<table><thead><tr><th>3.13<sup>+0.60</sup><sub>-0.56</sub> ± 0.15</th><th>46</th><th>1 ABLIKIM</th><th>22x</th><th>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</th></tr></thead></table>

1. Uses the semileptonic tag method of ABLIKIM 21BB.

$$\Gamma(K^{+} \pi^{-} \text{ via } \bar{D}^{0})/\Gamma(K^{-} \pi^{+} \pi^{-}) \quad \Gamma_{296}/\Gamma_{59}$$

The experiments here use the charge of the pion in $D^*(2010) \pm \to (D^0 \text{ or } \bar{D}^0)$ $\pi^\pm$ decay to tell whether a $D^0$ or a $\bar{D}^0$ was born. The $D^0 \to K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decay can occur directly by doubly Cabibbo-suppressed (DCS) decay, or indirectly by $D^0 \to \bar{D}^0$ mixing followed by $\bar{D}^0 \to K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decay.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.12 ± 0.07 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.12 ± 0.07 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.01 ± 0.11</td><td>1 EVANS</td><td>16</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &rarr; D<sup>0</sup> D<sup>0</sup> at &psi;(3770)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.14 ± 0.08 ± 0.08</td><td>763</td><td>2 AUBERT, B</td><td>06N</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &approx; &tau;(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>2.29 ± 0.15<sup>+0.13</sup><sub>-0.09</sub></td><td>1.9k</td><td>TIAN</td><td>05</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &approx; &tau;(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>4.3<sup>+1.1</sup><sub>-1.0</sub> ± 0.7</td><td>38</td><td>BRANDENB...</td><td>01</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &approx; &tau;(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. A combined fit with a recent LHCb $D^0\bar{D}^0$ mixing results in AAIJ 16F is also reported to be (2.00 ± 0.11) × 10⁻³.

2. This AUBERT, B 06N result assumes no mixing.

$$\Gamma(K^{+} \pi^{-} \text{ via } \bar{D}^{0})/\Gamma(K^{-} \pi^{+} \pi^{-}) \quad \Gamma_{297}/\Gamma_{59}$$

$$\Gamma_{297}/\Gamma_{59}$$

This is $R_M$ in the note on "$D^0-\bar{D}^0$ Mixing" near the start of the $D^0$ Listings. The experiments here (1) use the charge of the pion in $D^*(2010) \pm \to (D^0 \text{ or } \bar{D}^0)$ $\pi^\pm$ decay to tell whether a $D^0$ or a $\bar{D}^0$ was born; and (2) use the decay-time distribution to disentangle doubly Cabibbo-suppressed decay and mixing. For the limits on $|m_1 - m_2|$ and $(\Gamma_1 - \Gamma_2)/\Gamma$ that come from the best mixing limit, see near the beginning of these $D^0$ Listings.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.25<sup>+0.25</sup><sub>-0.31</sub> ± 0.12</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>09AN</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 10.58 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$$<0.54 \quad 95 \quad 1 \text{ AUBERT, B} \quad 06N \quad \text{BABR } e^+ e^- \approx \tau(4S)$$

1. This AUBERT, B 06N limit assumes no CP violation. The measured value corresponding to the limit is $(2.3^{+1.8}_{-1.4} \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-4}$. If CP violation is allowed, this becomes $(1.0^{+2.2}_{-0.7} \pm 0.3) \times 10^{-4}$.

$$\Gamma(K^{+} \pi^{-} 2\pi^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$$

$$\Gamma_{298}/\Gamma$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;3.6 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>22x</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Uses the semileptonic tag method of ABLIKIM 21BB.

$$\Gamma(K^{+} \pi^{+} 2\pi^{-} \text{ via DCS})/\Gamma(K^{-} 2\pi^{+} \pi^{-}) \quad \Gamma_{299}/\Gamma_{78}$$

$$\Gamma_{299}/\Gamma_{78}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.03 ± 0.07 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.025 ± 0.077</td><td>42k,11M</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>16F</td><td>LHCB pp at 7, 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.03 ± 0.13</td><td></td><td>2 EVANS</td><td>16</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &rarr; D<sup>0</sup> D<sup>0</sup> at &psi;(3770)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. This result uses external input on the mixing parameters x, y. Without this input, the result is $(3.215 \pm 0.136) \times 10^{-3}$.

2. A combined fit with a recent LHCb $D^0\bar{D}^0$ mixing results in AAIJ 16F is also reported to be $(3.01 \pm 0.07) \times 10^{-3}$.

$$\Gamma(K^{+} \pi^{-} 2\pi^{-})/\Gamma(K^{-} 2\pi^{+} \pi^{-}) \quad \Gamma_{300}/\Gamma_{78}$$

$$\Gamma_{300}/\Gamma_{78}$$

The experiments here use the charge of the pion in $D^*(2010) \pm \to (D^0 \text{ or } \bar{D}^0)$ $\pi^\pm$ decay to tell whether a $D^0$ or a $\bar{D}^0$ was born. The $D^0 \to K^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ decay can occur directly by doubly Cabibbo-suppressed (DCS) decay, or indirectly by $D^0 \to \bar{D}^0$ mixing followed by $\bar{D}^0 \to K^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ decay. Some of the experiments can use the decay-time information to disentangle the two mechanisms. Here, we list the experimental branching ratio, which if there is no mixing is the DCS ratio; in the next data block we give the limits on the mixing ratio.

Some early limits have been omitted from this Listing; see our 1998 edition (EPJ C3 1).

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.22 ± 0.05 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.22 ± 0.05</td><td>42k,11M</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>16F</td><td>LHCB pp at 7, 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3.24 ± 0.08 ± 0.07</td><td>3.3k</td><td>2 WHITE</td><td>13</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ τ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>4.4<sup>+1.3</sup><sub>-1.2</sub> ± 0.4</td><td>54</td><td>2 DYTMAN</td><td>01</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ τ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>2.5<sup>+3.6</sup><sub>-3.4</sub> ± 0.3</td><td></td><td>3 AITALA</td><td>98</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucl., 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>3.20 ± 0.18<sup>+0.18</sup><sub>-0.13</sub></td><td>1.7k</td><td>2 TIAN</td><td>05</td><td>BELL See WHITE 13</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;18</td><td>90</td><td>2 AMMAR</td><td>91</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.5 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;18</td><td>90</td><td>4 ANJOS</td><td>88c</td><td>E691 Photoproduction</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. AAIJ 16F result comes from time-dependent analysis that uses external input on the mixing parameters x, y. Without this input, the result is $(3.29 \pm 0.08) \times 10^{-3}$.

2. AMMAR 91 cannot and DYTMAN 01, TIAN 05 do not distinguish between doublyCabibbo-suppressed decay and $D^0\bar{D}^0$ mixing.

3. This AITALA 98 result assumes no $D^0\bar{D}^0$ mixing ($R_M$ in the note on "$D^0\bar{D}^0$ Mixing"). It becomes $-0.0020^+0.0117 \sim -0.0106 \pm 0.0035$ when mixing is allowed and decay-time information is used to distinguish doubly Cabibbo-suppressed decays from mixing.

