Paper detail

B physics constraints on a flavor symmetric scalar model to account for the ttbar asymmetry and Wjj excess at CDF

Recently Nelson et al. proposed an interesting flavor symmetric model to account for the top quark forward-backward asymmetry and the dijet anomaly at CDF simultaneously with just three parameters: a coupling constant of order one, and two scalar masses of 160 GeV and 220 GeV. However these fiducial values of the parameters lead to the branching ratio of a almost pure penguin B -> pi K decay about one hundred times larger than the experimental results. Consider also the precision electroweak constraints, the scalar masses should be at least around 500 GeV. Actually with the coupling constant larger than one, it is impossible to explain either of the two CDF measurements consistently in this model. But one may raise the charged scalar mass to, for example, 250 GeV and reduce the coupling strength to 0.6 to meet the B physics constraints. With this parameter set, the Wjj cross section is found to be in the right range. But due to the scalar mass splitting, its correction to T-parameter is about 3 sigma away from the precision electroweak constraints. In addition, the top quark forward-backward asymmetry should be well below 0.1 with this small coupling constant.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.