1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsf}
3: \pagestyle{plain}
4: \topmargin=-0.8in
5: \hoffset=-1.0cm
6: \voffset=1cm
7: \textwidth=160mm
8: \textheight=220mm
9: \def\baselinestretch{1.5}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12: \title{The dynamical models and the $Z \rightarrow b \bar{b}$ asymmetry}
13:
14: \author{Chongxing Yue$^{(a,b)}$, Yuanben Dai$^{(b,c)}$, Hong Li$^{b}$ \\
15: {\small a: CCAST (World Laboratory) P.O. BOX 8730. B.J. 100080 P.R. China}\\
16: {\small b: College of Physics and Information Engineering,}\\
17: \small{Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453002. P.R.China}\\
18: {\small c: Institute of Theoretical physics, Academia Sinica, P.
19: O. Box 2735, B.J.100080 P.R. China}
20: \thanks{This work is supported by the National Natural Science
21: Foundation of China(I9905004), the Excellent Youth Foundation of
22: Henan Scientific Committee(9911), and Foundation of Henan
23: Educational Committee.}
24: \thanks{E-mail:cxyue@public.xxptt.ha.cn} }
25: \date{\today}
26: \maketitle
27: \begin{abstract}
28: \hspace{5mm}Motivated by the $3.2\sigma$($1.4\sigma$) deviations
29: between the recent experimental value for $A_{FB}^{b}(R_{b})$ and
30: the standard model(SM) prediction, we examine the effect of new
31: physics(NP) on the $Zb \bar{b}$ couplings $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$.
32: First we focus our attention on the dynamical models. Then, using
33: effective lagrangean techniques, we discuss the corrections of NP
34: to $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$. We find some kinds of NP might explain the
35: recently experimental data about $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$. However,
36: the free parameters of these kinds of NP must be severely
37: constrained.
38: \end {abstract}
39:
40: \vspace{1.0cm} \noindent
41: {\bf PACS number(s)}: 12.60Cn,12.60.Nz,13.38.Dg
42:
43:
44: \newpage
45: \section{Introduction}
46: Most of the experiments are consistent with the predictions of the
47: standard model(SM) with sufficient accuracy. Almost all of the
48: experimental data are quite well explained in the context of the
49: SM. However, in the most recent analysis of the precision
50: electroweak data\cite{z1}, the $Z \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ forward
51: -backward asymmetry $A_{FB}^b=0.0990(17)$ is $3.2\sigma$ from the
52: SM fit value, but there is just a hint of a disagreement, at the
53: $1.4\sigma$ level, for the $Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ branching
54: ratio $R_b$ $[R_b=0.21664(68)]$. The result presented by the
55: recent experimental data are very puzzling. Certainly the result
56: could be a statistical fluctuation or from unknown systematic
57: error, but Ref[2] has told us that this seems to be due to new
58: physics(NP) beyond SM. In this note we shall assume that this is
59: a signal of new physics(NP).
60:
61: The effective $Zb\bar{b}$ vertex can be parameterized in terms of
62: two form factors, the left-handed coupling $g_L^b$ and the right -
63: handed coupling $g_R^b$:
64: \begin{equation}
65: \frac{e}{S_w C_w}[g_L^b\overline{b_L}\gamma^\mu b_L+g_R^b\overline{b_R}
66: \gamma^\mu b_R]Z_\mu,
67: \end{equation}
68: where $S_w=\sin\theta_w$, $\theta_w$ is the Winberg angle. In order to determine
69: the two form factors separately, we need two
70: independent measurement of the $Zb\bar{b}$ vertex. One is provided
71: by $R_b$ and the other by the forward-backward asymmetry
72: $A_{FB}^b$. The deviations of the experimental data about $R_b$ and
73: $A_{FB}^b$ from the SM predictions may be induced by the corrections of
74: NP to the two from factors $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$.
75:
76: In this paper, we shall explore whether the corrections of NP to
77: the two form factors can bring the theoretical predictions
78: closer to the experimental results. We find that some kinds of NP can not
79: fit both $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ within the $1\sigma$ bounds of the recent
80: experimental data at the same time. Some other kinds
81: of NP might explain the recently experimental data about $R_b$ and
82: $A_{FB}^b$. However, the free parameters of these kinds of NP must be
83: severely constrained.
