format: text

text:
# The 𝑍→𝑏𝑏̄ Decay Asymmetry and Left-Right Models

## I Introduction

The precision measurements at the $`Z`$ resonance continue to exhibit a deviation from the standard model in the observable $`A_{FB}^b`$ by about three standard deviations . It has been pointed out recently by Chanowitz  that this deviation indicates a problem whether it is genuine or not. In particular, Chanowitz argues that if the anomaly in $`A_{FB}^b`$ is attributed to systematic error and dropped from the LEP fits, then the indirect determination of the Higgs mass is in conflict with the direct limit .

In Ref. , Altarelli et.al. approach this problem by looking for super-symmetric corrections that improve the quality of the LEP fits (including $`A_{FB}^b`$), and that improve the consistency with the direct limits on the Higgs boson mass. They find that this is possible with light sneutrinos.

The possibility of new physics affecting the $`Zbb`$ coupling has also been discussed in Ref. . It is known that it is not easy to explain the $`A_{FB}^b`$ anomaly with new physics in the $`Zbb`$ coupling mainly because the measurement of $`R_b`$ is in good agreement with the standard model. However, as pointed out by Chanowitz , it is possible to have deviations in both the left and right handed couplings of the $`b`$-quark to the $`Z`$-boson in such a way as to change $`A_{FB}^b`$ without affecting $`R_b`$.

Our starting point is the combined fit to LEP and SLD measurements in terms of the left and right handed couplings of the $`b`$-quark. These are shown in Figure 11 of Drees , as well as in Ref. . Subtracting the standard model values from the central value of the fit one obtains the deviations,

$`\delta g_{Rb}`$ $``$ $`0.02`$ (1)
$`\delta g_{Lb}`$ $``$ $`0.001,`$ (2)
where we have flipped the sign of $`g_{Rb}`$ in Ref.  to agree with the particle data book  definitions.

The tree-level coupling in the standard model is written as

$`L(b_L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\overline{b}\gamma ^\mu (g_{Lb}L+g_{Rb}R)bZ_\mu ,`$ (3)
with $`L(R)=(1\gamma _5)/2`$. In terms of $`g_V=t_{L3}2Q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, $`g_A=t_{L3}`$ (with the parameters defined in Ref. ), $`g_{Lb}=(g_{Vb}+g_{Ab})/2`$ and $`g_{Rb}=(g_{Vb}g_{Ab})/2`$. Here $`t_{L3}`$ is the weak isospin which is $`1/2`$ for up-type of quarks and $`1/2`$ for down-type of quarks, and $`Q`$ is the electric charge in units of $`e`$. At tree-level then,

$`g_{Lb}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.42`$ (4)
$`g_{Rb}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.077`$ (5)
To gauge the magnitude of the required shifts, Eq. 2, it is useful to compare them with the one-loop correction in the standard model due to the heavy top-quark, $`\delta g_{Lb}0.003`$ .

In view of the agreement of other low energy observables with the standard model, any new physics invoked to explain the $`A_{FB}^b`$ anomaly has to affect primarily the third family, and in particular the right-handed couplings.

Several scenarios in which the third generation interacts differently from the first two have been explored in the literature. Foremost amongst these is top-color, where the $`Zbb`$ couplings have been studied extensively in connection with $`R_b`$ . It is easy to see that while top-color can easily generate a correction to the left-handed $`b`$-quark coupling of the required magnitude, it cannot generate a sufficiently large correction to the right-handed $`b`$ coupling . Other models considered in the literature, such as those of Refs. ,,  and , single out the third family as well. However, they predominantly affect the left-handed couplings, and cannot generate the shifts required by the $`A_{FB}^b`$ measurement. A possibility that may accommodate the required new physics appears in certain scenarios in which the $`b`$-quark mixes with heavy quarks with unconventional charge assignments .

Alternatively, the LEP data can be attributed to new physics in the form of higher dimension operators. In this way one does not have to explain the origin of the new physics but can still use it to predict other consequences. This has been done in Ref. .

In this paper we explore the possibility of a left-right model that preferentially affects the third family. In Section 2 we present a model of this type and show how it can naturally accommodate the required shift in $`g_{Rb}`$. In Section 3 we explore the viability of the model in light of other existing constraints.

## II The Model

The specific model to be discussed is a variation of Left-Right models . The gauge group of the model is $`SU(3)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}`$ with gauge couplings $`g_3`$, $`g_L`$, $`g_R`$ and $`g`$, respectively. The model differs from other Left-Right models in the transformation properties of the fermions.

The first two generations are chosen to have the same transformation properties as in the standard model,

$`Q_L=(3,2,1)(1/3),U_R=(3,1,1)(4/3),D_R=(3,1,1)(2/3),`$ (6)
$`L_L=(1,2,1)(1),E_R=(1,1,1)(2).`$ (7)
The numbers in the first parenthesis are the $`SU(3)`$, $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`SU(2)_R`$ group representations respectively, and the number in the second parenthesis is the $`U(1)_{BL}`$ charge.

The third generation is chosen to transform differently,

$`Q_L(3)=(3,2,1)(1/3),Q_R(3)=(3,1,2)(1/3),`$ (8)
$`L_L(3)=(1,2,1)(1),L_R=(1,1,2)(1).`$ (9)
The above assignments are unusual compared with the conventional Left-Right model, but they enhance the difference between the right handed couplings of the first two and the third generations. This model is anomaly free.

