- Access by Xinjiang University
Top quark forward-backward asymmetry from the 3-3-1 model
Phys. Rev. D 83, 054006 – Published 7 March, 2011
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.054006
Abstract
The forward-backward asymmetry in top quark pair production, measured at the Tevatron, is probably related to the contribution of new particles. The Tevatron result is more than a deviation from the standard model prediction and motivates the application of alternative models introducing new states. However, as the standard model predictions for the total cross section and invariant mass distribution for this process are in good agreement with experiments, any alternative model must reproduce these predictions. These models can be placed into two categories: One introduces the -channel exchange of new vector bosons with chiral couplings to the light quarks and to the top quark, and another relies on the -channel exchange of particles with large flavor-violating couplings in the quark sector. In this work, we employ a model which introduces both - and -channel nonstandard contributions for the top quark pair production in proton-antiproton collisions. We use the minimal version of the model (3-3-1 model) that predicts the existence of a new neutral gauge boson, called . This gauge boson has both flavor-changing couplings to up and top quarks and chiral coupling to the light quarks and to the top quark. This very peculiar model coupling can correct the for top quark pair production for two ranges of mass while leading to a cross section and invariant mass distribution quite similar to the standard model ones. This result reinforces the role of the 3-3-1 model for any new physics effect.
Article Text
References (16)
- F. Pisano and V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D 46, 410 (1992).
- P. H. Frampton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2889 (1992).
- L. G. Almeida, G. Sterman, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014008 (2008); S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 262002 (2007); M. T. Bowen, S. D. Ellis, and D. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D 73, 014008 (2006); J. H. Kuhn and G. Rodrigo, 59, 054017 (1999); Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 49 (1998); F. Halzen, P. Hoyer, and C. S. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 195, 74 (1987); R. W. Brown, D. Sahdev, and K. O. Mikaelian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1069 (1979).
- T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), arXiv:hep-ex/1101.0034.
- D0 Collaboration, D0 Note 6062-CONF.
- Sunghoon Jung, Hitoshi Murayama, Aaron Pierce, and James D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 81, 015004 (2010).
- Jing Shu, Tim M. P. Tait, and Kai Wang, Phys. Rev. D 81, 034012 (2010).
- Junjie Cao, Zhaoxia Heng, Lei Wu, and Jin Min Yang, Phys. Rev. D 81, 014016 (2010).
- V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D 53, 514 (1996).
- J. C. Montero, F. Pisano, and V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D 47, 2918 (1993); R. Foot, H. N. Long, and T. A. Tran, 50, R34 (1994); Hoang Ngoc Long, 53, 437 (1996); 54, 4691 (1996).
- James T. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 50, 542 (1994).
- Christoph Promberger, Sebastian Schatt, and Felix Schwab, Phys. Rev. D 75, 115007 (2007).
- J.-Alexis Rodriguez and Marc Sher, Phys. Rev. D 70, 117702 (2004).
- D. Gomez Dumm, F. Pisano, and V. Pleitez, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9, 1609 (1994).
- A. Pukhov and et al., arXiv:hep-ph/9908288; E. Boos et al. (CompHEP Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 534, 250 (2004).
- E. Ramirez Barreto, Y. A. Coutinho, and J. Sá Borges, Nucl. Phys. B810, 210 (2009).