84:
85: \section{Constraints of the experimental data on $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$ }
86:
87: The two form factors $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$ can be written as :
88: \begin{equation}
89: g_L^b=-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}S_w^2 +\delta g_L^b, \hspace{5mm}
90: g_R^b=\frac{1}{3}S_w^2+\delta g_R^b.
91: \end{equation}
92: Where $\delta g_{L(R)}^b$ contain the SM and the NP contributions
93: at one loop order:
94: \begin{equation}
95: g_L^b=-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}S_w^2+\delta g_L^{b,SM}+\delta
96: g_L^{b,N} =-0.4208+\delta g_L^{b,N},
97: \end{equation}
98: \begin{equation}
99: g_R^b=\frac{1}{3}S_w^2+\delta g_R^{b,SM}+\delta g_R^{b,N}=0.0774+
100: \delta g_R^{b,N}.
101: \end{equation}
102: Where the SM values are for $m_t=174GeV$ and
103: $M_H=100GeV$\cite{z3}. In principle, the corrections of NP to the
104: $Zb\bar{b}$ vertex may give arise to one additional form factor,
105: proportional to $\sigma^{\mu \nu}q^{\nu}$. This magnetic
106: moment-type form factor arises at one-loop and should be
107: considered as well. However, its contributions to $R_b$ and
108: $A^b_{FB}$ are very small. Thus, we have ignored it.
109:
110: The corrections of NP to $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ can
111: be expressed in terms of the form factors $\delta g_L^{b,N}$ and
112: $\delta g_R^{b,N}$:
113: \begin{equation}
114: \frac{\delta R_b}{R_b^{SM}}=2(1-R_b^{SM})\frac{g_L^{b,SM}\delta
115: g_L^{b,N}+g_R^{b,SM}\delta
116: g_R^{b,N}}{(g_L^{b,SM})^2+(g_R^{b,SM})^2},
117: \end{equation}
118: \begin{equation}
119: \frac{\delta
120: A_{FB}^b}{A_{FB}^{b,SM}}=\frac{4(g_L^{b,SM})^2(g_R^{b,SM})^2}
121: {(g_L^{b,SM})^4-(g_R^{b,SM})^4}(\frac{\delta
122: g_L^{b,N}}{g_L^{b,SM}} -\frac{\delta g_R^{b,N}}{g_R^{b,SM}}).
123: \end{equation}
124:
125:
126: The 1$\sigma$ contours of $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ are plotted in Fig.1.
127: Since $\frac{\delta R_b}{R_b^{SM}}$ is
128: more than one order of magnitude smaller than $\frac{\delta
129: A_{FB}^b}{A_{FB}^{b,SM}}$, the expression $g_L^{b,SM}\delta
130: g_L^{b,N}+g_R^{b,SM}\delta g_R^{b,N}$ is severely constrained.
131: From this and that $g_L^{b,SM}$ is about $5.5$ times larger than
132: $g_R^{b,SM}$ we can see that $\frac{\delta
133: A_{FB}^b}{A_{FB}^{b,SM}}$ is dominated by the $\frac{\delta
134: g_R^{b,N}}{g_R^{b,SM}}$ term. Thus, we find that the constraints
135: of the 1$\sigma$ bounds of $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ on $\delta
136: g_L^{b,N}/g_L^{b,SM}$ and $\delta g_R^{b,N}/g_R^{b,SM}$ can be
137: written as:
138: \begin{equation}
139: 0.0002\leq\frac{\delta g_L^{b,N}}{g_L^{b,SM}}+(\frac{g_R^{b,SM}}
140: {g_L^{b,SM}})^2 \frac{\delta g_R^{b,N}}{g_R^{b,SM}}\leq 0.0041,
141: \hspace{5mm}
142: 0.225 \leq \frac{\delta g_R^{b,N}}{g_R^{b,SM}}\leq 0.465.
143: \end{equation}
144: Thus, if the deviations from the SM values about $R_b$ and
145: $A_{FB}^b$ persist, the corrections to $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$ from
146: any kind of NP, which can fit both $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ within the
147: 1$\sigma$ bounds of the experimental at the same time, must
148: satisfy Eq.(7). This is a very strong constraint.