The correct symmetry breaking and mass generation of particles can be induced by the vacuum expectation values of three Higgs representations: $`H_R=(1,1,2)(1)`$, which breaks the group down to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$; and the two Higgs multiplets, $`H_L=(1,2,1)(1)`$ and $`\varphi =(1,2,2)(0)`$, which break the symmetry to $`SU(3)\times U(1)_{em}`$. For the purpose of symmetry breaking, only one of $`H_L`$ or $`\varphi `$ is sufficient, but both are required to give masses to all fermions.

One may also introduce triplet Higgs multiplets, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=(1,3,1)(2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R=(1,1,3)(2)`$ to separate the $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry breaking scales and to give Majorana masses to the neutrinos. These triplets may be desirable for neutrino physics for example but they are not necessary for our present purposes.

The introduction of $`\varphi `$ causes the standard model $`W`$ and $`Z`$ to mix with the new $`W_R`$ and $`Z_R`$ gauge bosons. Here $`W_R`$ is the $`SU(2)_R`$ charged gauge boson and $`Z_R`$ is a linear combination of the neutral component of the $`SU(2)_R`$ gauge boson $`W_{3R}`$ and the $`U(1)_{BL}`$ gauge boson $`B`$ defined as

$`Z_R=\mathrm{cos}\theta _RW_{3R}\mathrm{sin}\theta _RB,`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _R=g/g_R`$.

In the bases $`(W,W_R)`$ and $`(Z,Z_R)`$ for the massive gauge bosons, the mass matrices are given by,

$`M_W^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{11W}^2\hfill & m_{12W}^2\hfill \\ m_{12W}^2\hfill & m_{22W}^2\hfill \end{array}\right),M_Z^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{11Z}^2\hfill & m_{12Z}^2\hfill \\ m_{12Z}^2\hfill & m_{22Z}^2\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (15)
with

$`m_{11W}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_L^2(|v_L|^2+2|v_{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}|^2+|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2);`$ (16)
$`m_{22W}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_R^2(|v_R|^2+2|v_{\mathrm{\Delta }_R}|^2+|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2);`$ (17)
$`m_{12W}^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_Lg_RRe(v_1v_2^{}),`$ (18)
$`m_{11Z}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_L^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}(|v_L|^2+4|v_{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}|^2+|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2);`$ (19)
$`m_{22Z}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _R}}((|v_L|^2+4|v_{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _R+(|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2)\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _R`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`(|v_R|^2+4|v_{\mathrm{\Delta }_R}|^2));`$ (21)
$`m_{12Z}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_Lg_R{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _R}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}((|v_L|^2+4|v_{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}|^2)\mathrm{tan}\theta _R(|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2)\mathrm{cot}\theta _R)),`$ (22)
where $`v_i`$ are the vevs of the Higgs representations $`H_{L,R}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L,R}`$ and $`\varphi `$.

To compare the fermion-gauge-boson couplings that result in this model with those in the standard model, we find it convenient to introduce the following definitions for gauge mixing angles,

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _W={\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{g_L}},g_Y=g\mathrm{cos}\theta _R=g_R\mathrm{sin}\theta _R,\mathrm{tan}\theta _L={\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_L}},`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _W={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _L}{\sqrt{1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _L\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _R}}},\mathrm{sin}\theta _W={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _L\mathrm{cos}\theta _R}{\sqrt{1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _L\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _R}}}.`$ (24)
After diagonalization of the mass-squared matrices, the lighter and heavier mass eigenstates $`(Z^1,Z^2)`$ and $`(W^1,W^2)`$ are given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}W^1\hfill \\ W^2\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\xi _W\hfill & \mathrm{sin}\xi _W\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}\xi _W\hfill & \mathrm{cos}\xi _W\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}W\hfill \\ W_R\hfill \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}Z^1\hfill \\ Z^2\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\xi _Z\hfill & \mathrm{sin}\xi _Z\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}\xi _Z\hfill & \mathrm{cos}\xi _Z\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}Z\hfill \\ Z_R\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (37)
where $`\xi _{Z,W}`$ are the mixing angles,

$`\mathrm{tan}(2\xi _{W,Z})={\displaystyle \frac{2m_{12(W,Z)}^2}{m_{11(Z,W)}^2m_{22(Z,W)}^2}}.`$ (38)
In principle $`\xi _Z`$ and $`\xi _W`$ are related, and this can introduce severe constraints from processes such as $`bs\gamma `$. However, in general we find that the two can be quite different. For example, in the limit where $`g<<g_R`$ we find

$`\xi _W`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(v_1v_2^{})}{v_R^2+2v_{\mathrm{\Delta }R}^2+v_1^2+v_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _R}{\mathrm{tan}\theta _W}}`$ (39)
$`\xi _Z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2+v_2^2}{v_R^2+4v_{\mathrm{\Delta }R}^2+v_1^2+v_2^2}}\mathrm{cos}^3\theta _R{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _R}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}}.`$ (40)
This limit is of interest because it is the one required by the $`A_{FB}^b`$ data as we will see in the next section.

