text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Although, on the one hand, all experimental observations up to now are perfectly consistent with $`CPT`$ symmetry, and, on the other hand, the standard quantum field theory implies that this symmetry should hold exactly, continued experimental, phenomenological and theoretical studies of this and related symmetries are warranted. In this connection, we like to recall, on the one hand, that $`CP`$ symmetry is violated only at such a tiny level as $`10^3`$ , while $`CPT`$ symmetry has been tested at best down to the level one order smaller  and, on the other hand, that some of the premises of the $`CPT`$ theorem, e.g., locality, are being challenged by, e.g., the superstring model.

In a series of papers \[4-9\], we studied possible violation of $`CP`$, $`T`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries in the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ system from a phenomenological point of view. The procedure of our studies went as follows. We first introduced parameters which represented violation of $`CP`$, $`T`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries in mixing and decay of $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K^0}`$ in a convenient and well-defined way and related them to the experimentally measured quantities. We then carried out numerical analyses, with and without the aid of the Bell-Steinberger relation  and with the available data on $`2\pi `$, $`3\pi `$, $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\pi \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ decays used as inputs, to derive constraints to these symmetry-violating parameters. Along with the data compiled by Particle Data Group , the new results on $`\text{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon )`$ reported by KTeV Collaboration and NA48 Collaboration , as well as some of the results obtained by CPLEAR Collaboration \[13-16\], were taken into account.

The present work is an updated, revised and integrated version of the previous works, which is new particularly in the following points:

(1) In order to be as phenomenological and comprehensive as possible, along with the latest data reported by KTeV Collaboration  and by NA48 Collaboration  as well as those compiled by Particle Data Group , the result obtained by CPLEAR Collaboration from an unconstrained fit to a time-dependent leptonic asymmetry  is used as inputs in the numerical analyses.

(2) Relevant decay amplitudes are parametrized with phase ambiguities taken into account in an explicit way, and, in Appendix, issues related to rephasing and to phase conventions are discussed in somw detail.aaaSee also Refs..

The paper is organized as follows. The theoretical framework used to describe the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ system  is recapitulated in Sect.2 and the experimentally measured quantities related to $`CP`$ violation in decay modes of interest to us are enumerated in Sect.3. We then, in Sect.4, parametrize the mixing parameters and decay amplitudes in a convenient and well-defined way and, on adopting a particular phase convention, give conditions imposed by $`CP`$, $`T`$ and/or $`CPT`$ symmetries on these parameters. In Sect.5, experimentally measured quantities are expressed in terms of the parameters defined, treating them as first order small. In Sect.6, with the relevant data used as inputs, numerical analyses are carried out to evaluate or constrain $`CP`$, $`T`$ and/or $`CPT`$ violating parameters separately as far as possible. The results of the analyses are summarized and some concluding remarks are given in Sect.7. In Appendix, issues related to rephasing, rephasing-(non)invariance and phase conventions are discussed.

## 2 The $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing and the Bell-Steinberger relation

Let $`|K^0`$ and $`|\overline{K^0}`$ be eigenstates of the strong interaction with strangeness $`S=+1`$ and $`1`$, related to each other by $`(CP)`$, $`(CPT)`$ and $`T`$ operations as

$$\begin{array}{cc}(CP)|K^0=e^{i\alpha _K}|\overline{K^0},& (CPT)|K^0=e^{i\beta _K}|\overline{K^0},\\ (CP)|\overline{K^0}=e^{i\alpha _K}|K^0,& (CPT)|\overline{K^0}=e^{i\beta _K}|K^0,\\ T|K^0=e^{i(\beta _K\alpha _K)}|K^0,& T|\overline{K^0}=e^{i(\beta _K+\alpha _K)}|\overline{K^0}.\end{array}$$
(2.1)
Note here that, given the first two where $`\alpha _K`$ and $`\beta _K`$ are arbitrary real parameters, the rest follow from the assumptions $`(CP)T=T(CP)=(CPT)`$, $`(CP)^2=(CPT)^2=1`$, and anti-linearity of $`T`$ and $`(CPT)`$. When the weak interaction $`H_\text{w}`$ is switched on, the $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K^0}`$ states decay into other states, generically denoted as $`|n`$, and get mixed. The time evolution of the arbitrary state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=c_1(t)|K_1+c_2(t)|K_2,$$

with

$$|K_1|K^0,|K_2|\overline{K^0},$$

is described by a Schrödinger-like equation

$$i\frac{d}{dt}|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{\Psi },$$

or

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}c_1(t)\\ c_2(t)\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\begin{array}{c}c_1(t)\\ c_2(t)\end{array}\right).$$
(2.2)
The operator or $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may be written as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }Mi\mathrm{\Gamma }/2,$$
(2.3)
with $`M`$ (mass matrix) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (decay or width matrix) given, to the second order in $`H_\text{w}`$, by

$`M_{ij}`$ $``$ $`K_i|M|K_j`$ (2.4a)
$`=`$ $`m_K\delta _{ij}+K_i|H_\text{w}|K_j`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}P{\displaystyle \frac{K_i|H_\text{w}|nn|H_\text{w}|K_j}{m_KE_n}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}`$ $``$ $`K_i|\mathrm{\Gamma }|K_j`$
$`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}K_i|H_\text{w}|nn|H_\text{w}|K_j\delta (m_KE_n),`$
where the operator $`P`$ projects out the principal value. The two eigenstates of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and their respective eigenvalue may be written as

$`|K_S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|p_S|^2+|q_S|^2}}}\left(p_S|K^0+q_S|\overline{K^0}\right),`$ (2.5a)
$`|K_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|p_L|^2+|q_L|^2}}}\left(p_L|K^0q_L|\overline{K^0}\right);`$ (2.5b)
$`\lambda _S=m_Si{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _S}{2}},`$ (2.6a)
$`\lambda _L=m_Li{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _L}{2}}.`$ (2.6b)
$`m_{S,L}=\text{Re}(\lambda _{S,L})`$ and $`\gamma _{S,L}=2\text{Im}(\lambda _{S,L})`$ are the mass and the total decay width of the $`K_{S,L}`$ state respectively. By definition, $`\gamma _S>\gamma _L`$ or $`\tau _S<\tau _L`$ ($`\tau _{S,L}1/\gamma _{S,L}`$), and the suffices $`S`$ and $`L`$ stand for ”short-lived” and ”long-lived” respectively. The eigenvalues $`\lambda _{S,L}`$ and the ratios of the mixing parameters $`q_{S,L}/p_{S,L}`$ are related to the elements of the mass-width matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as

$$\lambda _{S,L}=\pm E+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{22})/2,$$
(2.7)
$$q_{S,L}/p_{S,L}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{21}/[E\pm (\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{22})/2],$$
(2.8)
where

$$E[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{12}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{21}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{22})^2/4]^{1/2}.$$
(2.9)
From the eigenvalue equation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, one may readily derive the well-known Bell-Steinberger relation :

$$\left[\frac{\gamma _S+\gamma _L}{2}i(m_Sm_L)\right]K_S|K_L=K_S|\mathrm{\Gamma }|K_L,$$
(2.10)
where

$$K_S|\mathrm{\Gamma }|K_L=2\pi \underset{n}{}K_S|H_\text{w}|nn|H_\text{w}|K_L\delta (m_KE_n).$$
(2.11)
## 3 Decay modes