149:
150: In the following, we will explore whether the contributions of NP
151: to the $Zb \bar{b}$ couplings $g_L^{b,SM}$, $g_R^{b,SM}$ can bring
152: the SM predictions close to the experimental results and see
153: whether there is any kind of NP satisfying Eq.(7). First we will
154: mainly focus our attention on the class of models, in which the
155: electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) and the large top mass is
156: dynamically generated by the new strong interactions. In this
157: paper, we will call this class of models as the dynamical models.
158: Then, using effective lagrangean techniques, we discuss the
159: corrections of NP to the form factors $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$. This is
160: a model independent analysis.
161:
162: \section{The dynamical models}
163:
164: To completely avoid the problems arising from the elementary Higgs
165: field, various kinds of dynamical EWSB mechanisms have been
166: proposed, and among which topcolor-assisted technicolor (TC2)
167: theory\cite{z4} is an attractive idea. TC2 theory generally
168: predicts the existence of two kinds of new gauge bosons:(a) the
169: extended technicolor (ETC) gauge bosons, (b) the topcolor gauge
170: bosons including the color-octet colorons $B_{\mu}^{A}$ and an
171: extra $U(1)_{Y}$ gauge boson $Z^{\prime}$. Furthermore, this kind
172: of models predict a number of pseudo Goldstone bosons ($PGB^\prime
173: s$), including the technipions in the technicolor sector and the
174: top-pions in the topcolor sector. All these new particles can give
175: corrections to the form factors $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$.
176:
177: The main ETC corrections to $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$ are from the ETC
178: gauge boson contributions. It has been shown in Ref.[5] that the
179: negative diagonal ETC gauge boson contribution to $g_L^b$ is
180: larger than that of the positive sideways gauge boson. There
181: are $\delta g_L^{b,E}<0$ and $\delta g_R^{b,E}\simeq 0$. The gauge
182: bosons $B_\mu^A$ and $Z^\prime$ also have contributions to $g_L^b$
183: and $g_R^b$ and there are $\delta g_L^{b,B}/g_L^{b,SM}=\delta
184: g_R^{b,B}/g_R^{b,SM}>0$, $\delta g_L^{b,Z^\prime}/g_L^{b,SM}>0$
185: and $\delta g_R^{b,Z^\prime}/g_R^{b,SM}>0$\cite{z6}. Due to the
186: strong coupling between the top-pion and the third generation quarks
187: , the top-pions can give rise to a large positive correction to
188: $g_L^{b,SM}$, i.e. $\delta g_L^{b,\pi_t}/g_L^{b,SM}<0$, $\delta
189: g_R^{b,\pi_t}\simeq0$\cite{z7}. In Ref.\cite{z8} it is found that,
190: by combining all of these corrections to $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$, it is
191: possible that TC2 models can make the theoretical predictions
192: consistent with the experimental value of $R_b$. For $A_{FB}^b$,
193: we have:
194: \begin{equation}
195: \frac{\delta
196: A_{FB}^b}{A_{FB}^{b,SM}}=-\frac{4(g_L^{b,SM})^2(g_R^{b,SM})^2}
197: {(g_L^{b,SM})^4-(g_R^{b,SM})^4} [\frac{\delta
198: g_R^{b,B}}{g_R^{b,SM}}
199: +\frac{\delta g_R^{b,Z^\prime}}{g_R^{b,SM}}]
200: \end{equation}
201: with
202: \begin{equation}
203: \frac{\delta g_R^{b,B}}{g_R^{b,SM}}=\frac{k_3}{6\pi}C_2(R)
204: [\frac{m_Z^2}{M_B^2}\ln \frac{M_B^2}{m_Z^2}],\hspace{5mm}
205: \frac{\delta
206: g_R^{b,Z^\prime}}{g_R^{b,SM}}=\frac{k_1}{6\pi}(y_{R}^{b})
207: [\frac{m_Z^2}{M_{Z^\prime}^2}\ln\frac{M_{Z^\prime}^2}{m_Z^2}].
