T012 $Z \to c \bar{c}\,\text{pole observables: }\,R_c, A_{FB}^{0,c}, A_c$

Z-pole charm-quark partial-width ratio and asymmetries
Status REVIEWED VERIFIED High Code: NO Priority Medium

Why this constrains the RS scan

These observables constrain flavor-diagonal shifts in the left- and right-handed \(Zc\bar c\) couplings. In anarchic warped models, the charm coupling shifts are usually less severe than the \(Zb\bar b\) constraint because the charm is not tied to the same custodial-protection problem as the third-generation bottom doublet. They are still useful as a consistency check on up-sector fermion localizations, bulk multiplet assignments, and the same gauge-boson mixing effects that generate flavor-changing \(Z\) couplings. A large shift in \(Zc\bar c\) would also feed the global Z-pole heavy-flavour fit that correlates charm and bottom pseudo-observables.

What's changed since the original paper

No new LEP/SLC-style experimental average supersedes the legacy Z-pole charm combination, so the PDG value remains data-dominated by the final LEP/SLC heavy-flavour fit. Since arXiv:0804.1954 (cfw\_2008\_rs\_flavor), the RS literature has made the model dependence of ordinary \(Zf\bar f\) couplings more explicit; the Casagrande--Goertz--Haisch--Neubert--Pfoh setup treats the standard \(Z\) couplings, flavor-changing \(Z\) effects, and electroweak precision constraints in a unified warped-flavor framework (casagrande\_2008\_rs\_ewpt). On the Standard-Model side, the fermionic electroweak two-loop calculation of Z partial widths and branching ratios was completed in arXiv:1401.2447 (freitas\_2014\_z\_widths). Prospective FCC-ee work, including arXiv:2107.00616 (alcaraz\_2021\_z\_lineshape\_fcc), revisits how \(R_c\) and \(A_{\rm FB}^{c}\) could be improved with modern heavy-flavour tagging, but those studies are not current experimental inputs.

Validity and model dependence

This is a precision electroweak coupling constraint, not a flavor-changing decay or a stand-alone RS flavor bound. It is robust as a measured Z-pole pseudo-observable, but the translation into a bound on a 5D model is embedding-dependent: custodial symmetry, the representation of the up-sector quarks, brane kinetic terms, and fermion localization choices all affect the predicted \(\delta g_{Lc}\) and \(\delta g_{Rc}\). \(R_c^0\) is mostly a width constraint, while \(A_c\) and \(A_{\rm FB}^{0,c}\) carry chiral information and depend on the electroweak-pole fit conventions.

Code coverage in this repo

NO. The required greps found no implementation of \(R_c\), \(A_c\), \(A_{\rm FB}^{0,c}\), a Zcc coupling-shift calculation, or a correlated electroweak-pole likelihood in quarkConstraints/, qcd/, flavorConstraints/, neutrinos/, yukawa/, 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; process-specific searches also returned unrelated \(R_\chi\) hadronic helpers.

Linked evidence (opens GitHub blob at flavor-catalog-website/2026q2):

Implementation difficulty

HIGH. A live constraint would need a new electroweak-pole observable module, LEP/SLC covariance handling for heavy-flavour pseudo-observables, and model-specific matching from the warped spectrum to \(\delta g_{Lc}\) and \(\delta g_{Rc}\). This is not covered by the existing \(\Delta F=2\) operator basis or the lepton-dipole path.

Reason: A live constraint would require new electroweak-pole observable handling, LEP/SLC heavy-flavour covariance data, and model-specific matching to Z c_L and Z c_R coupling shifts; the existing $\Delta F = 2$ and lepton-dipole paths do not cover it.

Key references

pdg\_2025\_z\_boson\_charm; lepslc\_2006\_z\_resonance\_charm; cfw\_2008\_rs\_flavor; casagrande\_2008\_rs\_ewpt; freitas\_2014\_z\_widths; alcaraz\_2021\_z\_lineshape\_fcc.
Source SHAs
6 snapshot(s) tracked in flavor_catalog/processes/top_higgs_ew/T012.yaml
Access dates
2026-05-16
Worklog
flavor_catalog/worklogs/T012/
LaTeX source
flavor_catalog/processes/top_higgs_ew/T012.tex
Anchors generated
2026-05-18T01:54:07Z

R_c^0

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/listings/rpp2025-list-z-boson.pdf
accessed 2026-05-16 sha 4394ce4d5f6f... snapshot T012/pdg_2025_z_boson_charm.txt RESOLVED
value_uncertainty 0.1721 +/- 0.003
RESOLVED
Match snapshot line 10
L7: 
L8: R_c = Gamma(cc)/Gamma(hadrons)
L9: OUR FIT is obtained by a simultaneous fit to several c- and b-quark measurements.
L10: Value: 0.1721 +/- 0.0030 OUR FIT.
L11: 
L12: A_c
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,c}

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/listings/rpp2025-list-z-boson.pdf
accessed 2026-05-16 sha 4394ce4d5f6f... snapshot T012/pdg_2025_z_boson_charm.txt RESOLVED
value_uncertainty 0.0707 +/- 0.0035
RESOLVED
Match snapshot line 20
L17: A_FB^(0,c) charge asymmetry in e+ e- -> c c
L18: OUR FIT refers to the Z pole asymmetry.
L19: Asymmetry (%): 7.07 +/- 0.35 OUR FIT.
L20: Converted dimensionless value used in the process note: 0.0707 +/- 0.0035.
L21: 
L22: Citation line in listing:
L23: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024) and 2025 update.

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

A_c

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/listings/rpp2025-list-z-boson.pdf
accessed 2026-05-16 sha 4394ce4d5f6f... snapshot T012/pdg_2025_z_boson_charm.txt RESOLVED
value 0.67
RESOLVED
Match snapshot line 15
L12: A_c
L13: This quantity is directly extracted from a measurement of the left-right
L14: forward-backward asymmetry in c c production at SLC using a polarized electron beam.
L15: Value: 0.670 +/- 0.027 OUR FIT.
L16: 
L17: A_FB^(0,c) charge asymmetry in e+ e- -> c c
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.