The $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K^0}`$ (or $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$) states have many decay modes, among which we are interested in $`2\pi `$, $`3\pi `$, $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and semi-leptonic modes.

### 3.1 $`2\pi `$ modes

The experimentally measured quantities related to $`CP`$ violation are $`\eta _+`$ and $`\eta _{00}`$ defined by

$$\eta _+|\eta _+|e^{i\varphi _+}\frac{\pi ^+\pi ^{},\text{outgoing}|H_\text{w}|K_L}{\pi ^+\pi ^{},\text{outgoing}|H_\text{w}|K_S},$$
(3.1a)
$$\eta _{00}|\eta _{00}|e^{i\varphi _{00}}\frac{\pi ^0\pi ^0,\text{outgoing}|H_\text{w}|K_L}{\pi ^0\pi ^0,\text{outgoing}|H_\text{w}|K_S}.$$
(3.1b)
Defining

$$\omega \frac{(2\pi )_2|H_\text{w}|K_S}{(2\pi )_0|H_\text{w}|K_S},$$
(3.2)
$$\eta _I|\eta _I|e^{i\varphi _I}\frac{(2\pi )_I|H_\text{w}|K_L}{(2\pi )_I|H_\text{w}|K_S},$$
(3.3)
where $`I`$=1 or 2 stands for the isospin of the $`2\pi `$ states, one gets

$`\eta _+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _0+\eta _2\omega ^{}}{1+\omega ^{}}},`$ (3.4a)
$`\eta _{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _02\eta _2\omega ^{}}{12\omega ^{}}},`$ (3.4b)
where

$$\omega ^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\omega e^{i(\delta _2\delta _0)},$$
(3.5)
$`\delta _I`$ being the S-wave $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shift for the isospin $`I`$ state at an energy of the rest mass of $`K^0`$. $`\omega `$ is a measure of deviation from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule, and may be inferred, e.g., from

$`r`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _S(\pi ^+\pi ^{})2\gamma _S(\pi ^0\pi ^0)}{\gamma _S(\pi ^+\pi ^{})+\gamma _S(\pi ^0\pi ^0)}}`$ (3.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\text{Re}(\omega ^{})2|\omega ^{}|^2}{1+2|\omega ^{}|^2}}.`$
Here and in the following, $`\gamma _{S,L}(n)`$ denotes the partial width for $`K_{S,L}`$ to decay into the final state $`|n`$.

### 3.2 $`3\pi `$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ modes

The experimentally measured quantities are

$$\eta _{+0}=\frac{\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0,\text{outgoing}|H_\text{w}|K_S}{\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0,\text{outgoing}|H_\text{w}|K_L},$$
(3.7a)
$$\eta _{000}=\frac{\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0,\text{outgoing}|H_\text{w}|K_S}{\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0,\text{outgoing}|H_\text{w}|K_L},$$
(3.7b)
$$\eta _{+\gamma }=\frac{\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma ,\text{outgoing}|H_\text{w}|K_L}{\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma ,\text{outgoing}|H_\text{w}|K_S}.$$
(3.8)
We shall treat the $`3\pi `$ $`(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )`$ states as purely $`CP`$-odd ($`CP`$-even).

### 3.3 Semi-leptonic modes

The final states of particular interest are $`|\mathrm{}^+|\pi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`|\mathrm{}^{}|\pi ^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\mathrm{}=e`$ or $`\mu `$, and the well measured time-independent asymmetry parameter related to $`CP`$ violation is

$$d_L^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\gamma _L(\pi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}})\gamma _L(\pi ^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})}{\gamma _L(\pi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}})+\gamma _L(\pi ^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})}.$$
(3.9)
CPLEAR Collaboration \[14-16\] have furthermore defined and measured two kinds of time-dependent experimental asymmetry parameters $`A_T^{exp}(t)`$ and $`A_\delta ^{exp}(t)`$ which are related to

$$d_1^{\mathrm{}}(t)=\frac{|\mathrm{}^+|H_\text{w}|\overline{K^0}(t)|^2|\mathrm{}^{}|H_\text{w}|K^0(t)|^2}{|\mathrm{}^+|H_\text{w}|\overline{K^0}(t)|^2+|\mathrm{}^{}|H_\text{w}|K^0(t)|^2},$$
(3.10a)
$$d_2^{\mathrm{}}(t)=\frac{|\mathrm{}^{}|H_\text{w}|\overline{K^0}(t)|^2|\mathrm{}^+|H_\text{w}|K^0(t)|^2}{|\mathrm{}^{}|H_\text{w}|\overline{K^0}(t)|^2+|\mathrm{}^+|H_\text{w}|K^0(t)|^2}.$$
(3.10b)
## 4 Parametrization and conditions imposed by $`CP`$, $`T`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries

We shall parametrize the ratios of the mixing parameters, $`q_S/p_S`$ and $`q_L/p_L`$, as

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{q_S}{p_S}=e^{i\alpha _K}\frac{1\epsilon _S}{1+\epsilon _S},\\ \\ \frac{q_L}{p_L}=e^{i\alpha _K}\frac{1\epsilon _L}{1+\epsilon _L},\end{array}$$
(4.1)
and $`\epsilon _{S,L}`$ further as

$$\epsilon _{S,L}=\epsilon \pm \delta .$$
(4.2)
With the aid of Eqs.(2.1) and (2.8), one sees that $`CP`$, $`T`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries impose such coditions on $`\epsilon `$ and $`\delta `$ as