These results show that it is possible to have the mixing in the neutral sector be larger than the mixing in the charged sector by taking $`v_1`$ much larger (or smaller) than $`v_2`$; or by giving them a large relative phase.

The vevs of $`H_L`$ and $`\varphi `$ will generate all the masses and mixings for the quarks. They also provide masses and mixings for leptons. Neutrinos in this model can also receive Majorana masses from the vevs of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$. If $`v_{\mathrm{\Delta }_R}`$ is much larger than the electroweak scale, the right handed neutrino will be much heavier than the left-handed neutrinos. However, there is also the possibility that the vev of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ is of the same order as the vev of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ such that all neutrinos (the three left-handed ones and the right-handed one) are light. This possibility may provide a solution to all the neutrino problems resulting from the atmospheric, solar and LSND data, should the LSND result be confirmed.

In this model there are new interactions between the massive gauge bosons and quarks. For the charged current interaction, there are both left and right handed interactions. In the weak eigenstate basis, the charged gauge boson, $`W`$, couples to all generations, but the charged gauge boson, $`W_R`$, only couples to the third generation. There is a similar pattern for the neutral gauge interactions. This pattern gives rise to interactions between the fermions and the lightest physical gauge bosons that can be made to resemble the standard model couplings except for the right-handed couplings of the third generation; precisely the scenario suggested by the $`A_{FB}^b`$ data. In the mass eigenstate basis the quark-gauge-boson interactions are given by,

$`L_W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{U}_L\gamma ^\mu V_{KM}D_L(\mathrm{cos}\xi _WW_\mu ^{+1}\mathrm{sin}\xi _WW_\mu ^{+2})`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_R}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{u}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu V_{Rti}^uV_{Rbj}^dd_{Rj}(\mathrm{sin}\xi _WW_\mu ^{+1}+\mathrm{cos}\xi _WW_\mu ^{+2})+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
where $`U=(u,c,t)`$ and $`D=(d,s,b)`$. $`V_{KM}`$ is the Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing matrix and $`V_{Rij}^{u,d}`$ are unitary matrices which rotate the right handed quarks $`u_{Ri}`$ and $`d_{Ri}`$ from the weak eigenstate basis to the mass eigenstate basis. The repeated indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ are summed over three generations. For the neutral sector the couplings are,

$`L_Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu (g_Vg_A\gamma _5)q(\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^1\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^2)`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\theta _R({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\overline{q}_L\gamma ^\mu q_L+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\overline{u}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu u_{Ri}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\overline{d}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu d_{Ri})(\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^1+\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^2)`$ (44)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{2}}(\mathrm{tan}\theta _R+\mathrm{cot}\theta _R)(\overline{u}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu V_{Rti}^uV_{Rtj}^uu_{Rj}\overline{d}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu V_{Rbi}^dV_{Rbj}^dd_{Rj})(\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^1+\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^2).`$ (45)
In this expression $`q`$ and $`q_L`$ are summed over $`u,d,c,s,t,b`$ quarks, and repeated $`i,j`$ indices are summed over the three generations. The first line contains the standard model couplings to the $`Z`$ in the limit $`\xi _Z=0`$. The first two lines also contain couplings of the two $`Z`$ bosons to quarks that arise through mixing of the neutral gauge bosons.

The most interesting terms occur in the third line and are potentially large if $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ is large. In the weak interaction basis they affect only the third generation whereas in the mass eigenstate basis (as written in Eq. 45) they also give rise to flavor changing neutral currents. To satisfy the severe constraints that exist on flavor changing neutral currents we must have very small $`V_{Rbd}^d`$ and $`V_{Rbs}^d`$ matrix elements as we discuss in the next section.

It is clear that if $`\xi _Z`$ is not too small, through mixing, the $`b`$-quark coupling to the light Z boson can be very different from that of the $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks due to the last term in Eq. 45. If indeed the enhancement is achieved via a large value for $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$, the couplings of the first two generations will remain close to their standard model values. This illustrates how this model would solve the $`A_{FB}^b`$ problem. To leading order in small $`\xi _Z`$ one finds,

$`\delta g_{Lb}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{tan}\theta _R\xi _Z`$ (46)
$`\delta g_{Rb}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{tan}\theta _R\xi _Z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W(\mathrm{tan}\theta _R+\mathrm{cot}\theta _R)V_{Rbb}^dV_{Rbb}^d\xi _Z.`$ (47)
Similarly, one finds for the couplings of the top-quark to the $`Z`$ that, $`\delta g_{Lt}=\delta g_{Lb}`$, and

$$\delta g_{Rt}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{tan}\theta _R\xi _Z+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W(\mathrm{tan}\theta _R+\mathrm{cot}\theta _R)V_{Rtt}^uV_{Rtt}^u\xi _Z.$$
(48)
To explain the $`A_{FB}^b`$ anomaly the model must be able to generate the shifts of Eq. 2. The shift required for the left-handed coupling is small and at the level of radiative corrections. We have no way of fixing all the parameters of the model at one-loop so we concentrate on the larger shift required for the right-handed coupling. Keeping only the large $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ term Eq. 2 implies that,

$$\xi _Z\mathrm{cot}\theta _RV_{Rbb}^dV_{Rbb}^d0.08.$$
(49)
We now examine this result in view of the available phenomenological constraints.