4. ANJOS 88c uses decay-time information to distinguish doubly Cabibbo-suppressed (DCS) decays from $D^0\bar{D}^0$ mixing. However, the result assumes no interference between the DCS and mixing amplitudes ($y' = 0$ in the note on "$D^0\bar{D}^0$ Mixing" near the start of the $D^0$ Listings). When interference is allowed, the limit degrades to 0.033.

$$\Gamma(K^{+} \pi^{-} 2\pi^{-} \text{ via } \bar{D}^{0})/\Gamma(K^{-} 2\pi^{+} \pi^{-}) \quad \Gamma_{301}/\Gamma_{78}$$

$$\Gamma_{301}/\Gamma_{78}$$

This is a $D^0\bar{D}^0$ mixing limit. The experiments here (1) use the charge of the pion in $D^*(2010) \pm \to (D^0 \text{ or } \bar{D}^0)$ $\pi^\pm$ decay to tell whether a $D^0$ or a $\bar{D}^0$ was born; and (2) use the decay-time distribution to disentangle doubly Cabibbo-suppressed decay and mixing. For the limits on $|m_{D^0 1} - m_{D^0 2}|$ and $(\Gamma_{D^0 1} - \Gamma_{D^0 2})/\Gamma_{D^0}$ that come from the best mixing limit, see near the beginning of these $D^0$ Listings.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>9.6 ± 3.6</td><td></td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>16F</td><td>LHCB pp at 7, 8 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$$<500 \quad 90 \quad 2 \text{ ANJOS} \quad 88c \quad E691 \quad \text{Photoproduction}$$

1. AAIJ 16F result comes from an unconstrained decay-time dependent fit to the wrong-sign to right-sign decay rates ratio as $(x^2 + y^2)/2$.

2. ANJOS 88c uses decay-time information to distinguish doubly Cabibbo-suppressed (DCS) decays from $D^0\bar{D}^0$ mixing. However, the result assumes no interference between the DCS and mixing amplitudes ($y' = 0$ in the note on "$D^0\bar{D}^0$ Mixing" near the start of the $D^0$ Listings). When interference is allowed, the limit degrades to 0.007.
$$ \Gamma(K^{+} \pi^{-} \text{ or } K^{+} \pi^{+} 2\pi^{-} \text{ via } \bar{D}^{0}) / \Gamma(K^{-} \pi^{+} \text{ or } K^{-} 2\pi^{+} \pi^{-}) \quad \Gamma_{302} / \Gamma_{0} $$

This is a $D^0-\bar{D}^0$ mixing limit. For the limits on $|m_{D^0_1} - m_{D^0_2}|$ and $(\Gamma_{D^0_1} - \Gamma_{D^0_2})/\Gamma_{D^0}$ that come from the best mixing limit, see near the beginning of these $D^0$ Listings.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.0085</td><td>90</td><td>1 AITALA</td><td>98</td><td>E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.0037</td><td>90</td><td>2 ANJOS</td><td>88c</td><td>E691</td><td>Photoproduction</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AITALA 98 uses decay-time information to distinguish doubly Cabibbo-suppressed decays from $D^0-\bar{D}^0$ mixing. The fit allows interference between the two amplitudes, and also allows CP violation in this term. The central value obtained is $0.0039^{+0.0036}_{-0.0032} \pm 0.0016$. When interference is disallowed, the result becomes $0.0021 \pm 0.0009 \pm 0.0002$.

² This combines results of ANJOS 88c on $K^{+} \pi^{-}$ and $K^{+} \pi^{-} \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ (via $\bar{D}^0$) reported in the data block above (see footnotes there). It assumes no interference.

$$ \Gamma(\mu^{-} \text{ anything via } \bar{D}^{0}) / \Gamma(\mu^{+} \text{ anything}) \quad \Gamma_{303} / \Gamma_{6} $$

This is a $D^0-\bar{D}^0$ mixing limit. See the somewhat better limits above.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.0056</td><td>90</td><td>LOUIS</td><td>86</td><td>SPEC π<sup>-</sup> W 225 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.012</td><td>90</td><td>BENVENUTI</td><td>85</td><td>CNTR μ<sup>+</sup> C, 200 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.044</td><td>90</td><td>BODEK</td><td>82</td><td>SPEC π<sup>-</sup>, pFe → D<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

Rare or forbidden modes

$$ \Gamma(\gamma\gamma) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{304} / \Gamma $$

$D^0 \to \gamma\gamma$ is a flavor-changing neutral-current decay, forbidden in the Standard Model at the tree level.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt; 8.5 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>NISAR</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S), T(5S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt; 3.8 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>15f</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 2.2 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>12l</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(5.08 GeV)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 29 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>COAN</td><td>03</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(e^{+} e^{-}) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{305} / \Gamma $$

A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by first-order weak interaction combined with electromagnetic interaction.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;7.9 × 10<sup>-8</sup></td><td>90</td><td>PETRIC</td><td>10</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.7 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>12q</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.2 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AUBERT, B</td><td>04y</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;8.19 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>PRIPSTEIN</td><td>00</td><td>E789 p nucleus, 800 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6.2 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>99g</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> N 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.3 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>FREYBERGER</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.3 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ADLER</td><td>88</td><td>MRK3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 3.77 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.7 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>88g</td><td>ARG e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.2 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>HAAS</td><td>88</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\mu^{+} \mu^{-}) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{306} / \Gamma $$

A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by first-order weak interaction combined with electromagnetic interaction.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;3.1 × 10<sup>-9</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23r</td><td>LHCB pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6.2 × 10<sup>-9</sup></td><td>90</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>13AI</td><td>LHCB pp at 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.6–8.1 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>3 LEES</td><td>12q</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.1 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>10x</td><td>CDF p<sub>π</sub>, √s = 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.4 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>PETRIC</td><td>10</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.0 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ABT</td><td>04</td><td>HERB pA, 920 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.3 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AUBERT, B</td><td>04y</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.5 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ACOSTA</td><td>03f</td><td>CDF See AALTONEN 10x</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.56 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>PRIPSTEIN</td><td>00</td><td>E789 p nucleus, 800 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;5.2 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>99g</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> N 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;4.1 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ADAMOVICH</td><td>97</td><td>BEAT π<sup>-</sup> Cu, W 350 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;4.2 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ALEXOPOU...</td><td>96</td><td>E771 p Si, 800 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3.4 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>FREYBERGER</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;7.6 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ADAMOVICH</td><td>95</td><td>BEAT See ADAMOVICH 97</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;4.4 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>KODAMA</td><td>95</td><td>E653 π<sup>-</sup> emulsion 600 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3.1 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>4 MISHRA</td><td>94</td><td>E789 –4.1 ± 4.8 events</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;7.0 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>88g</td><td>ARG e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.1 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LOUIS</td><td>86</td><td>SPEC π<sup>-</sup> W 225 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3.4 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>85</td><td>EMC Deep inelast. μ<sup>-</sup> N</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AAIJ 23r reports a 95% CL limit of < 3.5 × 10⁻⁹.

² Superseded by AAIJ 23R.

³ LEES 12Q gives a 2-sided range.

⁴ Here MISHRA 94 uses “the statistical approach advocated by the PDG.” For an alternate approach, giving a limit of 9 × 10⁻⁶ at 90% confidence level, see the paper.

$$ \Gamma(\pi^{0} e^{+} e^{-}) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{307} / \Gamma $$

A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;4 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>18P</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;4.5 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>FREYBERGER</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\pi^{0} \mu^{+} \mu^{-}) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{308} / \Gamma $$

A test for the $\Delta C=1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.8 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>KODAMA</td><td>95</td><td>E653 π<sup>-</sup> emulsion 600 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;5.4 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>FREYBERGER</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\pi^{0} \nu\bar{D}) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{309} / \Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;2.1 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>22v</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ ABLIKIM 22v easurement comes from a sample of 10.6 × 10⁶ $D^0\bar{D}^0$ pairs.

$$ \Gamma(\eta e^{+} e^{-}) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{310} / \Gamma $$

A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;3 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>18P</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.1 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>FREYBERGER</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\eta \mu^{+} \mu^{-}) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{311} / \Gamma $$

A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;5.3 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>FREYBERGER</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\pi^{+} \pi^{-} e^{+} e^{-}) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{312} / \Gamma $$

A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;7 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>18P</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;3.73 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01c</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\rho^{0} e^{+} e^{-}) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{313} / \Gamma $$