$`CP`$ $``$ $`\epsilon =0,\delta =0;`$ (4.3a)
$`T`$ $``$ $`\epsilon =0;`$ (4.3b)
$`CPT`$ $``$ $`\delta =0.`$ (4.3c)
Since $`CP`$ violation is known to be very tiny (see below), one may treat $`\epsilon `$ and $`\delta `$ as small parameters. From Eqs.(2.7), (2.8) and (2.9), one then derive

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ $``$ $`2\text{Re}(M_{12}e^{i\alpha _K}),`$ (4.4a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$ $``$ $`2\text{Re}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}e^{i\alpha _K}),`$ (4.4b)
$`\epsilon `$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{12}e^{i\alpha _K}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{21}e^{i\alpha _K})/2\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ,`$ (4.5a)
$`\delta `$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{22})/2\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ,`$ (4.5b)
from which it follows that

$$\epsilon _{}\text{Re}[\epsilon \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _{SW})]\frac{2\text{Im}(M_{12}e^{i\alpha _K})}{\sqrt{(\gamma _S\gamma _L)^2+4(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2}},$$
(4.6a)
$$\epsilon _{}\text{Im}[\epsilon \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _{SW})]\frac{\text{Im}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}e^{i\alpha _K})}{\sqrt{(\gamma _S\gamma _L)^2+4(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2}},$$
(4.6b)
$$\delta _{}\text{Re}[\delta \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _{SW})]\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}}{2\sqrt{(\gamma _S\gamma _L)^2+4(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2}},$$
(4.7a)
$$\delta _{}\text{Im}[\delta \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _{SW})]\frac{M_{11}M_{22}}{\sqrt{(\gamma _S\gamma _L)^2+4(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2}},$$
(4.7b)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }mm_Sm_L,\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$ $``$ $`\gamma _S\gamma _L,\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda \lambda _S\lambda _L,`$ (4.8a)
$`\varphi _{SW}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }m}{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma }}\right).`$ (4.8b)
$`\varphi _{SW}`$ is often called the superweak phase.

Paying particular attention to the $`2\pi `$ and semi-leptonic decay modes, we shall parametrize amplitudes for $`|K^0`$ and $`|\overline{K^0}`$ to decay into $`|(2\pi )_I`$,

$`A_I`$ $``$ $`(2\pi )_I|H_\text{w}|K^0,`$ (4.9a)
$`\overline{A}_I`$ $``$ $`(2\pi )_I|H_\text{w}|\overline{K^0},`$ (4.9b)
as

$`A_I`$ $`=`$ $`F_I(1+\epsilon _I)e^{i(\varphi _I+\theta _I+\alpha _K/2)},`$ (4.10a)
$`\overline{A}_I`$ $`=`$ $`F_I(1\epsilon _I)e^{i(\varphi _I\theta _I\alpha _K/2)},`$ (4.10b)
and amplitudes for $`|K^0`$ and $`|\overline{K^0}`$ to decay into $`|\mathrm{}^+`$ or $`|\mathrm{}^{}`$,

$`A_\mathrm{}+`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}^+|H_\text{w}|K^0,`$ (4.11a)
$`\overline{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}^{}|H_\text{w}|\overline{K^0},`$ (4.11b)
$`\overline{A}_\mathrm{}+`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}^+|H_\text{w}|\overline{K^0},`$ (4.11c)
$`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}^{}|H_\text{w}|K^0,`$ (4.11d)
as

$`A_\mathrm{}+`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mathrm{}}(1+\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})e^{i(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}+\theta _{\mathrm{}}+\alpha _K/2)},`$ (4.12a)
$`\overline{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mathrm{}}(1\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})e^{i(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\theta _{\mathrm{}}\alpha _K/2)},`$ (4.12b)
$`\overline{A}_\mathrm{}+`$ $`=`$ $`x_\mathrm{}+F_{\mathrm{}}(1+\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})e^{i(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}+\theta _{\mathrm{}}\alpha _K/2)},`$ (4.12c)
$`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`x_{\mathrm{}}^{}F_{\mathrm{}}(1\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})e^{i(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\theta _{\mathrm{}}+\alpha _K/2)}.`$ (4.12d)
Here, $`F_I`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ are real and positive, $`\epsilon _I`$, $`\varphi _I`$, $`\theta _I`$, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ are real, while $`x_\mathrm{}+`$ and $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$ are complex in general. $`x_\mathrm{}+`$ and $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$, which measure violation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule, will further be parametrized as

$$x_\mathrm{}+=x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}+x_{\mathrm{}}^{()},x_{\mathrm{}}=x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}x_{\mathrm{}}^{()}.$$
(4.13)
Note that we have defined our amplitude parameters $`F_I`$, $`\epsilon _I`$, $`\varphi _I`$, $`\theta _I`$, $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$, $`x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}`$ and $`x_{\mathrm{}}^{()}`$, and our mixing parameters $`\epsilon `$ and $`\delta `$ as well, in such a way that they are all invariant with respect to rephasing of $`|K^0`$ and $`|\overline{K^0}`$,

$$|K^0|K^0^{}=|K^0e^{i\xi _K},|\overline{K^0}|\overline{K^0}^{}=|\overline{K^0}e^{i\xi _K},$$
(4.14)
in spite that $`\alpha _K`$ itself is not invariant with respect to this rephasing .bbbIn contrast, $`\beta _K`$ is invariant with respect to the rephasing (4.14).

As will be shown explicitly in Appendix, one may convince himself that phase ambiguities associated with $`|(2\pi )_I`$, $`|\mathrm{}^+`$ and $`|\mathrm{}^{}`$ allow one, without loss of generality, to take

$$\varphi _I=0,\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=0,\theta _{\mathrm{}}=0,$$
(4.15)
and that $`CP`$, $`T`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries impose such conditions as

$`CP`$ $``$ $`\epsilon _I=0,\theta _I=0,\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}=0,`$ (4.16a)
$`\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)})=0,\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})=0;`$
$`T`$ $``$ $`\theta _I=0,`$ (4.16b)
$`\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)})=0,\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})=0;`$
$`CPT`$ $``$ $`\epsilon _I=0,\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}=0,`$ (4.16c)
$`\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})=0,\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})=0.`$
## 5 Formulas relevant for numerical analyses