## III Constraints

As we have pointed out, the couplings of Eq. 45 induce tree-level flavor changing neutral currents and there are severe phenomenological constraints on these. The potentially dangerous terms in Eq. 45 are of the form

$$\frac{g_L}{2}\mathrm{tan}\theta _W\mathrm{cot}\theta _RV_{Rbi}^qV_{Rbj}^q\overline{q}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu q_{Rj}Z_\mu ^2.$$
(50)
The easiest way to suppress this while keeping a large $`Zbb`$ right handed coupling is by choosing the $`V_R^d`$ matrix to be very close to the unit matrix. Usual constraints from $`K\overline{K}`$, $`D\overline{D}`$, and $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing on four fermion operators such as those generated by a tree-level exchange of $`Z_2`$ imply that off-diagonal elements in $`V_R^d`$ and $`V_R^u`$ are of order $`10^4`$ or less . Since these matrices are arbitrary, choosing them to be approximately equal to the unit matrix does not constrain other sectors of our model.

In this model there are two mechanisms that generate a large contribution to the oblique parameter $`T`$ and this leads to constraints on the parameters that affect $`A_{FB}^b`$ in Eq. 49. First, there is a direct contribution to $`T`$ from $`ZZ_R`$ mixing  given by,

$$T=\frac{1}{\alpha }ϵ_1=\frac{1}{\alpha }\xi _Z^2\left(\frac{M_{Z_2}^2}{M_{Z_1}^2}1\right).$$
(51)
In addition there are large contributions from top (and bottom)-quark loops to the oblique corrections. Starting with the couplings in Eq. 47 these loop contributions can be obtained by extending the calculation of Ref.  to include the $`Zbb`$ couplings as well. Starting from the effective Lagrangian,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=t,b}{}}\left((g_{Lq}+\delta g_{Lq})\overline{q}_L\gamma _\mu q_L+(g_{Rq}+\delta g_{Rq})\overline{q}_R\gamma _\mu q_R\right)Z^\mu `$ (52)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}[((1+\delta \kappa _L)\overline{t}_L\gamma _\mu b_L+\delta \kappa _R\overline{t}_R\gamma _\mu b_R)W^{+\mu }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],`$ (53)
one finds that the leading non-analytic contributions to the oblique parameters are ,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi }}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{Z_2}^2}{M_Z^2}}\right)\left(2(\delta g_{Rt}+\delta g_{Rb})(\delta g_{Lt}+\delta g_{Lb})\right)`$ (54)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{M_W^2}}\right)\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{Z_2}^2}{M_Z^2}}\right)\left(2\delta \kappa _L+\delta g_{Rt}\delta g_{Lt}\right)`$ (55)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{Z_2}^2}{M_Z^2}}\right)\left(4\delta \kappa _L+\delta g_{Lt}\delta g_{Lb}\right).`$ (56)
The contributions to $`U`$ are seen to be small from Eq. 47. There is a potentially large contribution to $`S`$ given by:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi }}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{Z_2}^2}{M_Z^2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cot}\theta _R\xi _ZV_{Rbb}^dV_{Rbb}^d\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{Rtt}^uV_{Rtt}^u}{V_{Rbb}^dV_{Rbb}^d}}1\right)`$ (57)
$``$ $`0.007\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{Rtt}^uV_{Rtt}^u}{V_{Rbb}^dV_{Rbb}^d}}1\right).`$ (58)
In the last line we have used Eq. 49 and taken $`M_{Z_2}600`$ GeV as a plausible upper bound (as we will see below). From Ref.  we know that $`S=0.03\pm 0.11(0.08)`$, so new physics contributions to $`S`$ are constrained to be less than 0.22 at the 2$`\sigma `$ level. We conclude that there are no significant constraints on our model from $`S`$.

Returning to our discussion of $`T`$, we find a second large contribution,

$$T=\frac{3}{16\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta _W}\left(\frac{M_t^2}{M_W^2}\right)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_{Z_2}^2}{M_Z^2}\right)\mathrm{cot}\theta _R\xi _ZV_{Rtt}^uV_{Rtt}^u.$$
(59)
Combining Eqs. 51 and 59, and using Eq. 49 restricts the allowed $`\xi _ZM_{Z_2}`$ parameter space. In line with our discussion of flavor changing neutral currents we also require that $`V_{Rtt}^uV_{Rtt}^u/V_{Rbb}^dV_{Rbb}^d1`$. The global fit from the WWW 2001 update to Ref.  is

$`T=0.02\pm 0.13(+0.09).`$ (60)
With the particle data book definition of $`T`$ this implies that new physics contributions to $`T`$ are at most $`0.26`$ at the 2$`\sigma `$ level, and we show the resulting constraints in Figure 1. The hatched region in the figure indicates the parameter space allowed in our model.

Additional contributions to the oblique parameters arise from the Higgs sector of our model. The model contains a SM-like Higgs boson from $`H_L`$ which contributes in a manner similar to that of the SM Higgs. The remainder of the scalar sector is largely unconstrained and we shall not discuss it further in this paper.

It is instructive to discuss existing constraints on LR models. An early comprehensive analysis of weak neutral current data  found that $`|\xi _Z|0.05`$ was typical for left-right models. The equivalent constraint for our model would be weaker since our $`Z_2`$ couplings to the first two generations are much weaker than in the usual LR models. Nevertheless, $`|\xi _Z|0.05`$ is satisfied in the allowed region in Figure 1. The best direct search limits for a $`Z_2`$ boson reported in Ref.  come from CDF data  and for a LR $`Z_2`$ are of the order of $`630`$ GeV. However this limit assumes couplings of electroweak strength between the new $`Z_2`$ boson and the first two generations. In our model these couplings are at least ten times smaller (since they are proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _R`$ and we need $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R10`$) effectively reducing the lower bound on the $`Z_2`$ mass to less than 100 GeV from experiments that only involve couplings to the first two generations. Ref.  has studied the problem of placing bounds on the mass of a $`Z_2`$ that couples preferentially to the third generation. From searches for compositeness there are bounds on the scale of four fermion operators such as $`\overline{q}_L\gamma _\mu q_L\overline{e}_L\gamma ^\mu e_L`$ on the order of $`4`$ TeV . However, when these operators are induced by the exchange of the $`Z_2`$ in our model, the smallness of its couplings to the first two generations results in a very weak lower bound (well below 100 GeV) as well.

It appears that there are no significant constraints on the mass of a $`Z_2`$ with couplings to the first two generations as weak as those in our model. For illustration we will simply assume a lower limit on the mass of our $`W_2`$ of order $`100`$ GeV because it has not been produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, and assume a similar lower limit on the $`Z_2`$ mass to produce Figure 1.

It is possible to place a theoretical constraint on the parameters of the model by requiring the coupling of the $`Z_2`$ to the third generation fermions to remain perturbative. Demanding that

$$\left(\frac{g_Y\mathrm{cot}\theta _R}{2}\right)^24\pi $$
(61)
results in $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R20`$. Combined with Eq. 49, and assuming that $`V_{Rbb}^dV_{Rbb}^d1`$, this results in a lower limit on $`\xi _Z0.004`$ shown as a dashed line in Figure 1. As seen in Figure 1, this also implies that $`M_{Z_2}600`$ GeV. The hatched region below the dashed line in Figure 1 satisfies phenomenological constraints but implies a $`Z_2`$ coupling to the third generation which is non-perturbative.

We now turn our attention to the charged gauge boson sector. The early bounds on $`WW_R`$ mixing from a comprehensive analysis of low energy data can be found in Ref. . Depending on the model their typical result was,

$$|\xi _g|10^3$$
(62)
where $`\xi _g\frac{g_R}{g_L}\xi _W=\mathrm{tan}\theta _W/\mathrm{sin}\theta _R\xi _W`$.

As with the neutral gauge boson sector, these constraints do not apply directly to our model. The best bound on $`W_R`$ couplings to third generation quarks comes from $`bs\gamma `$ as in the bound on the anomalous coupling $`\delta \kappa _R`$ from Eq. 53 obtained in Ref. . A more careful treatment of QCD corrections can be done along the lines of Ref. . The dominant contribution to $`bs\gamma `$ and the associated $`bsg`$ is from $`WW_R`$ mixing, one has

$`H_{\mathrm{mixing}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}[c_7^{LR}O_7+c_8^{LR}O_8],`$ (63)
$`O_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{16\pi ^2}}m_b\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }RF^{\mu \nu }b,`$ (64)
$`O_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_3}{16\pi ^2}}m_b\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }RG^{\mu \nu }b,`$ (65)
where $`c_{7,8}^{LR}`$ are the Wilson Coefficients due to Left-Right mixing evaluated at a scale of order $`O(m_W)`$. In our model they are given by

$$c_7^{LR}=\xi _{eff}\frac{m_t}{m_b}\stackrel{~}{F}(x_t),c_8^{LR}=\xi _{eff}\frac{m_t}{m_b}\stackrel{~}{G}(x_t)$$
(66)
where,

$`\xi _{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\theta _W}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _R}}\xi _W\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{Rtt}^uV_{Rbs}^d}{V_{ts}^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{Rtt}^uV_{Rbb}^d}{V_{tb}}}\right),`$ (67)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{20+31x5x^2}{12(x1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x(23x)}{2(x1)^3}}\mathrm{ln}x,`$ (68)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4+x+x^2}{4(x1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x}{2(x1)^3}}\mathrm{ln}x,`$ (69)
with $`x_t=m_t^2/m_W^2`$, and $`V_{tb}`$, $`V_{ts}`$ the usual CKM angles.

Running down to the scale relevant to $`B`$ decays, we obtain the dominant effective Wilson coefficient for $`bs\gamma `$, $`c_{7eff}`$,

$`c_{7eff}=\eta ^{16/23}c_7^{LR}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(\eta ^{14/23}\eta ^{16/23})c_8^{LR}.`$ (70)
Here $`\eta =\alpha _s(m_W)/\alpha _s(m_b)`$.

Compared with the SM top quark contribution, there is an enhancement factor $`m_t/m_b`$. Using the most recent experimental data for $`bs\gamma `$, $`B(bs\gamma )=(3.21\pm 0.43\pm 0.27_{0.10}^{+0.18})\times 10^4`$ we find at the $`2\sigma `$ level that there are two allowed ranges for $`\xi _{eff}`$. They correspond to destructive and constructive interference with the standard model amplitude respectively and are,

$`0.032<`$ $`\xi _{eff}`$ $`<0.027`$ (71)
$`0.0016<`$ $`\xi _{eff}`$ $`<0.0037`$ (72)
In line with our discussion of flavor changing neutral currents we assume that the $`V_R^{u,d}`$ matrices are very close to the unit matrix. The largest contribution is then from

$$\xi _{eff}\frac{\mathrm{tan}\theta _W}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _R}\xi _W$$
(73)
With $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R10`$ the two allowed ranges for $`\xi _W`$ are

$`0.006<`$ $`\xi _W`$ $`<0.005`$ (74)
$`0.0003<`$ $`\xi _W`$ $`<0.0007.`$ (75)
For comparison, the bound on $`\xi _Z`$ from $`T`$ combined with the perturbative requirement resulted in $`0.004<\xi _Z<0.02`$. In the first allowed range in Eq. 75 one finds $`0.25<|\xi _W/\xi _Z|<1.5`$ making both mixing angles of the same order. On the other hand, in the second allowed range in Eq. 75 $`0<|\xi _W/\xi _Z|<0.18`$, so $`\xi _W`$ is typically much smaller. An analysis of the quark mass matrices in our model reveals that it is possible to accommodate naturally a hierarchy $`v_1/v_2m_t/m_b`$.<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*Similar ratios of vevs arise naturally in $`SO(10)`$ Grand Unified Models for example . This scenario would result in a $`|\xi _W/\xi _Z|`$ as low as $`2m_b/m_t0.046`$.

In conclusion we have shown that it is possible to accommodate the $`A_{FB}^b`$ result in a model with new right handed interactions for the third generation. The model predicts large deviations from the standard model in the right handed couplings of the top-quark and perhaps the tau-lepton. A striking feature of the model is the possible existence of a light ($`M_{Z_2}<600`$ GeV) $`Z^{}`$ boson on which there is no meaningful lower bound at present. The range allowed by $`bs\gamma `$ in Eq. 72 also indicates that this model can give rise to CP asymmetries in B decays that deviate significantly from the standard model .

Acknowledgments  The work of X.G.H. was supported in part by National Science Council under grants NSC 89-2112-M-002-058, and in part by the Ministry of Education Academic Excellence Project 89-N-FA01-1-4-3. The work of G.V. was supported in part by DOE under contract number DE-FG02-01ER41155.


text:
# Addendum to: Model-dependent and -independent implications of the first Sudbury Neutrino Observatory results

## I Introduction

In a previous paper Ours  we have used the “threshold equalization” technique introduced by Villante et al. in Vill  to perform a model-independent comparison of the solar neutrino event rates measured in Super-Kamiokande (SK) SKol  through $`\nu `$-$`e`$ elastic scattering (ES), and in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) SNO1  through charged-current (CC) $`\nu _e`$ absorption in deuterium. In particular, it was shown in Ours  that the energy spectrum of parent neutrinos in SNO (namely, the spectrum of neutrinos producing an electron with measured kinetic energy $`T_e^{\mathrm{SNO}}6.75`$ MeV) is accurately reproduced by the analogous spectrum in SK, provided that the corresponding SK threshold is shifted from its default value ($`T_e^{\mathrm{SK}}5\mathrm{MeV}m_e`$) to the “equalization value” $`T_e^{\mathrm{SK}}8.6`$ MeV (see also Vill ; Equa ; Fior ).

On this basis, we have quantified in Ours  the joint SK+SNO evidence for $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ transitions at the level of $`3.1\sigma `$, independently Vill  of (i) the Standard Solar Model (SSM) prediction $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ for the 8B neutrino flux; (ii) the functional form of the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability $`P_{ee}`$; and (iii) the presence of possible transitions Ster ; Pena  to a sterile state $`\nu _s`$. Barring $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ transitions, we also estimated in Ours  the allowed ranges for the true 8B neutrino flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ (or, equivalently, for $`f_B=\mathrm{\Phi }_B/\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$), and for $`P_{ee}`$ (averaged over the equalized neutrino energy spectrum). The results in Ours  indicated a strong $`\nu _e`$ suppression at the Earth ($`P_{ee}0.3`$) and a striking agreement of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ with the reference SSM prediction of BP00 .

After the work Ours , there have been several improvements (at the level of $`1\sigma `$) in the quantities of interest for a model-independent analysis, including (a) an updated value for the SK flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}`$ above the usual threshold Noon ; Kosh , as well as a preliminary evaluation of the corresponding value above $`T_e^{\mathrm{SK}}8.6`$ MeV Priv ; (b) an updated reference value for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ Robu  following the recent, accurate evaluation of the astrophysical $`S_{17}(0)`$ factor in S170 ; and (c) theoretical corrections Beac ; Voge ; Naka  to the reference $`\nu _e`$-$`d`$ CC cross section Xsec .

Since the significance of the SNO-SK model-independent results in Ours  was just above $`3\sigma `$, we think it relevant to check whether the above $`1\sigma `$ variations in input quantities conspire (or not) to weaken such significance.111Evidence for new physics at the level of $`3\sigma `$ may be fragile under small changes or corrections to input quantities. A recent example is provided by the reduction of the muon $`g2`$ anomaly Muon . After a brief review of the previously adopted reference neutrino fluxes (Sec. II), we include the most recent improvements in the model-independent analysis (Sec. III), and show that the results in Ours  are actually strengthened. We draw our conclusions in Sec. IV. 222In this addendum to Ours , we do not discuss how model-dependent results (i.e., oscillation analyses Ours ; Pena ; Fits ) are modified by (some of) the updated inputs; for such issues see, e.g., the recent works Noon ; Robu ; Conc .

## II Previous reference values and results

In the previous model-independent analysis Ours , we considered the following reference neutrino fluxes:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{CC}}^{\mathrm{SNO}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.75\pm 0.148(T_e^{\mathrm{SNO}}6.75\mathrm{MeV}),`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}`$ $`=`$ $`2.32\pm 0.085(T_e^{\mathrm{SK}}5\mathrm{MeV}m_e),`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}`$ $`=`$ $`2.28\pm 0.085(T_e^{\mathrm{SK}}8.6\mathrm{MeV}),`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ $`=`$ $`5.05\times (1_{0.16}^{+0.20}),`$ (4)
expressed in units of $`10^6`$ cm-2 s-1, and with attached $`\pm 1\sigma `$ uncertainties.

In the above equations, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{CC}}^{\mathrm{SNO}}`$ represents the measured flux of $`\nu _e`$ inducing CC events in SNO SNO1 , whereas $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}`$ is the flux of active $`\nu `$’s inducing ES events in SK. In particular, the value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}`$ in Eq. (2) refers to a threshold of 5 MeV for the electron total energy, and to 1258 days of SK detector exposure SKol , while the value in Eq. (3) refers to a threshold of 8.6 MeV for the electron kinetic energy (so as to equalize the SK and SNO response functions Ours ; Vill ; Equa ), as derived from a SNO reanalysis of the SK spectrum data Ours ; SNO1 .333The numbers in Eq. (3) have neither been disputed nor (unfortunately) confirmed or re-estimated by the SK collaboration, as far as the 1258 day data sample is concerned. Finally, the value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ in Eq. (4) represents the reference 8B $`\nu `$ flux from the so-called “BP00” SSM BP00 .

The model-independent analysis in Ours  was based on the central values and errors in Eqs. (1) and (3), which, following common practice, were conventionally normalized to the central value in Eq. (4), giving

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{CC}}^{\mathrm{SNO}}/\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.347\pm 0.029,`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}/\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.451\pm 0.017,`$ (6)
whose $`3.1\sigma `$ relative difference provided a completely model-independent evidence of $`\nu _e`$ transitions to active states, even in the presence of possible sterile neutrino $`(\nu _s)`$ mixing. Such evidence was also illustrated in Fig. 2 of Ours .444In Ours , the flux ratios in Eqs. (5) and (6) were also indicated as SK/SSM and SNO/SSM, respectively.

Assuming only active transitions, the above flux ratios (corresponding to equalized SNO and SK spectra) are linked by the following exact relations Ours ; Vill ; Equa )

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{CC}}^{\mathrm{SNO}}/\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ $`=`$ $`f_BP_{ee},`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}/\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ $`=`$ $`f_B(0.848P_{ee}+0.152).`$ (8)
These relations, together with Eqs. (5) and (6), allowed to derive in Ours  the $`\pm 3\sigma `$ range for the true 8B neutrino flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ \[normalized to the central value in Eq. (4), $`f_B=\mathrm{\Phi }_B/\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$\],

$`f_B`$ $`=`$ $`1.03_{0.58}^{+0.50},`$ (9)
as well as the analogous range for the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability $`P_{ee}`$, averaged over the (equalized Vill ; Equa ) parent neutrino energy spectrum,

$`P_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`0.34_{0.18}^{+0.61}.`$ (10)
The BP00 standard solar model and the standard electroweak model appeared then to be respectively confirmed and disconfirmed by the above results, as also graphically shown in Fig. 3 of Ours .

## III Updated reference values and results

Let us consider now the following reference neutrino fluxes (in units of $`10^6`$ cm-2 s-1),

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{CC}}^{\mathrm{SNO}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.75\pm 0.148(T_e^{\mathrm{SNO}}6.75\mathrm{MeV}),`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}`$ $`=`$ $`2.35\pm 0.085(T_e^{\mathrm{SK}}5\mathrm{MeV}m_e),`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}`$ $`=`$ $`2.35\pm 0.108(T_e^{\mathrm{SK}}8.6\mathrm{MeV}),`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ $`=`$ $`5.93\times (1_{0.15}^{+0.14}).`$ (14)
The value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{CC}}^{\mathrm{SNO}}`$ in Eq. (11) is unchanged with respect to Eq. (1), since no updated CC data have been presented by the SNO Collaboration after those in SNO1 . However, there have been several theoretical improvements in the calculation of the $`\nu _e`$-$`d`$ CC cross section Beac ; Voge ; Naka , which can induce a few% decrease in the experimentally inferred value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{CC}}^{\mathrm{SNO}}`$. Pending an implementation of the new cross sections in the official SNO data analysis, we will just comment on their implications at the end of this section.

The value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}`$ above the 5 MeV threshold \[Eq. (12)\] has been presented by the SK collaboration in recent winter conferences Noon ; Kosh , and refers to a SK detector exposure of 1496 days. The value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}`$ in Eq. (13) represents instead the preliminary evaluation of the SK flux above the equalized 8.6 MeV threshold Priv , for the same exposure. Notice that there is now a realistic $`30\%`$ increase of the uncertainty when passing from Eq. (12) to Eq. (13), to be contrasted with the previous naive assumption of “threshold-independent SK total flux error,” implicit in Eqs. (2) and (3).555The equality of the central values in Eqs. (12) and (13) is instead accidental. In general, such values can be slightly different \[as it happens in Eqs. (2) and (3)\], as a result of a possible energy dependence of $`P_{ee}`$ and of the experimental uncertainties associated to the part of SK energy spectrum between the two thresholds considered. Therefore, the estimated SK uncertainty in Eq. (13), although preliminary Priv , represents an important step forward for a more accurate model-independent analysis.

The central value and $`\pm 1\sigma `$ errors for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ in Eq. (14) Robu  replace the previous BP00 ones in Eq. (4) BP00  as a result of a recent, very accurate measurement of the relevant astrophysical $`S`$-factor ($`S_{17}(0)=22.3\pm 0.9`$ eV b S170 ). By conventionally using the central value in Eq. (14) for normalization, we get from Eqs. (11) and (13) the updated inputs for our model-independent analysis,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{CC}}^{\mathrm{SNO}}/\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.295\pm 0.025,`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ES}}^{\mathrm{SK}}/\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{\mathrm{SSM}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.396\pm 0.018.`$ (16)
The difference between the above two fluxes amounts now to a $`3.3\sigma `$ evidence in favor of active neutrino transitions, which is thus slightly stronger than the one found previously ($`3.1\sigma `$ SNO1 ). The current situation is illustrated in Fig. 1 (which is analogous to Fig. 2 of Ours ). The SK + SNO data are well within the region where there must be transitions of $`\nu _e`$ to $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$, independently of the possible presence of additional $`\nu _s`$. To guide the eye, the error ellipse in Fig. 1 is shown to touch the “no active transitions” diagonal line only at the $`3.3\sigma `$ level ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=3.3^2`$).

Assuming no sterile neutrinos, the bounds on the two parameters $`f_B`$ \[now normalized to the updated flux in Eq. (14)\] and $`P_{ee}`$ are shown in Fig. 2 (analogous to Fig. 3 in Ours ), together with the updated SSM prediction (horizontal band). The corresponding $`\pm 3\sigma `$ limits set by the SK + SNO data are given by

$`f_B`$ $`=`$ $`0.96_{0.55}^{+0.54},`$ (17)
and

$`P_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`0.31_{0.16}^{+0.55}.`$ (18)
Therefore, the new reference SSM prediction Robu  in Eq. (14) ($`f_B=1_{0.15}^{+0.14}`$ at $`1\sigma `$) is strikingly confirmed, and the best-fit 8B $`\nu _e`$ flux suppression $`(31\%)`$ is now slightly more pronounced than in the previous analysis (where it was $`34\%`$ Ours ).

Finally, we discuss the effects of the recent improvements in the theoretical calculation of the $`\nu _e`$-$`d`$ CC cross section Beac ; Voge ; Naka . It has become apparent Beac  that radiative corrections produce a few % increase Beac ; Voge  of the reference cross section Xsec  used in SNO1  to extract the CC neutrino event rate. Refinements in effective field theory calculations Naka  add a small ($`1\%`$) contribution in the same direction. Assuming a representative +3% shift due to all such corrections (corresponding to a $`+1\sigma `$ increase SNO1  of the reference CC cross section Xsec ), the values in Eq. (11) would become 3% smaller. Leaving Eqs. (13) and (14) unchanged, the SK-SNO flux difference would then increase from $`3.3\sigma `$ to $`3.6\sigma `$, and the central values of $`f_B`$ and $`P_{ee}`$ would be shifted to $`1.00`$ and to $`0.29`$, respectively, thereby reinforcing all previous conclusions.

## IV Conclusions

The model-independent SK + SNO evidence for electron neutrino flavor transitions into active states is in good shape. Its statistical significance, evaluated at the $`3.1\sigma `$ level in Ours , is currently confirmed at the $`3.3\sigma `$$`3.6\sigma `$ level, in the light of recent experimental and theoretical improvements (independently of the SSM and of the pattern of active or sterile $`\nu `$ transitions Vill ). For purely active neutrino transitions, the SK + SNO data Noon ; Kosh ; Priv ; SNO1  are in striking agreement with the updated standard solar model 8B neutrino flux Robu ; S170 : $`f_B=0.96_{0.55}^{+0.54}`$ ($`\pm 3\sigma `$). The corresponding $`\pm 3\sigma `$ range for the SK-SNO energy-averaged $`\nu _e`$ survival probability is found to be $`P_{ee}=0.31_{0.16}^{+0.55}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) and Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (MIUR) under the project “Fisica Astroparticellare.” We thank M. Smy for very useful discussions.