A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.0 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.24 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01c</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;4.5 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>HAAS</td><td>88</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The limit changes to < 1.8 × 10⁻⁴ using a photon pole amplitude model.

$$ \Gamma(\pi^{+} \pi^{-} \mu^{+} \mu^{-}) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{314} / \Gamma $$

A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-7</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>9.64±0.48±1.10</td><td>561</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>17BG LHCB</td><td>pp at 8 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ The second AAIJ 17BG error is the systematic 0.51×10⁻⁷ and normalization 0.97×10⁻⁷ mode errors added in quadrature.

$$ \Gamma(\pi^{+} \pi^{-} \mu^{+} \mu^{-} (\text{non-res})) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{315} / \Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;5.5 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>14B</td><td>LHCB pp at 7 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;3.0 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01c</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AAIJ 14B measures this branching-fraction limit relative to the $\pi^{+} \pi^{-} \phi, \phi \to \mu^{+} \mu^{-}$ fraction. The above limit excludes the resonant $\phi, \omega$, and $\rho$ regions, and then fills those gaps with a phase-space model.

$$ \Gamma(\rho^{0} \mu^{+} \mu^{-}) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{316} / \Gamma $$

A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;2.2 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01c</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;4.9 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.3 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>KODAMA</td><td>95</td><td>E653 π<sup>-</sup> emulsion 600 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;8.1 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>HAAS</td><td>88</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The limit changes to < 4.5 × 10⁻⁴ using a photon pole amplitude model.
$$ \Gamma(\omega e^+ e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{317}/\Gamma $$
A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;6 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>18P BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;1.8 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></table>

¹ This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The limit changes to < 2.7 × 10⁻⁴ using a photon pole amplitude model.

$$ \Gamma(\omega\mu^+\mu^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{318}/\Gamma $$
A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;8.3 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The limit changes to < 6.5 × 10⁻⁴ using a photon pole amplitude model.

$$ \Gamma(K^- K^+ e^+ e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{319}/\Gamma $$
A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.1 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>18P BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;3.15 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></table>

$$ \Gamma(K^- \pi^+ e^+ e^-, 675 < m_{ee} < 875 \text{ MeV})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{327}/\Gamma $$
$\text{VALUE (units } 10^{-6})$ | EVTS | DOCUMENT ID | TECN | COMMENT

¹ Observation with 9.7 σ significance. The last uncertainty is due to the uncertainty on the branching fraction of the normalization mode, $D^0 \to K^-\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$. The second uncertainty is other systematic and is dominated by the model parameterization.

² LEES 19A also sets an upper limit for non-resonant regions, where long-distance effects are expected to be small: < 3.1 × 10⁻⁶ at 90% CL.

$$ \Gamma(K^- \pi^+ e^+ e^-, 1.005 < m_{ee} < 1.035 \text{ GeV})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{328}/\Gamma $$
$\text{VALUE}$ | CL% | DOCUMENT ID | TECN | COMMENT

<table><tr><td>&lt;5 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 LEES</td><td>19A BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> near T(4S)</td></tr></table>

¹ LEES 19A also sets an upper limit for non-resonant regions, where long-distance effects are expected to be small: < 3.1 × 10⁻⁶ at 90% CL.

$$ \Gamma(\phi e^+ e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{320}/\Gamma $$
A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;5.2 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;5.9 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></table>

¹ This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The limit changes to < 7.6 × 10⁻⁵ using a photon pole amplitude model.

$$ \Gamma(K^- K^+ \mu^+ \mu^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{321}/\Gamma $$
A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-7</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.54±0.27±0.18</td><td>34</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>17BG LHCB</td><td>pp at 8 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ The second AAIJ 17BG error is the systematic 0.09×10⁻⁷ and normalization 0.16×10⁻⁷ mode errors added in quadrature.

$$ \Gamma(K^- K^+ \mu^+ \mu^- (\text{non-res}))/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{322}/\Gamma $$
$\text{VALUE}$ | CL% | DOCUMENT ID | TECN | COMMENT

<table><tr><td>&lt;3.3 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></table>

$$ \Gamma(\phi\mu^+\mu^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{323}/\Gamma $$
A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;3.1 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;4.1 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></table>

¹ This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The limit changes to < 2.4 × 10⁻⁴ using a photon pole amplitude model.

$$ \Gamma(K^0 e^+ e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{324}/\Gamma $$
Not a useful test for $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current because both quarks must change flavor.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;2.4 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>18P BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;1.1 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.7 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ADLER</td><td>89C MRK3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> 3.77 GeV</td></tr></table>

¹ ABLIKIM 18P report a 90% C.L. limit on $D^0 \to K^0_S e^+ e^-$ of 1.2 × 10⁻⁵ which is here interpreted in terms of $D^0 \to K^0 e^+ e^-$.

$$ \Gamma(K^0 \mu^+ \mu^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{325}/\Gamma $$
A useful test for $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current because both quarks must change flavor.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;2.6 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>KODAMA</td><td>95 E653</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> emulsion 600 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;6.7 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></table>

$$ \Gamma(K^- \pi^+ e^+ e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{326}/\Gamma $$
A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;4.1 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>18P BES3</td><td>see LEES 19A</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3.85 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K^*(892)^0 e^+ e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{329}/\Gamma $$
A useful test for $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current because both quarks must change flavor.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;4.7 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;1.4 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></table>

¹ This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The limit changes to < 2.0 × 10⁻⁴ using a photon pole amplitude model.

$$ \Gamma(K^- \pi^+ \mu^+ \mu^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{330}/\Gamma $$
A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;3.59 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K^- \pi^+ \mu^+ \mu^-, 675 < m_{\mu\mu} < 875 \text{ MeV})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{331}/\Gamma $$
$\text{VALUE (units } 10^{-6})$ | EVTS | DOCUMENT ID | TECN | COMMENT

<table><tr><td>4.17±0.12±0.40</td><td>2.4k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>16l LHCB</td><td>pp at 8 TeV</td></tr></table>

¹ AAIJ 16l uses $B(D^0 \to K^-\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-) = (8.287 \pm 0.043 \pm 0.200) \times 10^{-2}$ value for the normalization mode.

$$ \Gamma(K^*(892)^0 \mu^+ \mu^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{332}/\Gamma $$
A useful test for $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current because both quarks must change flavor.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;2.4 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;1.18 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></table>

¹ This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The limit changes to < 1.0 × 10⁻³ using a photon pole amplitude model.

$$ \Gamma(\pi^+ \pi^- \mu^0 \mu^+ \mu^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{333}/\Gamma $$
A test for the $\Delta C = 1$ weak neutral current. Allowed by higher-order electroweak interactions.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;8.1 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>KODAMA</td><td>95 E653</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> emulsion 600 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\mu^\pm e^\mp)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{334}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton family number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt; 1.3 × 10<sup>-8</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>16H LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt; 3.3 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>12Q BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 2.6 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>PETRIC</td><td>10 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 8.1 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AUBERT, B</td><td>04Y BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 1.72 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>PRIPSTEIN</td><td>00 E789</td><td>p nucleus, 800 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 8.1 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>99G E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> N 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 1.9 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 1.0 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>88G ARG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 2.7 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>HAAS</td><td>88 CLEO</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 1.2 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>BECKER</td><td>87C MRK3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> 3.77 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 9 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>PALKA</td><td>87 SILI</td><td>200 GeV πp</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;21 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>2 RILES</td><td>87 MRK2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> 29 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ This is the corrected result given in the erratum to FREYBERGER 96.

² RILES 87 assumes $B(D \to K\pi) = 3.0\%$ and has production model dependency.

$$ \Gamma(\pi^0 e^\pm \mu^\mp)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{335}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton family number conservation. The value is for the sum of the two charge states.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;8.0 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20A BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;8.6 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></table>
# Meson Particle Listings

## D⁰

$$ \Gamma(\eta e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{336}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton family number conservation. The value is for the sum of the two charge states.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;22.5 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 LEES</td><td>20A</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 1.0 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 LEES 20A quotes separate limits $B(D^0 \to \eta e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp}, \eta \to \gamma\gamma) < 24.0 \times 10^{-7}$ and $B(D^0 \to \eta e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp}, \eta \to \pi^{+} \pi^{-} \pi^{0}) < 43.0 \times 10^{-7}$.

$$ \Gamma(\pi^{+} \pi^{-} e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{337}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton family-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.71 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.5 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\rho^{0} e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{338}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton family number conservation. The value is for the sum of the two charge states.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;5.0 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20A</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6.6 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;4.9 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The limit changes to < 5.0 × 10⁻⁵ using a photon pole amplitude model.

$$ \Gamma(\omega^{\pm} \mu^{\mp})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{339}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton family number conservation. The value is for the sum of the two charge states.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;17.1 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20A</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 1.2 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The same limit is obtained using a photon pole amplitude model.

$$ \Gamma(K^{-} K^{+} e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{340}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton family-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.00 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.8 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\phi^{\pm} \mu^{\mp})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{341}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton family number conservation. The value is for the sum of the two charge states.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;5.1 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20A</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;4.7 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3.4 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The limit changes to < 3.3 × 10⁻⁵ using a photon pole amplitude model.

$$ \Gamma(K^{0} e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{342}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton family number conservation. The value is for the sum of the two charge states.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;17.4 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20A</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 1.0 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 LEES 20A quotes $B(D^0 \to K_S^0 e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp}) < 8.7 \times 10^{-7}$ at 90% CL.

$$ \Gamma(K^{-} \pi^{+} e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{343}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton family-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.90 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;5.53 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K^{*}(892)^{0} e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{344}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton family number conservation. The value is for the sum of the two charge states.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;12.5 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20A</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 8.3 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 1.0 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 FREYBERGER 96</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 This FREYBERGER 96 limit is obtained using a phase-space model. The same limit is obtained using a photon pole amplitude model.

$$ \Gamma(2\pi^{-} 2e^{+})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{345}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;9.1 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.12 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 Value includes decay to the charge conjugate state.

$$ \Gamma(2\pi^{-} 2\mu^{+})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{346}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.52 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.9 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 Value includes decay to the charge conjugate state.

$$ \Gamma(\kappa^{-} \pi^{-} 2e^{+})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{347}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;5.0 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.8 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>19AL</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3773 MeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.06 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 Value includes decay to the charge conjugate state.

$$ \Gamma(\kappa^{-} \pi^{-} 2\mu^{+})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{348}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;5.3 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3.9 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 Value includes decay to the charge conjugate state.

$$ \Gamma(2\kappa^{-} 2e^{+})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{349}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;3.4 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.52 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 Value includes decay to the charge conjugate state.

$$ \Gamma(2\kappa^{-} 2\mu^{+})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{350}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.0 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;9.4 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 Value includes decay to the charge conjugate state.

$$ \Gamma(\pi^{-} \pi^{-} e^{+} \mu^{+})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{351}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;3.06 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;7.9 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 Value includes decay to the charge conjugate state.

$$ \Gamma(\kappa^{-} \pi^{-} e^{+} \mu^{+})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{352}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;2.10 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.18 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 Value includes decay to the charge conjugate state.

$$ \Gamma(2\kappa^{-} \mu^{+} \mu^{+})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{353}/\Gamma $$
A test of lepton-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;5.8 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LEES</td><td>20B</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;5.7 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 AITALA</td><td>01C</td><td>E791 π<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 500 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 Value includes decay to the charge conjugate state.

$$ \Gamma(\rho e^{-})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{354}/\Gamma $$
A test of baryon- and lepton-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;2.2 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22T</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.0 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 RUBIN</td><td>09</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at ψ(3770)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 This RUBIN 09 limit is for either $D^0 \to p e^{-}$ or $D^0 \to p e^{-}$ decay.
Γ( p̄e + ) / Γtotal Γ355 / Γ

A test of baryon- and lepton-number conservation.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.2 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>90</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22t</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;1.1 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 RUBIN</td><td>09</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at ψ(3770)</td></tr></table>

¹ This RUBIN 09 limit is for either D⁰ → p̄e⁺ or D⁰ → p̄e⁺ decay.

D⁰ CP-EVEN FRACTIONS

The CP-even fraction F+, defined for self-conjugate final states, like the coherence factor is useful for measuring the unitary triangle angle γ in B → DK decays. A purely CP-even state has F+ = 1, a CP-odd one has F+ = 0. For details, see NAYAK 15.

CP-even fraction in D⁰ → K⁰S π⁺π⁻π⁰ decays

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>23.6 ± 0.9</strong> OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23.5 ± 1.0 ± 0.2</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>23AW</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at ψ(3770), 2.93 fb<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>23.8 ± 1.2 ± 1.2</td><td>1 RESMI</td><td>18</td><td>Uses CLEO-c data</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

CP-even fraction in D⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰ decays

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>97.3 ± 1.7</strong></td><td>MALDE</td><td>15</td><td>Uses CLEO data</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>96.8 ± 1.7 ± 0.6</td><td>NAYAK</td><td>15</td><td>see MALDE 15</td></tr></table>

CP-even fraction in D⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁺π⁻ decays

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

74.6 ± 1.6 OUR AVERAGE Error includes scale factor of 1.2.

<table><tr><td>73.5 ± 1.5 ± 0.5</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>22BF</td><td>BES 2.93 fb<sup>-1</sup> in e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>76.9 ± 2.1 ± 1.0</td><td>2 HARNEW</td><td>18</td><td>Uses CLEO-c data</td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>72.9 ± 0.9 ± 1.8</td><td>2,3 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>from amplitude model</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>73.7 ± 2.8</td><td>MALDE</td><td>15</td><td>CLEO amplitude independent</td></tr></table>

¹ A combination of three consistent measurements with CP-eigenstate, quasi-CP-eigenstate and CP-mixed tags.

² Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

³ MALDE 15 and DARGENT 17 use different CLEO data sets, so in principle their results could be averaged. However, given the importance that model-independence has in the use of this value, we exclude the amplitude model-derived result from the average.

CP-even fraction in D⁰ → π⁺π⁻2π⁰ decays

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.682 ± 0.077</strong></td><td>236</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22BG</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

CP-even fraction in D⁰ → 2π⁺2π⁻π⁰ decays

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.438 ± 0.104</strong></td><td>73</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22BG</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

CP-even fraction in D⁰ → π⁺π⁻3π⁰ decays

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.520 ± 0.338</strong></td><td>12<sup>+4.9</sup><sub>-3.9</sub></td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22BG</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

CP-even fraction in D⁰ → 2π⁺2π⁻2π⁰ decays

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.790 ± 0.269</strong></td><td>19</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22BG</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

CP-even fraction in D⁰ → K⁺K⁻π⁰ decays

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>73.2 ± 5.5</strong></td><td>MALDE</td><td>15</td><td>Uses CLEO data</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>73.1 ± 5.8 ± 2.1</td><td>NAYAK</td><td>15</td><td>see MALDE 15</td></tr></table>

CP-even fraction in D⁰ → K⁺K⁻π⁺π⁻ decays

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

74.1 ± 3.0 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>73.0 ± 3.7 ± 2.1</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>23AJ</td><td>BES3 2.93 fb<sup>-1</sup>, e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at ψ(3770)</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>75.3 ± 1.8 ± 3.9</td><td>2 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>from amplitude model</td></tr></table>

¹ A combined measurement of the CP-even fraction using both CP tags and K⁰S, L π⁺π⁻ tags. ABLIKIM 23AJ reports CP-even fractions 0.704 ± 0.042 ± 0.028 and 0.798 ± 0.077 ± 0.019 for the former and latter tags, respectively.

² Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

D⁰ CP-VIOLATING DECAY-RATE ASYMMETRIES

This is the difference between D⁰ and D⁰ partial widths for the decay to state f, divided by the sum of the widths:

$$A_{CP}(f) = [\Gamma(D^0 \to f) - \Gamma(D^0 \to \bar{f})] / [\Gamma(D^0 \to f) + \Gamma(D^0 \to \bar{f})].$$

A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-4</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>4 ± 5</strong> OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6.8 ± 5.4 ± 1.6</td><td>37M</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23AC</td><td>LHCB pp at 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>4 ± 12 ± 10</td><td>4.56M</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>17M</td><td>LHCB pp 7, 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>- 24 ± 22 ± 9</td><td>476k</td><td>2 AALTONEN</td><td>12B</td><td>CDF p̄p, √s=1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0 ± 34 ± 13</td><td>129k</td><td>3 AUBERT</td><td>08M</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>- 43 ± 30 ± 11</td><td>120k</td><td>4 STARIC</td><td>08</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>200 ± 120 ± 60</td><td></td><td>5 ACOSTA</td><td>05C</td><td>CDF p̄p, √s=1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0 ± 220 ± 80</td><td>3023</td><td>5 CSORNA</td><td>02</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>- 10 ± 220 ± 150</td><td>3330</td><td>5 LINK</td><td>00B</td><td>FOCS</td></tr><tr><td>- 100 ± 490 ± 120</td><td>609</td><td>5 AITALA</td><td>98C</td><td>E791 -0.093 &lt;A<sub>CP</sub> &lt; +0.073 (90% CL)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>- 6 ± 15 ± 10</td><td>1.8M</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>14AK</td><td>LHCB See AAIJ 17M</td></tr></table>

¹ AAIJ 23AC result comes from 5.7 fb⁻¹ of data. Also reports the values of the direct CP asymmetries, a<sub>ππ</sub><sup>CP</sup> = (23.2 ± 6.1) × 10⁻⁴ and a<sub>KK</sub><sup>CP</sup> = (7.7 ± 5.7) × 10⁻⁴, with a correlation of 88%, obtained using previous determinations of A<sub>CP</sub>(KK), ΔA<sub>CP</sub>, ΔY, the reconstructed mean decay times of D⁰ → ππ and D⁰ → KK in the aforementioned measurements, and the world average of the D⁰ lifetime (PDG 22).

² See also "D⁰ CP-violating asymmetry differences" at the end of the CP-violating asymmetries.

³ AUBERT 08M uses corrected numbers of events directly, not ratios with K∓π⁺ events.

⁴ STARIC 08 uses D⁰ → K⁻π⁺ and D⁰ → K⁺π⁻ decays to correct for detector-induced asymmetries.

⁵ AITALA 98c, LINK 00B, CSORNA 02, and ACOSTA 05C measure N(D⁰ → K⁺K⁻)/N(D⁰ → K⁻π⁺), the ratio of numbers of events observed, and similarly for the D⁰.

A<sub>CP</sub>(K⁰S K⁰S) in D⁰, D⁰ → K⁰S K⁰S

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>- 1.9 ± 1.1</strong> OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.1.</td></tr><tr><td>- 3.1 ± 1.2 ± 0.5</td><td>8.1k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>21X</td><td>LHCB pp at 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>- 0.02 ± 1.53 ± 0.17</td><td>5.4k</td><td>2 DASH</td><td>17</td><td>BELL At/near T(4S), T(5S)</td></tr><tr><td>- 2.9 ± 5.2 ± 2.2</td><td>630</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>15AT</td><td>LHCB pp at 7, 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>- 23 ± 19</td><td>65</td><td>BONVICINI</td><td>01</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>2.3 ± 2.8 ± 0.9</td><td>1.7k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>18AV</td><td>LHCB see AAIJ 21X</td></tr></table>

¹ AAIJ 21X reports a value of (-3.1 ± 1.2 ± 0.4 ± 0.2) × 10⁻² where the third uncertainty is from A<sub>CP</sub>(K⁺K⁻) = 0.04 ± 0.12 ± 0.10%, as measured by LHCb. We have added the systematic uncertainties in quadrature. Supersedes AAIJ 18AV.

² The systematic uncertainty is dominated by the uncertainty on A<sub>CP</sub> in the control channel D⁰ → K⁰S π⁰.

A<sub>CP</sub>(π⁺π⁻) in D⁰, D⁰ → π⁺π⁻

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.13 ± 0.14</strong> OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.07 ± 0.14 ± 0.11</td><td></td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>17M</td><td>LHCB pp 7, 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.22 ± 0.24 ± 0.11</td><td>215k</td><td>2 AALTONEN</td><td>12B</td><td>CDF p̄p, √s=1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>- 0.24 ± 0.52 ± 0.22</td><td>63.7k</td><td>3 AUBERT</td><td>08M</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.43 ± 0.52 ± 0.12</td><td>51k</td><td>4 STARIC</td><td>08</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>1.0 ± 1.3 ± 0.6</td><td></td><td>5 ACOSTA</td><td>05C</td><td>CDF p̄p, √s=1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.9 ± 3.2 ± 0.8</td><td>1136</td><td>5 CSORNA</td><td>02</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>4.8 ± 3.9 ± 2.5</td><td>1177</td><td>5 LINK</td><td>00B</td><td>FOCS</td></tr><tr><td>- 4.9 ± 7.8 ± 3.0</td><td>343</td><td>5 AITALA</td><td>98C</td><td>E791 -0.186 &lt;A<sub>CP</sub> &lt; +0.088 (90% CL)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>- 0.20 ± 0.19 ± 0.10</td><td>774k</td><td>2,6 AAIJ</td><td>14AK</td><td>LHCB See AAIJ 17M</td></tr></table>

¹ AAIJ 17M value combines ΔA<sub>CP</sub>(ππ, KK) from AAIJ 16D, A<sub>CP</sub>(KK) from AAIJ 17M, and A<sub>CP</sub>(ππ) from AAIJ 14AK.

² See also "D⁰ CP-violating asymmetry differences" at the end of the CP-violating asymmetries.

³ AUBERT 08M uses corrected numbers of events directly, not ratios with K∓π⁺ events.

⁴ STARIC 08 uses D⁰ → K⁻π⁺ and D⁰ → K⁺π⁻ decays to correct for detector-induced asymmetries.

⁵ AITALA 98c, LINK 00B, CSORNA 02, and ACOSTA 05C measure N(D⁰ → π⁺π⁻)/N(D⁰ → K⁻π⁺), the ratio of numbers of events observed, and similarly for the D⁰.

⁶ AAIJ 14AK uses ΔA<sub>CP</sub>(ππ, KK) and A<sub>CP</sub>(KK) reported in the same paper.

A<sub>CP</sub>(π⁰π⁰) in D⁰, D⁰ → π⁰π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.0 ± 0.6</strong> OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- 0.03 ± 0.64 ± 0.10</td><td>34k</td><td>NISAR</td><td>14</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at/near T's</td></tr><tr><td>0.1 ± 4.8</td><td>810</td><td>BONVICINI</td><td>01</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Meson Particle Listings

## D⁰

### A<sub>CP</sub>(ργ) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → ργ

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.6±15.2±0.6</td><td>NANUT</td><td>17</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS), n=2,3,4,5</td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(φγ) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → φγ

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-9.4±6.6±0.1</td><td>NANUT</td><td>17</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS), n=2,3,4,5</td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(K*(892)⁰γ) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → K*(892)⁰γ

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-0.3±2.0±0.0</td><td>NANUT</td><td>17</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS), n=2,3,4,5</td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.4 ±0.4 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>+0.6 ±0.9 ±0.4</td><td>12.8k</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22BG BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.43 ±1.30</td><td>123k</td><td>ARINSTEIN</td><td>08 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>0.31 ±0.41±0.17</td><td>80k</td><td>1 AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>1 +9/7 ±5</td><td></td><td>CRONIN-HEN..05</td><td>CLEO</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AUBERT 08AO report their result using a different sign convention.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(ηπ⁺π⁻) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → ηπ⁺π⁻

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.9±1.2±0.5</td><td>13k</td><td>LI</td><td>21G BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr><tr><td>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9.6±5.4±1.8</td><td>450</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20G BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(ρ(770)⁺π⁻ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰ → ρ⁺π⁻, D̄⁰ → ρ⁻π⁺

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+1.2±0.8±0.3</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(ρ(770)⁰π⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → ρ⁰π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-3.1±2.7±1.2</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(ρ(770)⁻π⁺ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰ → ρ⁻π⁺, D̄⁰ → ρ⁺π⁻

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-1.0±1.6±0.7</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(ρ(1450)⁺π⁻ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰ → ρ(1450)⁺π⁻, D̄⁰ → c.c.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0±50±50</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(ρ(1450)⁰π⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → ρ(1450)⁰π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-17±33±17</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(ρ(1450)⁻π⁺ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰ → ρ(1450)⁻π⁺, D̄⁰ → c.c.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+6±8±3</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(ρ(1700)⁺π⁻ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰ → ρ(1700)⁺π⁻, D̄⁰ → c.c.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-5±13±5</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(ρ(1700)⁰π⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → ρ(1700)⁰π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+13±8±3</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(ρ(1700)⁻π⁺ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰ → ρ(1700)⁻π⁺, D̄⁰ → c.c.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+8±10±5</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(f<sub>0</sub>(980)π⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → f<sub>0</sub>(980)π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0±25±25</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(f<sub>0</sub>(1370)π⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → f<sub>0</sub>(1370)π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+25±13±13</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(f<sub>0</sub>(1500)π⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → f<sub>0</sub>(1500)π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0±13±13</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(f<sub>0</sub>(1710)π⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → f<sub>0</sub>(1710)π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0±17±17</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(f<sub>2</sub>(1270)π⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → f<sub>2</sub>(1270)π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-4±4±4</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(σ(400)π⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → σ(400)π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+6±6±6</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(nonresonant π⁺π⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → nonresonant π⁺π⁻π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-13±19±13</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(π⁺π⁻2π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → π⁺π⁻2π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-2.5±1.9±0.7</td><td>3.8k</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22BG BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at 3.773 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(2π⁺2π⁻) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → 2π⁺2π⁻

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.54±1.04±0.51</td><td>7.3k</td><td>1.2 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at ψ(3770)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Decay rate asymmetry integrated in decay time and across full $4\pi$ phase space.

² Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(a<sub>1</sub>(1260)⁺π⁻ → 2π⁺2π⁻) in D⁰ → a<sub>1</sub>(1260)⁺π⁻, D̄⁰ → c.c.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4.7±2.6±4.9</td><td>7.3k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, 4π evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(a<sub>1</sub>(1260)⁻π⁺ → 2π⁺2π⁻) in D⁰ → a<sub>1</sub>(1260)⁻π⁺, D̄⁰ → c.c.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>13.7±13.8±11.4</td><td>7.3k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, 4π evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(π(1300)⁺π⁻ → 2π⁺2π⁻) in D⁰ → π(1300)⁺π⁻, D̄⁰ → c.c.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-1.6±12.9±6.7</td><td>7.3k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, 4π evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(π(1300)⁻π⁺ → 2π⁺2π⁻) in D⁰ → π(1300)⁻π⁺, D̄⁰ → c.c.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-5.6±11.9±27.7</td><td>7.3k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, 4π evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(a<sub>1</sub>(1640)⁺π⁻ → 2π⁺2π⁻) in D⁰ → a<sub>1</sub>(1640)⁺π⁻, D̄⁰ → c.c.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>8.6±17.8±19.3</td><td>7.3k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, 4π evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(π<sub>2</sub>(1670)⁺π⁻ → 2π⁺2π⁻) in D⁰ → π<sub>2</sub>(1670)⁺π⁻, D̄⁰ → c.c.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>7.3±15.1±10.4</td><td>7.3k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, 4π evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(σf<sub>0</sub>(1370) → 2π⁺2π⁻) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → σf<sub>0</sub>(1370)

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-14.6±16.5±9.4</td><td>7.3k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, 4π evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(σρ(770)⁰ → 2π⁺2π⁻) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → σρ(770)⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.5±16.8±20.8</td><td>7.3k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, 4π evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(2ρ(770)⁰ → 2π⁺2π⁻) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → 2ρ(770)⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-5.6±5.0±2.9</td><td>7.3k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, 4π evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(2f<sub>2</sub>(1270) → 2π⁺2π⁻) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → 2f<sub>2</sub>(1270)

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-28.3±12.3±20.9</td><td>7.3k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, 4π evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

### A<sub>CP</sub>(π⁺π⁻π⁰η) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → π⁺π⁻π⁰η

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-5.5±5.2±2.4</td><td>510</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20V BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(K⁺K⁻π⁰) in D⁰, D̄⁰ → K⁺K⁻π⁰

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-1.00±1.67±0.25</td><td>11 ± 0.11k</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### A<sub>CP</sub>(K*(892)⁺K⁻ → K⁺K⁻π⁰) in D⁰ → K*(892)⁺K⁻, D̄⁰ → c.c.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-0.9±1.2±0.4</td><td>1 AUBERT</td><td>08AO BABR</td><td>Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AUBERT 08AO report their result using a different sign convention.
$$A_{CP}(K^*(1410)^+ K^- \to K^+ K^- \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0 \to K^*(1410)^+ K^-, \bar{D}^0 \to \text{c.c.}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-21±23±8</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO</td><td>BABR Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}((K^+\pi^0)_{S-wave} K^- \to K^+ K^- \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0 \to (K^+\pi^0)_S K^-, \bar{D}^0 \to \text{c.c.}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+7±15±3</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO</td><td>BABR Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(\phi(1020)\pi^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to \phi(1020)\pi^0$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+1.1±2.1±0.5</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO</td><td>BABR Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(f_0(980)\pi^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to f_0(980)\pi^0$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-3±19±1</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO</td><td>BABR Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(a_0(980)^0\pi^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to a_0(980)^0\pi^0$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-5±16±2</td><td>1 AUBERT</td><td>08AO</td><td>BABR Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹This AUBERT 08AO value is obtained when the $a_0(980)^0$ replaces the $f_0(980)$ in the fit.

$$A_{CP}(f'_0(1525)\pi^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to f'_0(1525)\pi^0$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0±50±150</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO</td><td>BABR Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(K^*(892)^- K^+ \to K^+ K^- \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0 \to K^*(892)^- K^+, \bar{D}^0 \to \text{c.c.}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-5±4±1</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO</td><td>BABR Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(K^*(1410)^- K^+ \to K^+ K^- \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0 \to K^*(1410)^- K^+, \bar{D}^0 \to \text{c.c.}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-17±28±7</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO</td><td>BABR Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}((K^-\pi^0)_{S-wave} K^+ \to K^+ K^- \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0 \to (K^-\pi^0)_S K^+, \bar{D}^0 \to \text{c.c.}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-7±40±8</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08AO</td><td>BABR Table 1, -Col.5/2×Col.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(K^+ K^- \eta) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to K^+ K^- \eta$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-1.4±3.3±1.1</td><td>1.4k</td><td>LI</td><td>21G</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(\phi(1020)\eta \to K^+ K^- \eta) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to \phi(1020)\eta$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-1.9±4.4±0.6</td><td>1.4k</td><td>LI</td><td>21G</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(K_S^0 \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to K_S^0 \pi^0$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-0.20±0.17 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.21±0.16±0.07</td><td>467k</td><td>1 NISAR</td><td>14</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at near T's</td></tr><tr><td>0.1±1.3</td><td>9099</td><td>BONVICINI</td><td>01</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>-0.28±0.19±0.10</td><td>326k</td><td>KO</td><td>11</td><td>BELL See NISAR 14</td></tr><tr><td>-1.8±3.0</td><td>9099</td><td>BARTELT</td><td>95</td><td>CLE2 See BONVICINI 01</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹After subtracting CPV in $K^0 - \bar{K}^0$ mixing, NISAR 14 gets $A_{CP} = (+0.12 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.07)\%$.

$$A_{CP}(K_S^0 \eta) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to K_S^0 \eta$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+0.54±0.51±0.16</td><td>46k</td><td>KO</td><td>11</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(K_S^0 \eta') \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to K_S^0 \eta'$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>+0.98±0.67±0.14</td><td>27k</td><td>KO</td><td>11</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(K_S^0 \phi) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to K_S^0 \phi$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-2.8±9.4</td><td>BARTELT</td><td>95</td><td>CLE2</td><td>-18.2 <A<sub>CP</sub> <+12.6% (90%CL)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(K^\mp \pi^\pm) \text{ in } D^0 \to K^- \pi^+, \bar{D}^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.2±0.5 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.01±0.91</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>18k</td><td>LHCB pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.3±0.3±0.6</td><td>BONVICINI</td><td>14</td><td>CLEO All CLEO-c runs</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>+0.5±0.4±0.9</td><td>150k</td><td>MENDEZ</td><td>10</td><td>CLEO See BONVICINI 14</td></tr><tr><td>-0.4±0.5±0.9</td><td>27k</td><td>DOBBS</td><td>07</td><td>CLEO See BONVICINI 14</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(K^\pm \pi^\mp) \text{ in } D^0 \to K^+ \pi^-, \bar{D}^0 \to K^- \pi^+$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-0.9±1.4 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-1.7±1.6</td><td>1,2 AAIJ</td><td>17AO</td><td>LHCB pp at 7, 8 TeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-2.1±5.2±1.5</td><td>4.0k</td><td>07W</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.6 GeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>+2.3±4.7</td><td>4.0k</td><td>3 ZHANG</td><td>06</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>+18±14±4</td><td>4 LINK</td><td>05H</td><td>FOCS</td><td>γ nucleus</td></tr><tr><td>+9.5±6.1±8.3</td><td>5 AUBERT</td><td>03Z</td><td>BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>+2±19/20±1</td><td>45</td><td>6 GODANG</td><td>00</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$$-0.7±1.9 \qquad 1 \text{ AAIJ} \qquad 13\text{CE LHCB Repl. by AAIJ 17AO}$$

$$-8.0±7.7 \qquad 0.8k \qquad 7 \text{ LI} \qquad 05A \text{ BELL} \qquad \text{See ZHANG 06}$$

¹Based on 3 fb⁻¹ of data collected at $\sqrt{s} = 7, 8$ TeV. Allowing for CP violation, the direct CP-violation in mixing is reported for the $D^0 \to K^+\pi^-$ and $\bar{D}^0 \to K^+\pi^-$. The CPV is derived from $A_{CP} = (R_D^+ - R_D^-)/(R_D^+ + R_D^-)$.

²The CPV is derived from $A_{CP} = (R_D^+ - R_D^-)/(R_D^+ + R_D^-)$.

³This ZHANG 06 result allows mixing.

⁴This LINK 05H result assumes no mixing. If mixing is allowed, it becomes $0.13^{+0.33}_{-0.25} \pm 0.10$.

⁵This AUBERT 03Z limit assumes no mixing. If mixing is allowed, the 95% confidence-level interval is $(-2.8 < A_D < 4.9) \times 10^{-3}$.

⁶This GODANG 00 result assumes no $D^0-\bar{D}^0$ mixing and becomes $-0.43 < A_{CP} < +0.34$ at 95% CL. If mixing is allowed $A_{CP} = -0.01^{+0.16}_{-0.17} \pm 0.01$.

⁷This LI 05A result allows mixing.

$$A_{CP}(K^- \pi^+) \text{ in } D_{CP}(\pm 1) \to K^\mp \pi^\pm$$

$$A_{CP}(K^- \pi^+) = [B(D_{CP}(-) \to K^- \pi^+) - B(D_{CP}(+) \to K^- \pi^+)] / \text{Sum}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

### 13.1±1.0 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tbody><tr><td>13.2±1.1±0.7</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>22BM</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at ψ(3770)</td></tr><tr><td>13.0±1.2±0.8</td><td>2 ABLIKIM</td><td>22BM</td><td>BES3 D<sup>0</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> reference</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$$13.2±1.3±0.7 \qquad 3 \text{ ABLIKIM} \qquad 14C \text{ BES3 e}^{+}e^{-} \to D^{0}\bar{D}^{0}, 3.77 \text{ GeV}$$

¹ABLIKIM 22B uses quantum correlations in $e^+e^- \to D^0\bar{D}^0$ at the ψ(3770) to measure the asymmetry of the branching fraction of $D^0 \to K^-\pi^+$ in CP-odd and CP-even eigenstates. It then extracts the strong-phase difference $\delta K_\pi$.

²ABLIKIM 22B uses quantum correlations in $e^+e^- \to D^0\bar{D}^0$ at the ψ(3770) to measure the asymmetry of the branching fraction of $D^0 \to K^-\pi^+$ in CP-odd and CP-even eigenstates. It then extracts the strong-phase difference $\delta K_\pi$.

³ABLIKIM 14C uses quantum correlations in $e^+e^- \to D^0\bar{D}^0$ at the ψ(3770) to measure the asymmetry of the branching fraction of $D^0 \to K^-\pi^+$ in CP-odd and CP-even eigenstates. It then extracts the strong-phase difference $\delta K_\pi$. Superseded by ABLIKIM 22B.

$$A_{CP}(K^\mp \pi^\pm \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0 \to K^- \pi^+ \pi^0, \bar{D}^0 \to K^+ \pi^- \pi^0$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

### 0.1±0.5 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.1±0.3±0.4</td><td>BONVICINI</td><td>14</td><td>CLEO All CLEO-c runs</td></tr><tr><td>-3.1±8.6</td><td>1 KOPP</td><td>01</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$$0.2±0.4±0.8 \qquad 07 \text{ CLEO} \qquad \text{See BONVICINI 14}$$

¹KOPP 01 fits separately the $D^0$ and $\bar{D}^0$ Dalitz plots and then calculates the integrated difference of normalized densities divided by the integrated sum.

$$A_{CP}(K^\pm \pi^\mp \pi^0) \text{ in } D^0 \to K^+ \pi^- \pi^0, \bar{D}^0 \to K^- \pi^+ \pi^0$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0±5 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.6±5.3</td><td>1978±104</td><td>TIAN</td><td>05</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>+9±25/22</td><td>38</td><td>BRANDENB... 01</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(K_S^0 \pi^+ \pi^-) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to K_S^0 \pi^+ \pi^-$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

### -0.1±0.0 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tbody><tr><td>-0.05±0.57±0.54</td><td>350k</td><td>1 AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.9±2.1±1.6/5.7</td><td>4854</td><td>2 ASNER</td><td>04A</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹This is the overall result of AALTONEN 12AD. Following are the 15 CP fit-fraction asymmetries from the amplitude analysis of the $D^0$ and $\bar{D}^0 \to K_S^0 \pi^+\pi^-$ Dalitz plots.

²This is the overall result of ASNER 04A; CP-violating limits are also given below for each of the 10 resonant submodes found in an amplitude analysis of the $D^0$ and $\bar{D}^0 \to K_S^0 \pi^+\pi^-$ Dalitz plots.

$$A_{CP}(K^\mp \pi^\pm \eta) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to K^\mp \pi^\pm \eta$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-1.9±1.3±1.0</td><td>6.1k</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20v</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(K_S^0 \eta) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to K_S^0 \eta$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-3.9±3.2±0.8</td><td>1.1k</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20v</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$A_{CP}(K^\pm \pi^\pm \pi^0 \eta) \text{ in } D^0, \bar{D}^0 \to K^\pm \pi^\pm \pi^0 \eta$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-7.9±4.8±2.5</td><td>580</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20v</td><td>BES3 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 3773 MeV</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K*(892)∓π<sup>±</sup> → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*−</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>+0.36±0.33±0.40</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>+2.5 ±1.9 <sup>+3.3</sup><sub>-0.8</sub></td><td>ASNER</td><td>04A CLEO</td><td>Dalitz fit, 4854 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K*(892)±π∓ → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*−</sup>π<sup>+</sup></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>+1.0±5.7±2.1</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>-21 ±42 ±28</td><td>ASNER</td><td>04A CLEO</td><td>Dalitz fit, 4854 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>ρ<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → R<sup>0</sup>ρ<sup>0</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>ρ<sup>0</sup></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.05±0.50±0.08</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>+3.1 ±3.8 <sup>+2.7</sup><sub>-2.2</sub></td><td>ASNER</td><td>04A CLEO</td><td>Dalitz fit, 4854 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>ω → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → R<sup>0</sup>ω, D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>ω</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-12.6±6.0±2.6</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>-26 ±24 <sup>+22</sup><sub>-4</sub></td><td>ASNER</td><td>04A CLEO</td><td>Dalitz fit, 4854 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>f<sub>0</sub>(980) → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → R<sup>0</sup>f<sub>0</sub>(980), D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>f<sub>0</sub>(980)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.4±2.2±1.6</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>-4.7±11.0 <sup>+24.9</sup><sub>-8.8</sub></td><td>ASNER</td><td>04A CLEO</td><td>Dalitz fit, 4854 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>f<sub>2</sub>(1270) → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → R<sup>0</sup>f<sub>2</sub>(1270), D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>f<sub>2</sub>(1270)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-4.0±3.4±3.0</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>+34 ±51 <sup>+33</sup><sub>-79</sub></td><td>ASNER</td><td>04A CLEO</td><td>Dalitz fit, 4854 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>f<sub>0</sub>(1370) → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → R<sup>0</sup>f<sub>0</sub>(1370), D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>f<sub>0</sub>(1370)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.5±4.6±7.7</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>+18 ±10 <sup>+13</sup><sub>-22</sub></td><td>ASNER</td><td>04A CLEO</td><td>Dalitz fit, 4854 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>ρ<sup>0</sup>(1450)) in D<sup>0</sup> → R<sup>0</sup>ρ<sup>0</sup>(1450), D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>ρ<sup>0</sup>(1450)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-4.1±5.2±8.1</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>f<sub>0</sub>(600)) in D<sup>0</sup> → R<sup>0</sup>f<sub>0</sub>(600), D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>f<sub>0</sub>(600)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-2.7±2.7±3.6</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K*(1410)∓π<sup>±</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K*(1410)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → K*(1410)<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-2.3±5.7±6.4</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>(1430)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4.0±2.4±3.8</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>-0.2±11.3 <sup>+8.8</sup><sub>-5.0</sub></th><th>ASNER</th><th>04A CLEO</th><th>Dalitz fit, 4854 evts</th></tr></thead></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>(1430)±π∓) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>(1430)<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>(1430)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>+12±11±10</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>2</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>2</sup><sub>S</sub>(1430)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>+2.9±4.0±4.1</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>-7 ±25 <sup>+13</sup><sub>-26</sub></th><th>ASNER</th><th>04A CLEO</th><th>Dalitz fit, 4854 evts</th></tr></thead></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>2</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>2</sup><sub>S</sub>(1430)<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>2</sup><sub>S</sub>(1430)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-10±14±29</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>12AD CDF</td><td>Dalitz fit, ~350k evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K*(1680)∓π<sup>±</sup> → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K*(1680)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-36±19 <sup>+10</sup><sub>-35</sub></td><td>ASNER</td><td>04A CLEO</td><td>Dalitz fit, 4854 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.2±0.3±0.4</td><td>BONVICINI</td><td>14</td><td>CLEO</td><td>All CLEO-c runs</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>+0.7±0.5±0.9</td><td>DOBBS</td><td>07</td><td>CLEO</td><td>See BONVICINI 14</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*−</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-1.8±4.4</td><td>TIAN</td><td>05</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.3 ±1.7 OUR AVERAGE</td><td>EVTS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.84±1.74±0.3</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>-8.2 ±5.6 ±4.7</td><td>828 ±46</td><td>LINK</td><td>05E FOCS</td><td>γA, E<sub>γ</sub>~180 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1 Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(2K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → 2K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-2.54±1.44 <sup>+0.11</sup><sub>-0.10</sub></td><td>6095</td><td>1 SANGAL</td><td>23</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S, 5S), 10.520 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(2K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → 2K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-2.54±1.44 <sup>+0.11</sup><sub>-0.10</sub></td><td>6095</td><td>1 SANGAL</td><td>23</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S, 5S), 10.520 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ SANGAL 23 also measures the parity asymmetry $A_T$ in the sign of the triple product of momenta between one $K_S^0$ (the one with higher momentum) and the two charged pions, and reports the resulting CP asymmetry between the CP conjugate modes ($A_T - \bar{A}_T$)/2 = (-1.95 ± 1.42<sup>+0.14</sup><sub>-0.12</sub>) × 10<sup>-2</sup>.

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.7±10.4</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Amplitude fit, 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Including the full $K_1^{*}(1270)^{+}$ phase space accessible in this decay chain, with its various resonance contributions.

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>*0</sup>π<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.7±10.4</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Amplitude fit, 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>*0</sup>π<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.7±10.4</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Amplitude fit, 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup> → K<sup>*0</sup>π<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-10.0±31.5</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Amplitude fit, 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-10.0±31.5</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Amplitude fit, 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Including the full $K_1^{*}(1270)^{-}$ phase space accessible in this decay chain, with its various resonance contributions.

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> → ρ<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-6.5±16.9</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Amplitude fit, 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup> → ρ<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>+9.6±12.9</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Amplitude fit, 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup> → ρ<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*1</sup>(1270)<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>+9.6±12.9</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Amplitude fit, 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sub>1</sub>(1400)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sub>1</sub>(1400)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-20.0±16.8</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Amplitude fit, 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Including the full $K_1^{*}(1400)^{+}$ phase space accessible in this decay chain, with its various resonance contributions.

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K<sup>*1</sup>(1410)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>*0</sup>π<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>*1</sup>(1410)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-4.4±2.1 OUR AVERAGE</td><td>EVTS</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-4.5±2.1±0.3</td><td>163k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>19c LHCB</td><td>4-body fit, K K ππ evts</td></tr><tr><td>9.2±15.2±20.3</td><td>2.9k</td><td>1 DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>4-body fit, K K ππ evts</td></tr><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1 Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Obtained by analyzing CLEO data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

<table><thead><tr><th>A<sub>CP</sub>(K*(1410)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>*0</sup>π<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>) in D<sup>0</sup> → K*(1410)<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>, D<sup>0</sup> → c.c.</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-20.0±16.8</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>12</td><td>CLEO</td><td>Amplitude fit, 2959 evts.</td></tr></tbody></table>