We shall adopt a phase convention which gives Eq.(4.15). Observed or expected smallness of violation of $`CP`$, $`T`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries and of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q=\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ rules allows us to treat all our parameters, $`\epsilon `$, $`\delta `$, $`\epsilon _I`$, $`\theta _I`$, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$, $`x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}`$, $`x_{\mathrm{}}^{()}`$ as well as $`\omega ^{}`$ as small, and, from Eqs.(3.2), (3.3), (3.4a,b), (3.6) and (3.9), one finds, to the leading order in these small parameters,

$$\omega F_2/F_0,$$
(5.1)
$$\eta _I\epsilon \delta +\epsilon _I+i\theta _I,$$
(5.2)
$`\eta _+`$ $``$ $`\eta _0+\epsilon ^{},`$ (5.3a)
$`\eta _{00}`$ $``$ $`\eta _02\epsilon ^{},`$ (5.3b)
$$r4\text{Re}(\omega ^{}),$$
(5.4)
$$d_L^{\mathrm{}}2(\text{Re}(\epsilon \delta )+\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})),$$
(5.5)
where

$$\epsilon ^{}(\eta _2\eta _0)\omega ^{}.$$
(5.6)
The time-dependent asymmetry parameters $`d_1^{\mathrm{}}(t)`$ and $`d_2^{\mathrm{}}(t)`$, defined by Eqs.(3.10a,b), behave as

$`d_1^{\mathrm{}}(t\tau _S)4\text{Re}(\epsilon )+2(\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})),`$ (5.7a)
$`d_2^{\mathrm{}}(t\tau _S)4\text{Re}(\delta )2(\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})),`$ (5.7b)
while the experimental time-dependent asymmetry parameters $`A_T^{exp}(t)`$ and $`A_\delta ^{exp}(t)`$ defined and measured by CPLEAR Collaboration \[14-16,20\] behave as

$`A_T^{exp}(t\tau _S)`$ $``$ $`4(\text{Re}(\epsilon )+\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})),`$ (5.8a)
$`A_\delta ^{exp}(t\tau _S)`$ $``$ $`8\text{Re}(\delta ).`$ (5.8b)
From Eqs.(5.3a,b), it follows that

$$\eta _0(2/3)\eta _+(1+(1/2)|\eta _{00}/\eta _+|e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi }),$$
(5.9)
and, treating $`|\epsilon ^{}/\eta _0|`$ as a small quantity, which is justifiable empirically (see below), one further obtains

$$\eta _{00}/\eta _+13\epsilon ^{}/\eta _0,$$
(5.10)
or

$`\text{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\eta _0)`$ $``$ $`(1/6)(1|\eta _{00}/\eta _+|^2),`$ (5.11a)
$`\text{Im}(\epsilon ^{}/\eta _0)`$ $``$ $`(1/3)\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ,`$ (5.11b)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \varphi _{00}\varphi _+.$$
(5.12)
On the other hand, from Eqs.(3.5), (5.1), (5.2) and (5.6), $`\epsilon ^{}/\eta _0`$ may be related to $`\epsilon _2\epsilon _0`$ and $`\theta _2\theta _0`$:

$$\epsilon ^{}/\eta _0=i\text{Re}(\omega ^{})((\epsilon _2\epsilon _0)+i(\theta _2\theta _0))e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^{}}/[|\eta _0|\mathrm{cos}(\delta _2\delta _0)],$$
(5.13)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^{}\varphi _0\delta _2+\delta _0\pi /2.$$
(5.14)
Also, from Eqs.(5.2) and (5.5), one may derive

$$\text{Re}(\eta _0)d_L^{\mathrm{}}/2=\epsilon _0\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}+\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()}).$$
(5.15)
Furthermore, noting that

$$K_S|K_L2[\text{Re}(\epsilon )i\text{Im}(\delta )],$$

one may use the Bell-Steinberger relation, Eq.(2.10), to express $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )`$ and $`\text{Im}(\delta )`$ in terms of measured quantities. By taking $`2\pi `$, $`3\pi `$, $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\pi \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ intermediate states into account in Eq.(2.11) and making use of the fact $`\gamma _S\gamma _L`$, we derive

$`\text{Re}(\epsilon )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma _S^2+4(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2}}}\times `$ (5.16)
$`[\gamma _S(\pi ^+\pi ^{})|\eta _+|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _+\varphi _{SW})`$
$`+\gamma _S(\pi ^0\pi ^0)|\eta _{00}|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{00}\varphi _{SW})`$
$`+\gamma _S(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )|\eta _{+\gamma }|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{+\gamma }\varphi _{SW})`$
$`+\gamma _L(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)\{\text{Re}(\eta _{+0})\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{SW}\text{Im}(\eta _{+0})\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{SW}\}`$
$`+\gamma _L(\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0)\{\text{Re}(\eta _{000})\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{SW}\text{Im}(\eta _{000})\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{SW}\}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}\gamma _L(\pi \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}})\{\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{SW}\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)})\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{SW}\}],`$
$`\text{Im}(\delta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma _S^2+4(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2}}}\times `$ (5.17)
$`[\gamma _S(\pi ^+\pi ^{})|\eta _+|\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _+\varphi _{SW})`$
$`\gamma _S(\pi ^0\pi ^0)|\eta _{00}|\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{00}\varphi _{SW})`$
$`\gamma _S(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )|\eta _{+\gamma }|\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{+\gamma }\varphi _{SW})`$
$`+\gamma _L(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)\{\text{Re}(\eta _{+0})\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{SW}+\text{Im}(\eta _{+0})\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{SW}\}`$
$`+\gamma _L(\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0)\{\text{Re}(\eta _{000})\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{SW}+\text{Im}(\eta _{000})\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{SW}\}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}\gamma _L(\pi \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}})\{\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{SW}+\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)})\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{SW}\}].`$
If, however, one retains the contribution of the $`2\pi `$ intermediate states alone, the Bell-Steinberger relation gives simply

$$\text{Re}(\epsilon )i\text{Im}(\delta )|\eta _0|e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \mathrm{"}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{SW},$$
(5.18)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \mathrm{"}\varphi _0\varphi _{SW}.$$
(5.19)
Note that exactly the same equation as Eq.(5.18) can be derived from Eqs.(4.6b) and (4.7a).