208: \end{equation}
209: We have neglected the small $\delta g_L^b$ term in above
210: equations. $k_3$ and $k_1$ are the coloron and the $Z^\prime $
211: coupling constants, respectively, $M_B$ and $M_{Z^\prime}$ are,
212: respectively, the mass of $B_{\mu}^A$ and $Z^\prime$,
213: $C_2(R)=\frac{4}{3}$ and $Y_R^b=-\frac{2}{3}$\cite{z4}. If we take
214: $k_3=2$, $k_1=1$\cite{z9}, and $M_B=M_{Z^\prime}=500GeV$, we have
215: $\delta A_{FB}^b\simeq2.6\times 10^{-4}$, which is too small to
216: explain the $A_{FB}^b$ experimental deviations from the SM
217: prediction value. Thus, TC2 models can not fit both $R_b$ and
218: $A_{FB}^b$ within the 1$\sigma$ bounds of the recent experimental
219: data. If the deviation persist, TC2 models may be ruled out.
220:
221:
222:
223:
224: Several years ago, to generate a large top mass, a dynamical model
225: was proposed in Ref.[10] by B. Holdom. The model contains a fourth
226: family, and members of the third and fourth families are composed
227: of two "families" of fermions $ f $ and $\underline{f}$. The model
228: also predicts the existence of the extra massive gauge boson
229: $\chi$, which is a singlet under unbroken gauge symmetries and
230: with a mass in the few hundred GeV to one TeV range. The gauge
231: boson $\chi$ does not couple to the first and second families. It
232: couples with a vector charge of $g_\chi$ to all members of the $ f
233: $ family and with a vector charge of -$g_\chi$ to all members of
234: the $\underline{f}$ family. The mechanism producing a large top
235: mass requires that the fourth family quark mass eigenstates
236: $t^\prime$ and $b^\prime$ correspond to Dirac spinors of the form
237: [$\underline{f}_L,f_R$], which are nearly degenerate. The t and b
238: quarks correspond to [ $f_L$, $\underline{f}_R$], which implies
239: that the gauge boson $\chi$ couples with the same axial coupling
240: to the t and b quarks. The main effects of $\chi$ on the form
241: factors $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$ come from its mixing with the
242: electroweak gauge boson $Z$, which can be written as [11]:
243: \begin{equation}
244: \delta g_L^{b,\chi}=-\delta g_R^{b,\chi}=-\frac{e}{8S_wC_w}
245: (\frac{m_t}{m_{q^\prime}})^2,
246: \end{equation}
247: where $q^\prime=(t^\prime, b^\prime)$. If the dynamical $t^\prime$
248: and $b^\prime$ masses make the main contributions to the $W$ and
249: $Z$ masses and the associated decay constant is $F\simeq 145GeV$,
250: then [11]:
251: \begin{equation}
252: m_{q^\prime}\approx \sqrt{3}F\frac{m_\rho}{2f_\pi}\approx 1TeV .
253: \end{equation}
254: Using Eq.(10) and (11), we can easily obtain $\delta g_R^{b,
255: \chi}/g_R^{b, SM}\simeq3.7\%$, which is too small to explain the
256: recent experimental data. The reason of generating too small
257: corrections to $g_R^b$ is that EWSB is mainly induced by the
258: dynamical $t^\prime$ and $b^\prime$ masses. If we change this
259: assurance, this problem may be solved. In fact, EWSB may be
260: induced by two or more kinds of new strong interactions at the
261: same time or induced by the elementary scalar field. If we assume
262: that EWSB is driven by the dynamical $t^\prime$ and $b^\prime$
263: masses and other strong interactions or a Higgs sector, we have:
264: \begin{equation}
265: 3(xF)^2+\nu^2={\nu_w}^2,
266: \end{equation}
267: with $x$ is a free parameter, $\nu_w \approx 246 GeV $ is the
268: electroweak scale and $\nu$ represents the contributions of other
269: strong interactions or a Higgs sector to EWSB. Then, the
270: corrections of gauge boson $ \chi$ to $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$ can be
271: approximately written as:
272: \begin{equation}
273: \delta g_L^{b,\chi} \approx -\delta g_R^{b,\chi} \approx
274: -\frac{e}{8S_w C_w x^2}(\frac{m_t}{1TeV})^2.
