T010 $Z \to b \bar{b}\,\text{pole observables: }\,R_b, A_{FB}^{0,b}, A_b$

Z-pole bottom-quark partial-width ratio and asymmetries
Status SUBTLETY-ADDED VERIFIED High Code: NO Priority High

Why this constrains the RS scan

In warped models with anarchic five-dimensional Yukawas, the third-generation left-handed doublet is typically localized closer to the IR brane to account for the top mass. That same localization makes the \(Z b_L\bar b_L\) coupling sensitive to gauge-boson and fermion mixing with Kaluza-Klein states. \(R_b\) mostly constrains the total \(Z\to b\bar b\) partial width, while \(A_b\) and \(A_{\rm FB}^{0,b}\) test the chiral balance of the bottom coupling. Custodial extensions, especially protections of \(Z b_L\bar b_L\), are therefore not a minor detail; they determine whether this observable is a leading bound or a diagnostic cross-check.

What's changed since the original paper

There has not been a new LEP/SLC-style experimental average superseding the Z-pole combination, so the PDG value remains legacy-data dominated. The post-CFW theory story did change: Casagrande et al. gave a detailed RS electroweak-precision treatment including Zbb couplings, while later SM work completed the fermionic two-loop description of Z partial widths and branching ratios (freitas\_2014\_z\_widths). Future-collider studies now revisit the experimental systematics of \(R_b\) and \(A_{\rm FB}^b\); the FCC-ee projection quotes relative uncertainties of order \(0.01\%\), but it is a prospective reference rather than a current constraint (fcc\_ee\_2025\_zbb\_projection.txt).

Validity and model dependence

This is a precision electroweak coupling constraint, not a flavor-changing amplitude by itself. It is highly relevant for RS flavor because the same fermion localizations and custodial choices that control flavor violation also set the tree-level Z-bottom coupling shifts. Its interpretation is therefore model-dependent: minimal bulk RS, custodial RS, brane kinetic terms, and different embeddings of the bottom multiplet can move the constraint substantially. \(A_{\rm FB}^{0,b}\) also contains the initial-state leptonic asymmetry input, so \(A_b\) is the cleaner bottom-coupling handle. In custodial RS, reduced \(Z b_L b_L\) pressure can make this observable relatively less direct as a mass setter or more diagnostic of embeddings; quote RS bounds only after specifying custodial protection, fermion embeddings, and brane kinetic terms.

Code coverage in this repo

NO. The required greps found no implementation of \(R_b\), \(A_b\), \(A_{\rm FB}^{0,b}\), or a Zbb electroweak-pole likelihood in quarkConstraints/, flavorConstraints/, neutrinos/, yukawa/, qcd/, warpConfig/, solvers/, scanParams/, or tests/. The only Z-related matches were generic \(M_Z\) support in qcd/running.py:3, qcd/constants.py:11, and quarkConstraints/qcd\_running.py:100.

Implementation difficulty

HIGH. A catalog-only record is straightforward, but a live constraint would need a new electroweak-pole observable module, a correlated treatment of the LEP/SLC pseudo-observables, and model-specific matching from the 5D spectrum to \(\delta g_{Lb}\) and \(\delta g_{Rb}\). The largest blocker is not lattice input or QCD running; it is the RS electroweak matching and custodial-symmetry bookkeeping.

Reason: A live constraint would require new electroweak-pole observable handling plus RS matching for shifts in Z b_L and Z b_R couplings, including custodial-protection model dependence and LEP/SLC correlations.

Key references

pdg\_2025\_z\_boson; lepslc\_2006\_z\_resonance; cfw\_2008\_rs\_flavor; casagrande\_2008\_rs\_ewpt; freitas\_2014\_z\_widths; fcc\_ee\_2025\_zbb\_projection.
Source SHAs
6 snapshot(s) tracked in flavor_catalog/processes/top_higgs_ew/T010.yaml
Access dates
2026-05-16
Worklog
flavor_catalog/worklogs/T010/
LaTeX source
flavor_catalog/processes/top_higgs_ew/T010.tex
Anchors generated
2026-05-18T01:54:07Z

R_b^0

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/listings/rpp2025-list-z-boson.pdf
accessed 2026-05-16 sha 0d0b9e2377ce... snapshot T010/pdg_2025_z_boson.txt RESOLVED
value_uncertainty 0.21629 +/- 0.00066
RESOLVED
Match snapshot line 10
L7: 
L8: R_b = Gamma(bb)/Gamma(hadrons)
L9: OUR FIT is obtained by a simultaneous fit to several c- and b-quark measurements.
L10: Value: 0.21629 +/- 0.00066 OUR FIT.
L11: 
L12: A_b
L13: This quantity is directly extracted from a measurement of the left-right

Snapshots live under flavor_catalog/references/<process_id>/. Source-line anchoring is automated; the status pill reflects match confidence, not editorial review.

A_FB^{0,b}

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/listings/rpp2025-list-z-boson.pdf
accessed 2026-05-16 sha 0d0b9e2377ce... snapshot T010/pdg_2025_z_boson.txt UNRESOLVED
value_uncertainty 0.0992 +/- 0.0016
UNRESOLVED

Automated anchoring could not pinpoint this value inside the snapshot. Manual verification is needed: open the live source and confirm against the context surrounding the value claim.

Open source manually
Snapshots live under flavor_catalog/references/<process_id>/. Source-line anchoring is automated; the status pill reflects match confidence, not editorial review.

A_b

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/listings/rpp2025-list-z-boson.pdf
accessed 2026-05-16 sha 0d0b9e2377ce... snapshot T010/pdg_2025_z_boson.txt RESOLVED
value_uncertainty 0.923 +/- 0.02
RESOLVED
Match snapshot line 15
L12: A_b
L13: This quantity is directly extracted from a measurement of the left-right
L14: forward-backward asymmetry in b b production at SLC using polarized electron beam.
L15: Value: 0.923 +/- 0.020 OUR FIT.
L16: 
L17: A_FB^(0,b) charge asymmetry in e+ e- -> b b
L18: OUR FIT refers to the Z pole asymmetry.

Snapshots live under flavor_catalog/references/<process_id>/. Source-line anchoring is automated; the status pill reflects match confidence, not editorial review.

LEP/SLC final-combination pull for A_FB^{0,b}

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0509008
accessed 2026-05-16 sha fe6c50814880... snapshot T010/lepslc_2006_z_resonance.txt RESOLVED
value 2.8
RESOLVED
Match snapshot line 13
L10: 
L11: R_b^0 = 0.21629 +/- 0.00066; SM fit value shown there: 0.21562 +/- 0.00013; pull 1.0.
L12: 
L13: A_FB^(0,b) = 0.0992 +/- 0.0016; SM fit value shown there: 0.1037 +/- 0.0008; pull 2.8.
L14: 
L15: A_b = 0.923 +/- 0.020; SM fit value shown there: 0.9346 +/- 0.0001; pull 0.6.
L16: 

Snapshots live under flavor_catalog/references/<process_id>/. Source-line anchoring is automated; the status pill reflects match confidence, not editorial review.

FCC-ee projected relative uncertainty for R_b and A_FB^b

https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17281
accessed 2026-05-16 sha 035f06739e5f... snapshot T010/fcc_ee_2025_zbb_projection.txt RESOLVED
value 0.01
RESOLVED
Match snapshot line 12
L9: Relevant abstract excerpt, normalized:
L10: The paper proposes an exclusive b-hadron tagging technique for measuring R_b and A_FB^b
L11: at FCC-ee using O(10^12) Z-boson decays. It states that the approach can reduce leading
L12: systematic uncertainties and obtain total relative uncertainties of order 0.01 percent for
L13: both observables.
L14: 
L15: Use in this process note:

Snapshots live under flavor_catalog/references/<process_id>/. Source-line anchoring is automated; the status pill reflects match confidence, not editorial review.