## 6 Evaluation of the symmetry-violating parameters

The data used as inputs in the numerical analyses given below are tabulated in Table 1. Many of them are from Particle Data Group  and some are the new world averages reported by KTeV Collaboration  and NA48 Collaboration . As for the values of $`\eta _{+0}`$ and $`\eta _{000}`$, we use those obtained without recourse to $`CPT`$ symmetry by CPLEAR Collaboration . This Collaboration further succeeded, from an unconstrained fit to the experimental time-dependent asymmetry $`A_\delta ^{exp}(t)`$ they defined and measured, in determining $`\text{Im}(\delta )`$, $`\text{Re}(\delta )`$, $`\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)})`$ and $`\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})`$ simultaneously :

$`\text{Im}(\delta )`$ $`=`$ $`(1.5\pm 2.3)\times 10^2,`$ (6.1a)
$`\text{Re}(\delta )`$ $`=`$ $`(3.0\pm 3.4)\times 10^4,`$ (6.1b)
$`\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)})`$ $`=`$ $`(1.2\pm 2.2)\times 10^2,`$ (6.1c)
$`\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})`$ $`=`$ $`(0.2\pm 1.3)\times 10^2.`$ (6.1d)
We shall include Eqs.(6.1b,c,d) in our list of the input data. As for the value of $`\delta _2\delta _0`$, we shall use the value obtained by Chell and Olsson , with the error extended arbitrarily by a factor of five to take account of its possible uncertainty .

Our analysis consists of three steps:

The first step. We use Eq.(4.8b) to find $`\varphi _{SW}`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ and $`\gamma _S`$, use Eqs.(3.6) and (5.4) to find $`\text{Re}(\omega ^{})`$ from $`\gamma _S(\pi ^+\pi ^{})/\gamma _S`$ and $`\gamma _S(\pi ^0\pi ^0)/\gamma _S`$, and further use Eqs.(5.11a,b) and (5.9) to find $`\text{Re}(\epsilon ^{}/\eta _0)`$, $`\text{Im}(\epsilon ^{}/\eta _0)`$, $`|\eta _0|`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ from $`|\eta _{00}/\eta _+|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$, $`|\eta _+|`$ and $`\varphi _+`$. These results are shown as the intermediate outputs in Table 2.

The second step. The values of $`\eta _0`$, $`\epsilon ^{}/\eta _0`$, $`\varphi _{SW}`$ and $`\text{Re}(\omega ^{})`$ obtained, supplemented with the value of $`\delta _2\delta _0`$, are used as inputs to find $`\theta _2\theta _0`$ and $`\epsilon _2\epsilon _0`$ with the help of Eqs.(5.13) and (5.14). The value of $`\text{Re}(\eta _0)`$ is combined with that of $`d_L^{\mathrm{}}`$ to find $`\epsilon _0\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}+\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})`$ with the aid of Eq.(5.15). The value of $`\text{Re}(\delta )`$ is combined with the value of $`\text{Re}(\eta _0)`$ to find $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )+\epsilon _0`$ with the aid of Eq.(5.2) and combined with the value of $`d_L^{\mathrm{}}`$ to find $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )+\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})`$ with the aid of Eq.(5.5). These results are shown in Table 3.

The third step Eqs. (5.5) and (5.16) are solved, with $`d_L^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\text{Re}(\delta )`$, $`\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})`$ and $`\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)})`$ regarded as known, to find $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$, and Eq.(5.17) is then used to find $`\text{Im}(\delta )`$. Finally, the values of $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )`$, $`\text{Re}(\delta )`$ and $`\text{Im}(\delta )`$ are combined with the value of $`\eta _0`$ to determine or constrain $`\epsilon _0`$ and $`\text{Im}(\epsilon )+\theta _0`$ with the help of Eq.(5.2). These results are also shown in Table 3.

In relation to the third step of our analysis, which relies on the use of the Bell-Steinberger relation, Eqs.(5.16) and (5.17), a couple of remarks are in order:

(1) The large uncertainty associated with $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ comes primarily from that of $`\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})`$, while, thanks to the fact that $`2\pi `$ decay modes dominate over all the other decay modes, the large uncertainty associated with $`\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})`$ as well as $`\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)})`$ has little influence on determination of $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )`$ and $`\text{Im}(\delta )`$.

(2) To see how much the decay modes other than $`2\pi `$ modes contribute, we perform a similar analysis with the aid of the simplified version (i.e., $`2\pi `$ dominance version) of the Bell-Steinberger relation, Eq.(5.18), to obtain the result shown in Table 4.

(3) If one is not willing to rely on the Bell-Steinberger relation at all, one will not be able to constrain $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )`$, $`\epsilon _0`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ separately and hence will not be able to establish $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )0`$.cccFrom measurement of the other experimental time-dependent asymmetry parameter $`A_T^{exp}(t)`$, CPLEAR Collaboration found      $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`(1.55\pm 0.43)\times 10^3,`$  (6.2a)   $`\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)})`$ $`=`$ $`(1.2\pm 2.1)\times 10^3.`$  (6.2b)  However, since the value of $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )`$ shown here is determined predominantly by the asymptotic value of $`A_T^{exp}(t)`$ under the assumption of $`CPT`$ symmetry (spesifically, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}=0`$ and $`\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})=0`$), it seems that the result (6.2a) is better to be interpreted as giving (see Eq.(5.8a))
$$\text{Re}(\epsilon )+\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})=(1.55\pm 0.43)\times 10^3,$$
(6.3)  and therefore that $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )`$ remains unconstrained. In our previous analyses , we have accepted the assumption $`\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})=0`$ and used Eqs.(6.2b) and (6.3) as a part of our inputs. One may, instead, use the CPLEAR result on $`\text{Im}(\delta )`$, Eq.(6.1a), as one of the inputs to derive

$$\text{Im}(\epsilon )+\theta _0=(1.34\pm 2.30)\times 10^2.$$
(6.4)
## 7 Summary and concluding remarks

In order to identify or search for possible violation of $`CP`$$`T`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries in the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ system, parametrizing the mixing parameters and the relevant decay amplitudes in a convenient and well-defined way, we have, with the relevant experimental data used as inputs and partly with the aid of the Bell-Steinberger relation, performed numerical analyses to determine or constrain the symmetry-violating parameters separately as far as possible.

The numerical outputs of our analyses are shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 (see also Table 5), and the main results may be summarized as follows:

(1) The $`2\pi `$ data directly give $`\theta _2\theta _0=(1.89\pm 0.91)\times 10^4`$ and $`\epsilon _2\epsilon _0=(1.65\pm 3.17)\times 10^4`$ , where possible large uncertainty associated with $`\delta _2\delta _0`$ has been fully taken into account. These results indicate that $`CP`$ and $`T`$ symmetries are definitively violated at least at the level of $`10^4`$, while $`CPT`$ symmetry holds presumably down to the same level, in decay of $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K^0}`$ into $`2\pi `$ states.

(2) The well-measured leptonic asymmetry $`d_L^{\mathrm{}}`$, combined with the $`2\pi `$ data, gives $`\epsilon _0\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}+\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})=(0.1\pm 4.2)\times 10^5`$, which is a tight constraint to a particular combination of the direct $`CP`$ and $`CPT`$ violating parameters.

(3) The data on $`2\pi `$ modes and on $`d_L^{\mathrm{}}`$, combined with the CPLEAR value of $`\text{Re}(\delta )`$, give $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )+\epsilon _0=(1.956\pm 0.344)\times 10^3`$ and $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )+\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})=(1.955\pm 0.341)\times 10^3`$ respectively, which implies that $`CP`$ and $`T`$ symmetries are violated at the level of $`10^3`$ in the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing and/or that $`CP`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries are violated at the same level in $`2\pi `$ and $`\pi \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ decays.

(4) The use of the CPLEAR results on $`\text{Re}(\delta )`$, $`\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})`$ and $`\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)})`$ as a part of the inputs, aided by the Bell-Steinberger relation, enables one to determine or constrain many of the remaining symmetry-violating parameters separately. Remarkably, $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )`$ and $`\text{Im}(\delta )`$ turn out to be rather well determined or constrained: $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )=(1.652\pm 0.048)\times 10^3`$, $`\text{Im}(\delta )=(4.5\pm 5.0)\times 10^5`$. The former (latter) indicates that $`CP`$ and $`T`$ symmetries are violated at the level of $`10^3`$ ($`CPT`$ symmetry holds nearly down to the level of $`10^5`$) in mixing of $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K^0}`$.

(5) The results mentioned in (4) above in turn give $`\epsilon _0=(3.04\pm 3.45)\times 10^4`$ and $`\text{Im}(\epsilon )+\theta _0=(1.615\pm 0.059)\times 10^3`$. The latter implies that $`CP`$ and $`T`$ symmetries are violated definitively at least at the level of $`10^3`$ in the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing and/or in $`2\pi `$ decays.dddWithout the aid of Bell-Steinberger relation, $`\text{Im}(\epsilon )+\theta _0`$ remains ill-constrained (see Eq.(6.4)). Note also that we are not able to separate $`\theta _0`$ from $`\text{Im}(\epsilon )`$ (see Remarks (4) and (5) in Appendix for related discussion).

In the present work, in order to be as phenomenological and comprehensive as possible, we have chosen Eqs.(6.1b,c,d), those CPLEAR results which were obtained without any constraint, as a part of our inputs.eeeIn addition to the analyses leading to the results shown in Eqs.(6.1a,b,c,d) and in Eqs.(6.2a,b), CPLEAR Collaboration  further carried out a simultaneous fit to both $`A_T^{exp}(t)`$ and $`A_\delta ^{exp}(t)`$, with the Bell-Steinberger relation taken as a constraint, and succeeded in determining $`\text{Re}(\epsilon )`$, $`\text{Im}(\delta )`$, $`\text{Re}(\delta )`$, $`\text{Im}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)})`$, $`\text{Re}(x_{\mathrm{}}^{()})`$ and $`\text{Re}(\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})`$ simultaneously. These results, also shown in Table 5 for comparison, are reasonably consistent with our results. As a result, some of our outputs necessarily carry rather large uncertainty which stems directly from the large uncertainty associated with some of the input data. It is expected that experiments at the facilities such as DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE, Frascati, will be providing data with such precision and quality that a more precise and thorough test of $`CP`$, $`T`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries, and a meaningful test of the Bell-Steinberger relation itself as well, become possible.

## A Appendix

Denoting final states into which $`|K^0`$ and $`|\overline{K^0}`$ decay generically as $`|n`$, we consider the decay amplitudes

$`A_n`$ $``$ $`n|H_\text{w}|K^0|A_n|e^{i\psi _n},`$ (A.1a)
$`\overline{A}_{\overline{n}}`$ $``$ $`\overline{n}|H_\text{w}|\overline{K^0}|\overline{A}_{\overline{n}}|e^{i\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}},`$ (A.1b)
where $`|\overline{n}`$ is, by definition, related to $`|n`$ by

$`CP|n=e^{i\alpha _n}|\overline{n},`$ $`CPT|n=e^{i\beta _n}|\overline{n},`$ (A.2a)
$`CP|\overline{n}=e^{i\alpha _n}|n,`$ $`CPT|\overline{n}=e^{i\beta _n}|n.`$ (A.2b)
With the aid of Eqs.(2.1) and (A.2a,b), one readily verifies that $`CP`$, $`T`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries impose on the decay amplitudes $`A_n`$ and $`\overline{A}_{\overline{n}}`$ such conditions asfffIt is understood that final state interactions may be neglected or have already been factored out.

$`CP`$ $``$ $`\overline{A}_{\overline{n}}=A_ne^{i(\alpha _K\alpha _n)};`$ (A.3a)
$`T`$ $``$ $`A_n^{}=A_ne^{i(\beta _K\beta _n\alpha _K+\alpha _n)},`$ (A.3b)
$`\overline{A}_{\overline{n}}^{}=\overline{A}_{\overline{n}}e^{i(\beta _K\beta _n+\alpha _K\alpha _n)};`$
$`CPT`$ $``$ $`\overline{A}_{\overline{n}}^{}=A_ne^{i(\beta _K\beta _n)},`$ (A.3c)
or

$`CP`$ $``$ $`|A_n|=|\overline{A}_{\overline{n}}|,`$ (A.4a)
$`\psi _n\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}+\alpha _n\alpha _K=0;`$
$`T`$ $``$ $`2\psi _n+\alpha _n\beta _n\alpha _K+\beta _K=0,`$ (A.4b)
$`2\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}\alpha _n\beta _n+\alpha _K+\beta _K=0;`$
$`CPT`$ $``$ $`|A_n|=|\overline{A}_{\overline{n}}|,`$ (A.4c)
$`\psi _n+\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}\beta _n+\beta _K=0.`$
It is important to note that all these relations are invariant not only with respect to rephasing of $`|K^0`$ and $`|\overline{K^0}`$, Eq.(4.14), but also with respect to rephasing of the final states,

$$|n|n^{}=e^{i\xi _n}|n,|\overline{n}|\overline{n}^{}=e^{i\xi _{\overline{n}}}|\overline{n},$$
(A.5)
in spite that the phase parameters $`\alpha _n`$, $`\beta _n`$, $`\psi _n`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}`$ themselves are in general not invariant individually with respect to this rephasing. In fact, defining

$`CP|K^0^{}=e^{i\alpha _K^{}}|\overline{K^0}^{},`$ $`CPT|K^0^{}=e^{i\beta _K^{}}|\overline{K^0}^{},`$ (A.6a)
$`CP|n^{}=e^{i\alpha _n^{}}|\overline{n}^{},`$ $`CPT|n^{}=e^{i\beta _n^{}}|\overline{n}^{},`$ (A.6b)
$`{}_{}{}^{}n|H_\text{w}|K^0_{}^{}=A_n^{}=|A_n|e^{i\psi _n^{}},`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}\overline{n}|H_\text{w}|\overline{K^0}_{}^{}=\overline{A}_{\overline{n}}^{}=|\overline{A}_{\overline{n}}|e^{i\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}^{}},`$ (A.6c)
one finds

$`\alpha _K^{}=\alpha _K2\xi _K,`$ $`\beta _K^{}=\beta _K,`$ (A.7a)
$`\alpha _n^{}=\alpha _n\xi _n+\xi _{\overline{n}},`$ $`\beta _n^{}=\beta _n+\xi _n+\xi _{\overline{n}},`$ (A.7b)
$`\psi _n^{}=\psi _n+\xi _n\xi _K,`$ $`\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}^{}=\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}\xi _{\overline{n}}\xi _K,`$ (A.7c)
from which it follows that

$`2\psi _n^{}+\alpha _n^{}\beta _n^{}\alpha _K^{}+\beta _K^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\psi _n+\alpha _n\beta _n\alpha _K+\beta _K,`$ (A.8a)
$`2\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}^{}\alpha _n^{}\beta _n^{}+\alpha _K^{}+\beta _K^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}\alpha _n\beta _n+\alpha _K+\beta _K,`$ (A.8b)
$`\psi _n^{}\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}^{}+\alpha _n^{}\alpha _K^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _n\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}+\alpha _n\alpha _K,`$ (A.8c)
$`\psi _n^{}+\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}^{}\beta _n^{}+\beta _K^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _n+\overline{\psi }_{\overline{n}}\beta _n+\beta _K.`$ (A.8d)
As $`|n`$, we are interested in $`|(2\pi )_I`$, $`|\mathrm{}^+`$ and $`|\mathrm{}^{}`$,gggIt is understood that $`|\overline{n}|n`$, $`\alpha _n0`$ and $`\xi _{\overline{n}}\xi _n`$ for $`|n=|(2\pi )_I`$. and, in Sect.4, we have parametrized the relevant amplitudes in a specific way, for which the conditions imposed by $`CP`$, $`T`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries, Eqs.(A.4a,b,c), read

$`CP`$ $``$ $`\epsilon _I=0,\theta _I=0,`$ (A.9a)
$`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}=0,2\theta _{\mathrm{}}+\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=0;`$
$`T`$ $``$ $`\theta _I=0,2\varphi _I\beta _I+\beta _K=0,`$ (A.9b)
$`2\theta _{\mathrm{}}+\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=0,2\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\beta _{\mathrm{}}+\beta _K=0;`$
$`CPT`$ $``$ $`\epsilon _I=0,2\varphi _I\beta _I+\beta _K=0,`$ (A.9c)
$`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}=0,2\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\beta _{\mathrm{}}+\beta _K=0.`$
Note that all these constraints are independent of $`\alpha _K`$ and that the parameters $`\epsilon _I`$, $`\theta _I`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ are each constrained to have a unique value, while the other parameters $`\varphi _I`$, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ are not. These three are just those phase parameters which are not invariant with respect to rephasing of the final states, Eq.(A.5), and accordingly may be transformed away by a rephasing. In fact, it is not difficult to see that freedom associated with choice of $`\xi _I`$, $`\xi _\mathrm{}++\xi _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\xi _\mathrm{}+\xi _{\mathrm{}}`$ allows one, without loss of generality, to take

$$\varphi _I=0,\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=0,\theta _{\mathrm{}}=0,$$
(A.10)
respectively.

A couple of remarks are in order.

(1) Freedom associated with choice of $`\xi _I`$, $`\xi _\mathrm{}++\xi _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\xi _\mathrm{}+\xi _{\mathrm{}}`$ allows one alternatively to take

$$\beta _I=\beta _K,\beta _{\mathrm{}}=\beta _K,\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=0,$$
(A.11)
respectively. With this choice, one would, in addition to Eqs.(4.16a,b,c), have

$`CP`$ $``$ $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}=0;`$ (A.12a)
$`T`$ $``$ $`\varphi _I=0,\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=0,\theta _{\mathrm{}}=0;`$ (A.12b)
$`CPT`$ $``$ $`\varphi _I=0,\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=0.`$ (A.12c)
We prefer not to make this choice, since it would camouflage the fact that $`\varphi _I`$, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ are actually unmeasurable.

(2) In Refs., parametrizing $`A_I`$, $`\overline{A}_I`$, $`A_\mathrm{}+`$ and $`\overline{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ as

$`A_I`$ $`=`$ $`F_I(1+\epsilon _I)e^{i\alpha _K/2},`$ (A.13a)
$`\overline{A}_I`$ $`=`$ $`F_I(1\epsilon _I)e^{i\alpha _K/2},`$ (A.13b)
$`A_\mathrm{}+`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mathrm{}}(1+\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})e^{i\alpha _K/2},`$ (A.13c)
$`\overline{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mathrm{}}(1\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})e^{i\alpha _K/2},`$ (A.13d)
with $`F_I`$, $`\epsilon _I`$, $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ all understood to be complex in general and with $`\epsilon _I`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ presupposed to be small, we adopt a phase convention which gives

$$\text{Im}(F_I)=0,\text{Im}(F_{\mathrm{}})=0,\text{Im}(\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})=0,$$
(A.14)
so as to have

$`CP`$ $``$ $`\text{Re}(\epsilon _I)=0,\text{Im}(\epsilon _I)=0,\text{Re}(\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})=0;`$ (A.15a)
$`T`$ $``$ $`\text{Im}(\epsilon _I)=0;`$ (A.15b)
$`CPT`$ $``$ $`\text{Re}(\epsilon _I)=0,\text{Re}(\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})=0.`$ (A.15c)
Eq.(A.14) and Eqs.(A.15a,b,c) correspond to Eq.(4.15) and Eqs.(4.16a,b,c) respectively.hhhIf one adopts an alternative phase convention which gives (A.11), one will have Eqs.(A.15a,b,c) and, in addition,     $`CP`$ $``$ $`\text{Im}(\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})=0;`$  (A.16a)   $`T`$ $``$ $`\text{Im}(F_I)=0,\text{Im}(F_{\mathrm{}})=0,\text{Im}(\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})=0;`$  (A.16b)   $`CPT`$ $``$ $`\text{Im}(F_I)=0,\text{Im}(F_{\mathrm{}})=0.`$  (A.16c)   We have preferred in this work to start with the parametrizations (4.10a,b) and (4.12a,b,c,d) so as to emphasize that all the phase parameters, $`\varphi _n`$ and $`\theta _n`$ as well as $`\alpha _K`$, $`\beta _K`$, $`\alpha _n`$ and $`\beta _n`$, are completely arbitrary (i.e., not necessarily small) in general and it is rephasing-noninvariant phase parameters which may be transformed away by a rephasing.

(3) If, following Refs., one parametrizes $`A_\mathrm{}+`$ and $`\overline{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ as

$`A_\mathrm{}+`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mathrm{}}(1y_{\mathrm{}}),`$ (A.17a)
$`\overline{A}_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mathrm{}}^{}(1+y_{\mathrm{}}^{}),`$ (A.17b)
with both $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`y_{\mathrm{}}`$ understood to be complex in general, one would, corresponding to Eqs.(A.9a,b,c), have

$`CP`$ $``$ $`\text{Re}(y_{\mathrm{}})=0,2\text{Im}(f_{\mathrm{}})/\text{Re}(f_{\mathrm{}})+\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\alpha _K=0;`$ (A.18a)
$`T`$ $``$ $`2\text{Im}(f_{\mathrm{}})/\text{Re}(f_{\mathrm{}})+\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\alpha _K=0,`$ (A.18b)
$`2\text{Im}(y_{\mathrm{}})\beta _{\mathrm{}}+\beta _K=0;`$
$`CPT`$ $``$ $`\text{Re}(y_{\mathrm{}})=0,2\text{Im}(y_{\mathrm{}})\beta _{\mathrm{}}+\beta _K=0.`$ (A.18c)
This parametrization and our previous parametrization (A.13c,d), though distinct from each other in that the latter (the former) is invariant (not invariant) under rephasing of $`|K^0`$ and $`|\overline{K^0}`$, Eq.(4.14), are similar to each other in that both are not invariant under rephasing of $`|\mathrm{}^+`$ and $`|\mathrm{}^{}`$, Eq.(A.5). Specifically, both $`\text{Im}(y_{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`\text{Im}(f_{\mathrm{}})`$ (like $`\text{Im}(F_{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`\text{Im}(\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})`$) are not invariant under the rephasing (A.5) and hence may be transformed away, leaving $`\text{Re}(y_{\mathrm{}})`$ (like $`\text{Re}(\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})`$) as the only physical parameter characterizing $`CP`$ and $`CPT`$ violations.iiiThe authors of Refs. claimed that $`CP`$ and $`CPT`$ symmetries impose such conditions on $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`y_{\mathrm{}}`$ as     $`CP`$ $``$ $`\text{Im}(f_{\mathrm{}})=0,\text{Re}(y_{\mathrm{}})=0;`$  (A.19a)   $`CPT`$ $``$ $`\text{Re}(y_{\mathrm{}})=0,\text{Im}(y_{\mathrm{}})=0,`$  (A.19b)  and argued that $`\text{Im}(y_{\mathrm{}})`$ does not appear, to first order, so that $`y_{\mathrm{}}`$ may be treated as real in their discussion. What we have argued here is, in contrast, that $`CP\text{Im}(f_{\mathrm{}})=0`$ and $`CPT\text{Im}(y_{\mathrm{}})=0`$ follow only if one adopts such phase convention as $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=\alpha _K`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{}}=\beta _K`$ and that both $`\text{Im}(f_{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`\text{Im}(y_{\mathrm{}})`$ are to be regarded as parameters not measurable in principle.

(4) The parameters $`\epsilon `$ and $`\delta `$ which characterize the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing is often referred to as indirect symmetry-violating parameters while those parameters which characterize decay amplitudes are often referred to as direct symmetry-violating parameters. As is emphasized in , classification of symmetry-violating parameters into ”direct” and ”indirect” ones makes sense only when they are defined in such a way that they are invariant under rephasing of $`|K^0`$ and $`|\overline{K^0}`$, Eq.(4.14).jjjIn Ref., we have further argumed that it is more consistent to refer to $`\epsilon _{}`$ and $`\delta _{}`$, which are related exclusively to the mass matrix (see Eqs.(4.6a,d)), as indirect parameters and to all the other parameters including $`\epsilon _{}`$ and $`\delta _{}`$ as direct parameters. Note also that direct parameters are not necessarily separable from indirect parameters. This is the reason why we have been adhered to invariance under this rephasing.

(5) It is legitimate to parametrize $`q_S/p_S`$, $`q_L/p_L`$, $`A_I`$ and $`\overline{A}_I`$ in a way not invariant under the rephasing (4.14) and at the same time adopt some phase convention. For examples,

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{q_S}{p_S}=\frac{1\epsilon \delta }{1+\epsilon +\delta },\\ \frac{q_L}{p_L}=\frac{1\epsilon +\delta }{1+\epsilon \delta },\end{array}$$
(A.20)
in place of Eqs.(4.1) and (4.2),

$`A_I`$ $`=`$ $`F_I(1+\epsilon _I)e^{i(\varphi _I+\theta _I)},`$ (A.21a)
$`\overline{A}_I`$ $`=`$ $`F_I(1\epsilon _I)e^{i(\varphi _I\theta _I)},`$ (A.21b)
in place of Eqs.(4.10a,b), and

$`A_I`$ $`=`$ $`F_I(1+\epsilon _I),`$ (A.22a)
$`\overline{A}_I`$ $`=`$ $`F_I(1\epsilon _I),`$ (A.22b)
in place of Eqs.(A.13a,b). $`\text{Im}(\epsilon )`$ and $`\theta _I`$ (or $`\text{Im}(\epsilon _I)`$) then become noninvariant with respect to the rephasing (4.14). One may readily convince himself that freedom associated with choice of $`\xi _K`$ allows one, without loss of generality, to take either $`\text{Im}(\epsilon )=0`$ or, say, $`\theta _0=0`$ (or $`\text{Im}(\epsilon _0)=0`$). The latter is a phase convention corresponding to the one originally adopted by Wu and Yang , while the former is a phase convention once adopted by Wolfenstein . Note that, although freedom associated with choice of $`\xi _K`$ also allows one, without loss of generality, to take $`\alpha _K=0`$, which is a phase convention widely (sometimes implicitly, though) adopted in the literature, these three phase conventions are not compatible with one another, as has been emphasized before .