275: \end{equation}
276:
277:
278: Using the expression of $ \delta g_R^{b,N}/g_R^{b,SM}$ in Eq.(7),
279: we can constraint the free parameter $x$, which is in the range of
280: $0.28 - 0.41$. This means that, to explain the recent experimental
281: data of $A_{FB}^b$, the dynamical $t^\prime$ and $b^\prime$
282: masses must make only small contributions to EWSB and
283: the associated decay constant is $F_x\approx 40-60 GeV$.
284:
285: The equation (13) gives too large correction to $\delta g_L^{b}$
286: as compared to the constraint(7). But, if the scenario described
287: above is indeed correct, it can predict the existence of new
288: scalars with the decay constant $ F_x\approx 40-60 GeV$. Similar
289: to the top-pions, these new scalars have large Yukawa couplings to
290: the third family quarks. Thus, these new scalars may have large
291: positive contribution to $g_L^b$, which can partly cancel the
292: large negative contributions of the extra gauge boson $ \chi $ to
293: $ g_L^b$. So this new model might fit both $R_b$ and
294: $A_{FB}^b $ within the 1 $\sigma $ bounds of the experimental data
295: at the same time.
296:
297: Other type of new models can also explain the recently
298: experimental data. For example, the new model proposed by D. Chang
299: et al\cite{z12} is this case. This new model\cite{z12} contains an
300: exotic fourth family of quarks and leptons, which is free of
301: anomalies, together with a heavy Higgs scalar triplet which
302: supplies the neutrinos with Majorana masses. It has been shown
303: \cite{z13} that if the top mass $m_t$ is actually larger than
304: about 230 GeV, and the SM $b_R$ mixes with the exotic quark $Q_1$
305: of charge -$\frac{1}{3}$ of the doublet $(Q_1,Q_4)_R $, where
306: $Q_4$ has charge -$\frac{4}{3}$, then this model can account for
307: all the 1999 precision electroweak data . From Eq.(9) of Ref.[14],
308: we can see that this new model can fit both $A_{FB}^b$ and $R_b$
309: within the 1$\sigma$ bounds of the recent experimental data for
310: $0.035\leq (\sin{\theta_b})^2\leq 0.072$, where $\theta_b$ is the
311: mixing angle of the SM $b_R$ and the exotic quark $Q_1$. The
312: observed "top quark" phenomenon at the Fermilab are assumed to be
313: due to $Q_4$.
314:
315:
316: \section{Model independent analysis with dimension-six operators}
317:
318: In the last several years, many authors \cite{z14,z15} have studied
319: the effects of the dimension-six CP conserving $SU(3)_C \times
320: SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ invariant operators on the observables
321: $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ by using effective Lagrangean techniques. In this
322: section, we will use this method to model independent analysis of the
323: corrections of NP to the observables $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ and
324: compare them with the recent experimental data.
325:
326: If we assume that EWSB is dynamical driven by new strong
327: interactions. This kind of NP may predict the existence of the
328: operators $O_{qB}$, $ O_{bB} $, in the notation of Ref.\cite{z16}.
329: These operators arise from the extra $U(1)_Y$ gauge boson B, which
330: may have significantly contributions to $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$. The
331: corrections of the operators $O_{qB}$ and $O_{bB}$ to $g_L^b$,
332: $g_R^b$ can be explicitly written as:
333: \begin{equation}
334: \delta g_L^{b,B}=\frac{2S_w^2
335: C_w}{e}\frac{C_{qB}}{\Lambda^2}k^2,\hspace{5mm} \delta
336: g_R^{b,B}=\frac{2 S_w^2 C_w}{e}\frac{C_{bB}}{\Lambda^2}k^2,
337: \end{equation}
338: where $\Lambda$ is the NP scale. $k=p_b+p_{\bar{b}}$ is the
339: momentum of the electroweak gauge boson $Z$ and $C_{ij}$ are
340: coupling coefficients which represent the coupling strengths of
341: the operators $O_{ij}$. From Eq.(14), we can see that the
342: experimental measurement values of $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ can give
343: severe constrain on the free parameters of NP. If we demand that
344: NP can fit both $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ with 1$\sigma $ bounds of
345: the recent experimental data at the same time, the value of
346: the coupling coefficients $C_{ij}$ can be obtained by using
347: Eq.(7). Explicitly
348: \begin{equation}
349: 0.136\leq C_{qB}\leq 0.604,\hspace{5mm} 1.61\leq C_{bB}\leq 3.32.
350: \end{equation}
351:
352:
353: In above estimation, we have taken $\Lambda \approx 1TeV$, Thus,
354: as long as Eq.(15) is satisfied, it is possible that this kind of
355: NP models could explain the deviations of the $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$
356: experimental values from the SM predictions.
357:
358: If we assume that EWSB is driven by elementary scalar fields, the
359: operators $O_{\phi q}^{(1)}$, $ O_{\phi q}^{(3)} $ and $O_{\phi
360: b}$ might exist in this kind of NP. Certainly, the operators $O_{b
361: w \phi}$ and $O_{D b}$ might also exist. However, the
362: contributions of these operators to $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ are
363: proportional to $m_b$ and hence are negligible. The corrections of
364: the operators $O_{\phi q}^{(1)}$, $O_{\phi q}^{(3)}$ and $O_{\phi
365: b}$ to the form factors $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$ can be written as:
366: \begin{equation}
367: \delta g_L^{b,\phi}=-\frac{2S_w C_w}{e}\frac{\nu_w m_Z}{\Lambda^2}
368: (C_{\phi q}^{(1)}+C_{\phi q}^{(3)}),\hspace{5mm} \delta
369: g_R^{b,\phi}=\frac{2S_wC_w}{e} \frac{\nu_w m_Z} {\Lambda^2}C_{\phi
370: b}.
371: \end{equation}
372: Using Eq.(7) and (16), we can obtain:
373: \begin{equation}
374: -0.108 \leq C_{\phi q}^{(1)}+C_{\phi q}^{(3)}\leq -0.024,
375: \hspace{5mm} 0.287\leq C_{\phi b}\leq 0.593,
376: \end{equation}
377: which is required to have the theoretical values of both $R_b$ and
378: $A_{FB}^b$ to lie within the $1\sigma$ bounds of the recent
379: experimental data.
380:
381: From Eq.(16) and (17), we can see that the contributions of the
382: operators $O_{\phi q}^{(1)}$, $O_{\phi q}^{(3)}$ and $O_{\phi b}$
383: to $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ are larger than those of the operators
384: $O_{q B}$ and $O_{b B}$. The NP models which can predict the
385: operators $O_{\phi q}^{(1)}$, $O_{\phi q}^{(3)}$ and $O_{\phi b}$
386: are more severely constrained by the experimental data. However,
387: with appropriate parameter values, all of two kinds of NP models
388: can fit both $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ within the $1\sigma$ bounds of
389: the experimental data at the same time.
390:
391: \section{Conclusions }
392:
393: The effective $Zb\bar{b}$ vertex can be parameterized in terms of
394: two form factors $g_L^b$ and $g_R^b$. These two form factors can
395: be determined by the observables $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$. Thus, using
396: the new results of $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$, we can obtain the
397: constrains of the experimental data on $\delta g_L^{b,N}$ and
398: $\delta g_R^{b,N}$. On this basis, we discuss the contributions of
399: some kinds of NP to $\delta g_L^b$ and $\delta g_R^b$, we find
400: that some models, such as TC2 models, can not fit both $R_b$ and
401: $A_{FB}^b $ within the $1\sigma$ bounds of new experimental data
402: at the same time. However, some kinds of NP, for example, some
403: modification of the model proposed in Ref.\cite{z11} might explain
404: the deviations of the new experimental data about observables
405: $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ from the SM predictions. Certainly, in the
406: framework of these kinds of NP, model building must be studied
407: extensively in the future. Lastly, we use effective Lagrangean
408: techniques to model independent analysis of the corrections of NP
409: to the observables $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ and compare them with the
410: recent experimental data. We find that, with appropriate parameter
411: values, some kinds of NP models can fit the experimental data of
412: the observables $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ at the same time.
413:
414: \newpage
415: \vskip 2.0cm
416: \begin{center}
417: {\bf Figure captions}
418: \end{center}
419: \begin{description}
420: \item[Fig.1:]The 1$\sigma$ contours for $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ in the $\delta g_L^b-\delta
421: g_R^b$ plane. The solid line represents that the contribution of
422: NP makes the SM prediction value of $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$ to the centre value of
423: the experimental data.
424:
425:
426: \end{description}
427:
428: \newpage
429: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
430: \bibitem{z1} J.Dress, {\em Review of Final LEP Results or a Tribute to LEP},
431: talk presented at 20th Interactional Symposium on Lepton and Photon
432: Interaction at High Energies, Jul. 23-28, 2001, Rome, Italy ; P.
433: Langacker,hep-ph/0110129.
434: \bibitem{z2} M. S. Chanowitz, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}{\bf 87}, 2318002(2001).
435: \bibitem{z3}J. H. Field, {\em Mod. Phys. Lett. A}{\bf 13}, 1937(1998);
436: {\em Mod. Phys. Lett .A}{\bf 14}, 1815(1999).
437: \bibitem{z4}C. T. Hill, {\em Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 345}, 483(1995);
438: K. Lane and E. Eichten, {\em Phy. Lett. B}{\bf 352}, 383(1995);
439: K. Lane, {\em Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 433}, 96(1998); G. Cvetic,
440: {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 71}, 513(1999).
441: \bibitem{z5} G. H. Wu, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf 74}, 4173(1995);
442: Chongxing Yue, Yu-Ping Kuang, Gong-Ru Lu and Ling-De Wan, {\em
443: Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 52}, 5314(1995); K. Hagiwara and N. Kitazawa,
444: {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 52}, 5374(1995).
445: \bibitem{z6} C. T. Hill and X. Zhang, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 51},
446: 3563(1995); W. Loinaz and T. Takuchi, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 60},
447: 015005(1999).
448: \bibitem{z7} G. Burdman and D. Kominis, {\em Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 403},
449: 101(1997).
450: \bibitem{z8}Chongxing Yue, Yu-Ping Kuang, Xuelei Wang, and Weibin Li
451: {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 62}, 055005(2000).
452: \bibitem{z9} G. Buchalla, G. Burdman, C. T. Hill and D. Kominis,
453: {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 53}, 5185(1996); M. B. Popovic and E. H. Simmons,
454: {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 58}, 095007(1998).
455: \bibitem{z10} B. Holdom, {\em Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 336}, 85(1994).
456: \bibitem{z11}B. Holdom, {\em Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 339}, 114(1994).
457: \bibitem{z12} Darwin Chang, We-Fu Chang and E. Ma, {\em Phys. Rev. D}
458: {\bf 59}, 091503(1999).
459: \bibitem{z13} Darwin Chang, We-Fu Chang and E. Ma, {\em Phys. Rev. D}
460: {\bf 61}, 037301(2000).
461: \bibitem{z14}K. Hagiwara, et al, {\em Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 283},
462: 353(1992); {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 48}, 2182(1993); G. J. Gounaris,
463: F. M. Renard and C. Verzegnassi, {\em Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 52},
464: 451(1995).
465: \bibitem{z15}A. Datta and X. Zhang, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 55},
466: 2530(1997); D. Atwood, A. Kagan and T. Rizzo, {\em Phys. Rev.
467: D}{\bf 52}, 6264(1995); D. U. Carlson, E. Malkawi and C-P Yuan,
468: {\em Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 337}, 145(1994); H. Georgi, L. Kaplan, D.
469: Morin and Shenk, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 51}, 3888(1995); S. Dawson
470: and G.Valencia, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 53}, 1721(1996); T. G.
471: Rizzo, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 53}, 6218(1996); P. Haberl, O.
472: Nachtman and A. Wilch, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 53}, 4875(1996); G.
473: J. Gounaris, J. Layssac and F. M. Renard, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
474: 55}, 5786(1997).
475: \bibitem{z16}K. Whisnant, Jinmin Yang, Bing-Lin Young, and X. Zhang,
476: {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 56}, 467(1997).
477:
478: \end{thebibliography}
479:
480: \newpage
481: \begin{figure}[pt]
482: \begin{center}
483: \begin{picture}(250,200)(0,0)
484: \put(-50,20){\epsfxsize120mm\epsfbox{bb.eps}}
485: \put(120,-10){Fig.1}
486: \end{picture}
487: \end{center}
488: \end{figure}
489:
490:
491:
492:
493:
494: \end{document}
495: