Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Global fits of the SM parameters

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Measured W boson mass exceeds the Standard Model fit by 1.5–1.6 sigma

desk verdict A competent, openly self-referential conference summary: the only new widget is a conservative LHC sin^2θw average, and the headline W-mass tension is inherited from the author's own fits, hanging on hand-estimated theory errors. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07327 v1 pith:3L5XFK53 submitted 2019-08-20 hep-ph hep-exnucl-ex

Jens Erler This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-ex
keywords electroweakprecisiontestsWbosonmassweakmixingangleobliqueparametershadronicvacuumpolarizationStandardModelglobalfittopquarkmuonanomalousmagneticmoment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper presents a global fit to electroweak precision data—Z-pole asymmetries, W boson mass measurements, neutrino and parity-violating electron scattering, atomic parity violation, and hadron-collider measurements—and asks whether anything in the Standard Model is starting to bend. Its central finding is that the measured W boson mass, 80.379 ± 0.012 GeV, sits 1.6σ above the value inferred from all other data and 1.5σ above the full Standard Model fit prediction, while the weak mixing angle sin²θ_W agrees very well with the fit. The paper argues that this near-agreement and the small W-mass tension only become meaningful if the correlations of theoretical uncertainties—especially unknown higher-order electroweak corrections to the W and Z self-energies—are estimated and included rather than ignored. If correct, the result sharpens the case for either a modest piece of new physics that raises the W mass or for underestimated theory errors, and it shows where future precision measurements would discriminate.

What carries the argument

The central object is the global electroweak fit, a combined χ² analysis of all precision observables, and within it the oblique parameters S, T, and U—conventional variables that capture new-physics or missing higher-order contributions to the W and Z boson vacuum-polarization (self-energy) diagrams. The paper assigns estimates ΔS = ±0.0034, ΔT = ±0.0073, and ΔU = ±0.0051 to unknown higher-order corrections, derived from loop-expansion counting factors, and treats them as uncorrelated. This step installs theory correlations among otherwise independent measurements and is what converts the raw W-mass excess into a quantified 1.5–1.6σ statement. A second working part is hadronic vacuum polarization: it enters the prediction for the electromagnetic coupling at the Z scale, the low-energy value of sin²θ_W, the muon anomalous magnetic moment, and the charm and bottom quark mass determinations, so data-driven errors in that sector propagate into several fit observables at once.

What would settle it

A future W boson mass measurement with total uncertainty at or below 5 MeV would settle the gap: if the new central value moves to the indirect 80.357 GeV or the fit 80.361 GeV, the tension disappears; if it stays near 80.379 GeV, the excess becomes significant. Independently, a complete next-to-next-to-leading-order calculation of the electroweak self-energies that shifts the predicted M_W by more than about 10 MeV would show the current discrepancy is a theory-uncertainty artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a status report with a single headline: the electroweak sector of the Standard Model still fits, but the direct measurement of the W boson mass runs slightly high. Combining LEP, SLC, Tevatron, LHC, and low-energy determinations, the paper obtains a world average sin²θ_W = 0.23149 ± 0.00013 in excellent agreement with the global-fit value 0.23153 ± 0.00004, whereas the W mass average 80.379 ± 0.012 GeV exceeds both the indirect determination 80.357 ± 0.006 GeV and the Standard Model prediction 80.361 ± 0.005 GeV by about 1.5–1.6σ. The same tension shows up as a 2σ deviation of the ρ0 parameter from 1 and as a drop in χ² when the oblique parameters S and T are allowed to float. The paper's methodological claim is that theory uncertainties from unknown higher orders, and especially their correlations across observables, must be included before such statements can be trusted.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative bottom line—the 1.5–1.6σ W-mass excess and the otherwise excellent fit—rests on the author's estimates of unknown higher-order electroweak theory uncertainties, ΔS = ±0.0034, ΔT = ±0.0073, ΔU = ±0.0051, and on treating those three as uncorrelated; if the errors are larger or correlated, the tension could weaken, strengthen, or change its interpretation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the most direct consequence is that the measured W boson mass, not the weak mixing angle, is the current place to look for physics beyond the Standard Model; sin²θ_W is already consistent with the fit at the level of a few times 10⁻⁵.
  • The 2σ deviation of ρ0 from 1 and the improved χ² when S and T float mean that a future precision shift in M_W would also change indirect determinations of the top quark and Higgs boson masses.
  • Future low-energy parity-violating electron scattering and neutrino experiments, at LEP/SLC-level precision, would test the predicted running of sin²θ_W and provide an independent check on the hadronic-vacuum-polarization input.
  • New, more precise W mass measurements should be compared not to the old world average but to the fit prediction 80.361 ± 0.005 GeV, making the 1.5σ gap shrink or grow in a decisive way.
  • The paper's treatment implies that theoretical uncertainty correlations must be included in any global electroweak fit; ignoring them would make the same data look either more or less consistent than it is.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: the W-mass excess is compatible with a small positive contribution to the T or S parameters, and the quoted S = 0.02 ± 0.07, T = 0.06 ± 0.06 with 81% correlation already points in that direction; a future fit could test whether a single oblique-parameter pattern accommodates all data.
  • If the ΔS, ΔT, ΔU estimates are later found to be correlated (for instance through common top-quark or Higgs corrections), the significance of the W-mass tension would change; one concrete check is to recompute the global fit with a fully correlated theory-error covariance matrix.
  • The paper's observation that a new lattice result for hadronic vacuum polarization would remove the muon g−2 discrepancy while creating a new dispersive-versus-lattice discrepancy suggests that the hadronic part of global fits is where the next surprise could appear.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This proceedings paper from LHCP2019 surveys determinations of the weak mixing angle and the W boson mass, and discusses the treatment of theoretical uncertainties (especially correlations) in global electroweak fits. It presents a world average for sin^2(theta_W), quotes an indirect and global-fit determination of M_W, and reports a mild tension: M_W(world) = 80.379 +/- 0.012 GeV is 1.6 sigma above the indirect value 80.357 +/- 0.006 GeV and 1.5 sigma above the SM global-fit value 80.361 +/- 0.005 GeV (Eqs. 3.1-3.3). The paper also contains results on the top quark and Higgs boson masses from fits with and without correlated theory uncertainties, a discussion of hadronic vacuum polarization effects and alpha(M_Z), and constraints on oblique parameters S, T, and rho_0. Most numerical results are attributed to the author's earlier publications [26], [32], [38], and [40].

Significance. If the quoted results are correct, the paper provides a concise and useful status update on electroweak precision measurements, with the explicit inclusion of correlated theory uncertainties being a notable feature. The claimed mild M_W tension and the associated rho_0 deviation are of interest to model builders, and the survey of sin^2(theta_W) measurements and the discussion of future PVES experiments (P2, MOLLER, SoLID) are informative. The paper is transparent about its assumptions and provides clear figures (Figures 1-3) summarizing the world data. However, the numerical payload is largely imported from the author's previous publications, and the proceedings text does not allow an independent check of the key fit results or of the sensitivity to the assumed correlation structure.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 (Eqs. 3.1-3.3)] The central claim of a 1.6 sigma deviation of M_W (and the related rho_0 result) depends on the estimated oblique parameter uncertainties Delta S = +/-0.0034, Delta T = +/-0.0073, and Delta U = +/-0.0051. These are power-counting estimates, not results of a complete higher-order calculation, and the paper explicitly states that they are 'assumed' to be uncorrelated. No sensitivity analysis is provided; a moderate increase in these uncertainties (e.g., by a factor of two) or a non-trivial correlation between them could reduce the significance below the 1-sigma level, weakening the paper's central narrative. Please add a brief exploration of how the significance of the M_W tension changes under reasonable variations of these assumptions, or refer readers to a specific calculation in [26] where such a study is presented.
  2. [Section 2 (Eqs. 2.3-2.4)] The LHC average sin^2(theta_W) = 0.23131 +/- 0.00033 is obtained by assuming that the smallest published theory uncertainty (ATLAS, +/-0.00025) is fully common to the three LHC experiments, and that the PDF uncertainties of Tevatron and LHC determinations are approximately uncorrelated. The resulting world average of 0.23149 +/- 0.00013 and the claimed 'excellent agreement' with the global fit (Eq. 2.5) depend on these choices. Since the combination is not a simple weighted average with independent errors, the paper should demonstrate the stability of the result by repeating the procedure with, for example, a larger common theory error or fully correlated PDF uncertainties. Without such a check, the precision of Eq. (2.4) is a model-dependent statement rather than a direct experimental average.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] Typographical error: 'the ALTAS [23]' should read 'the ATLAS [23]'.
  2. [Table 1] The table caption contains a grammatically incomplete phrase: 'where the correlation with MH is Equation (4.7) is negligible'; this should be rewritten, e.g., 'the correlation with MH from Eq. (4.7) is negligible.'
  3. [Section 5 (Eq. 5.12)] The notation '1272 +/- 8 + 2616[alpha_s(MZ) - 0.1182] MeV' is ambiguous. Please clarify that the second term is the parametric dependence on alpha_s and state whether the quoted uncertainty is just the +/-8 MeV or the combined uncertainty after propagating the alpha_s error.
  4. [Section 6] The phrase 'these two extra degrees of freedom' is unclear; it would be more precise to write 'the two extra parameters S and T'.
  5. [General] For several quoted quantities (e.g., Eqs. 3.1-3.3, 4.3-4.7), it would be helpful to state explicitly in the text or caption that these are taken from Ref. [26] and [32], so that a reader can locate the original derivations without searching the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the W-mass tension is based on an indirect fit that excludes direct MW data, and the self-cited inputs are cross-checked by independent groups.

full rationale

The paper is a proceedings summary of the author's own global electroweak fits, so many central numbers are cited from Refs. [26] and [32] rather than re-derived. That is self-citation, but not circularity: the indirect determinations are explicitly out-of-sample with respect to the quantities they are compared with. Eq. (3.2) quotes MW(indirect)=80.357±0.006 GeV as the fit to all data 'excluding the direct measurement results of the mass and total width of the W boson', so the 1.6σ comparison with Eq. (3.1) is an honest cross-check rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The same holds for mt(indirect) in Eq. (4.3) and MH(excluding direct MH) in Eqs. (4.5)-(4.6). The theory-correlation estimates ΔSZ, ΔT, ΔU in Sec. 4 are explicitly presented as estimates obtained from expansion parameters and citations to [26]; they are modeling assumptions that affect the error bars, but they are not derived from the quantities the paper claims to predict, so their fragility is a robustness concern, not a circularity. The self-cited results are also externally benchmarked in the text: the α(MZ) value from [38] agrees with the three independent evaluations in Eqs. (5.1)-(5.3), the PQCD charm vacuum-polarization contribution agrees with the lattice result in Eq. (5.7), and the charm mass in Eq. (5.12) is stated to agree with recent lattice results [45]. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to force a choice, and no ansatz is smuggled in as a first-principles derivation. The only mild wording issue is calling the global-fit MW in Eq. (3.3) a 'SM prediction' when a global fit may include the direct MW measurement, but the paper's separate indirect value provides the actual prediction, so this does not rise to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative statements are all outputs of a global fit whose inputs, covariance model, and measured data are not contained in this paper. The fit uses established Standard Model structure but adds hand-estimated theory uncertainties, and the presented averages depend on specific correlation assumptions. No new particles, forces, mediators, or conserved quantities are introduced; oblique parameters and Delta alpha_had are standard objects, not invented entities.

free parameters (8)
  • M_Z = 91.1884 ± 0.0020 GeV
    Central Z boson mass used as an input and fit parameter in the Table 1 global fit.
  • MS-bar top quark mass m_t(m_t) = 163.28 ± 0.44 GeV
    Fitted value in the global fit [32] combining indirect sensitivity and direct Tevatron/LHC measurements.
  • MS-bar bottom quark mass m_b(m_b) = 4.180 ± 0.021 GeV
    Fitted Standard Model parameter in Table 1.
  • MS-bar charm quark mass m_c(m_c) = 1.275 ± 0.009 GeV (Table 1); 1.272 ± 0.008 GeV in Eq. (5.12)
    Fitted in the global fit and determined independently by vacuum polarization moments [40].
  • Strong coupling alpha_s(MZ) = 0.1187 ± 0.0016
    Fitted parameter of the global fit in Table 1.
  • Hadronic vacuum polarization input Delta alpha_had^(3)(2 GeV) = 0.00590 ± 0.00005
    Data-driven input obtained from e+e- hadronic cross sections and used for alpha(MZ) and related observables.
  • Theory uncertainty parameters Delta S, Delta T, Delta U = Delta S = ±0.0034, Delta T = ±0.0073, Delta U = ±0.0051
    Hand-estimated unknown higher-order electroweak corrections to oblique parameters, treated as uncorrelated in [26] and in this fit.
  • Rho_0 new-physics parameter = 1.00039 ± 0.00019
    Fitted quantity in the rho0 example fit (Eq. 6.2), a central illustration of beyond Standard Model constraints.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model is the correct framework for the global fit and radiative corrections.
    Every quoted prediction and tension assumes Standard Model couplings, three generations, and the Higgs mechanism; see Section 1 and Table 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Unknown higher-order contributions can be estimated by power-counting loop factors and treated as uncorrelated oblique parameters.
    Section 4 derives Delta S, Delta T, and Delta U from Eqs. (4.1)-(4.2) and [26]; the size and correlation of these uncertainties are a modeling choice, not fixed by data.
  • domain assumption Dispersive hadronic vacuum polarization evaluations rely on e+e- data and approximate isospin symmetry.
    Section 5 quotes alpha(MZ) and sin^2(theta_W)(0) from [34]-[38]; these standard analyses assume e+e- data can represent the hadronic spectral function, with tau data only as a cross-check.
  • ad hoc to paper The LHC average uses a common theory uncertainty equal to the smallest published ATLAS uncertainty for all three detectors.
    Section 2, after Eq. (2.3), states this is conservative; it is not derived from the individual analyses.
  • ad hoc to paper PDF uncertainties for Tevatron and LHC sin^2(theta_W) extractions are approximately uncorrelated.
    Section 2 states this is assumed because different PDF aspects enter p-pbar versus pp kinematics; this is approximate and not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global fits of the SM parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3L5XFK53

@misc{pith2026190807327,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global fits of the SM parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3L5XFK53}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07327}
}
read the original abstract

I present a global survey of weak mixing angle measurements and other precision experiments and discuss the issue of correlations of the theoretical uncertainties in precision observables. Hadronic vacuum polarization effects complicate global fits in various ways and are also covered alongside some representative fit results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07327 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Determinations of the effective weak mixing angle, sin2 θW , entering leptonic Z vector couplings. necessary for the extraction of sin2 θW at pp¯ colliders compared to those underlying the symmetric pp initial states at the LHC which is based on rapidity distributions, the corresponding uncertainties can be assumed to be approximately uncorrelated, and we arrive at the world average, sin2 θW (world average) = 0.2314… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Survey of W boson mass measurements. 4. Theoretical uncertainties and the Higgs boson mass Indeed, there are various kinds of theory errors entering global fits. For example, there are the hadronic vacuum polarization and light-by-light contributions obstructing a clean and unambiguous determination of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, aµ . There are non-factorizable QCD corrections entering the hadronic Z … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Higgs boson mass vs. top quark pole mass for various sets of observables [32]. these uncertainty parameters by ∆SZ, ∆T and ∆U, and assuming them to be sufficiently different (uncorrelated) induces theory correlations between different observables. We find ∆SZ = ±0.0034 (which in practice could be added in quadrature to the hadronic vacuum polarization uncertainty entering the evaluation of the electromagnetic coupli… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Renormalization group evolution (running) of the weak mixing angle (updated from Ref. [38]). An important quantity where vacuum polarization enters is sin2 θW (0). It is needed for many low-energy electroweak observables, and it can be seen from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Error budget for the sum rule analysis for ˆmc(mˆ c) as a function of loop order [40]. because the vector couplings of the Z boson differ from the electric charges, implying that there is a piece that is not directly related to α(MZ) and necessitating a study of the ef…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: T versus S for various data sets (modified from Ref. [32]). For illustration, I also show the impact that the 12C PVES measurement would have if it could be performed with a relative error of 0.3%, dominated by the polarization uncertainty (within the SM another measur…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Erler and M

    J. Erler and M. Schott, Electroweak Precision Tests of the Standard Model after the Discovery of the Higgs Boson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 68 (2019) [arXiv:1902.05142 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [32]

    Erler and A

    J. Erler and A. Freitas, Electroweak Model and Constraints on New Physics, pp. 161–179 in Ref. [33]

    work page

  3. [38]

    Erler and R

    J. Erler and R. Ferro-Hernández, Weak Mixing Angle in the Thomson Limit, JHEP 1803, 196 (2018) [arXiv:1712.09146 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [40]

    Erler, P

    J. Erler, P. Masjuan and H. Spiesberger, Charm Quark Mass with Calibrated Uncertainty, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 2, 99 (2017) [arXiv:1610.08531 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [1]

    K. S. Kumar, S. Mantry, W. J. Marciano and P. A. Souder, Low Energy Measurements of the Weak Mixing Angle, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 237 (2013) [arXiv:1302.6263 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [2]

    Vilain et al

    P. Vilain et al. [CHARM-II Collaboration], Precision Measurement of Electroweak Parameters from the Scattering of Muon-Neutrinos on Electrons, Phys. Lett. B 335, 246 (1994)

    work page 1994

  7. [3]

    G. P. Zeller et al. [NuTeV Collaboration], A Precise Determination of Electroweak Parameters in Neutrino Nucleon Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 091802 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [4]

    Akimov et al

    D. Akimov et al. [COHERENT Collaboration], Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering, Science 357, no. 6356, 1123 (2017) [arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [5]

    Erler, C

    J. Erler, C. J. Horowitz, S. Mantry and P. A. Souder, Weak Polarized Electron Scattering, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 64, 269 (2014) [arXiv:1401.6199 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [6]

    P. L. Anthony et al. [SLAC E158 Collaboration], Precision Measurement of the Weak Mixing Angle in Møller Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 081601 (2005) [hep-ex/0504049]

    2005 arXiv

  3. [7]

    Benesch et al

    J. Benesch et al. [MOLLER Collaboration], The MOLLER Experiment: An Ultra-Precise Measurement of the Weak Mixing Angle Using Møller Scattering, arXiv:1411.4088 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    Bentz, I

    W. Bentz, I. C. Cloet, J. T. Londergan and A. W. Thomas, Reassessment of the NuTeV determination of the weak mixing angle, Phys. Lett. B 693, 462 (2010) [arXiv:0908.3198 [nucl-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [9]

    Wang et al

    D. Wang et al. [PVDIS Collaboration], Measurement of Parity Violation in Electron-Quark Scattering, Nature 506, no. 7486, 67 (2014)

    2014

  6. [10]

    C. Y . Prescott et al. [SLAC E122 Collaboration], Further Measurements of Parity Nonconservation in Inelastic Electron Scattering, Phys. Lett. 84B, 524 (1979)

    1979

  7. [11]

    P. A. Souder, Parity Violation in Deep Inelastic Scattering with the SoLID Spectrometer at JLab, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 40, 1660077 (2016). 11 Global fits Jens Erler

    2016

  8. [12]

    Androi ´c et al

    D. Androi ´c et al. [Qweak Collaboration], Precision Measurement of the Weak Charge of the Proton, Nature 557, no. 7704, 207 (2018) [arXiv:1905.08283 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [13]

    Erler, A

    J. Erler, A. Kurylov and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, The Weak Charge of the Proton and New Physics, Phys. Rev. D 68, 016006 (2003) [hep-ph/0302149]

    2003 arXiv

  10. [14]

    Becker et al., The P2 Experiment, Eur

    D. Becker et al., The P2 Experiment, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 208 (2018) [arXiv:1802.04759 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [15]

    C. S. Wood et al., Measurement of Parity Nonconservation and an Anapole Moment in Cesium, Science 275, 1759 (1997)

    1997

  12. [16]

    S. G. Porsev, K. Beloy and A. Derevianko, Precision Determination of Weak Charge of133Cs from Atomic Parity Violation, Phys. Rev. D 82, 036008 (2010) [arXiv:1006.4193 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [17]

    B. M. Roberts, V . A. Dzuba and V . V . Flambaum,Parity and Time-Reversal Violation in Atomic Systems, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65, 63 (2015) [arXiv:1412.6644 [physics.atom-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [18]

    Antypas et al., Isotopic Variation of Parity Violation in Atomic Ytterbium: Description of the Measurement Method and Analysis of Systematic Effects, Phys

    D. Antypas et al., Isotopic Variation of Parity Violation in Atomic Ytterbium: Description of the Measurement Method and Analysis of Systematic Effects, Phys. Rev. A 100, no. 1, 012503 (2019)

    2019

  15. [19]

    Schael et al

    S. Schael et al. [ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and SLD Collaborations, LEP Electroweak Working Group, and SLD Electroweak and Heavy Flavour Groups], Precision Electroweak Measurements on the Z Resonance, Phys. Rept. 427, 257 (2006) [hep-ex/0509008]

    2006 arXiv

  16. [20]

    Bernreuther et al., The Forward-Backward Asymmetry for Massive Bottom Quarks at the Z Peak at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order QCD, JHEP 1701, 053 (2017) [arXiv:1611.07942 [hep-ph]]

    W. Bernreuther et al., The Forward-Backward Asymmetry for Massive Bottom Quarks at the Z Peak at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order QCD, JHEP 1701, 053 (2017) [arXiv:1611.07942 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [21]

    G. Toh et al., Determination of the Scalar and Vector Polarizabilities of the Cesium6s2S1/2→ 7s2S1/2 Transition and Implications for Atomic Parity Nonconservation, arXiv:1905.02768 [physics.atom-ph]

    1905 arXiv

  18. [22]

    T. A. Aaltonen et al. [CDF and DØ Collaborations], Tevatron Run II Combination of the Effective Leptonic Electroweak Mixing Angle, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 11, 112007 (2018) [arXiv:1801.06283 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [23]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the Effective Leptonic Weak Mixing Angle Using Electron and Muon Pairs from Z-Boson Decay in the ATLAS Experiment at√s = 8 TeV, ATLAS-CONF-2018-037

    2018

  20. [24]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Measurement of the Weak Mixing Angle Using the Forward-Backward Asymmetry of Drell-Yan Events in pp Collisions at 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no. 9, 701 (2018) [arXiv:1806.00863 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [25]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Measurement of the Forward-Backward Asymmetry in Z/γ∗→ µ +µ− Decays and Determination of the Effective Weak Mixing Angle, JHEP 1511, 190 (2015) [arXiv:1509.07645 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Schael et al

    S. Schael et al. [ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL Collaborations and LEP Electroweak Working Group], Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP, Phys. Rept. 532, 119 (2013) [arXiv:1302.3415 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [28]

    T. A. Aaltonen et al. [CDF and DØ Collaborations], Combination of CDF and DØ W-Boson Mass Measurements, Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 5, 052018 (2013) [arXiv:1307.7627 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Measurement of the W-Boson Mass in pp Collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no. 2, 110 (2018) [arXiv:1701.07240 [hep-ex]]. 12 Global fits Jens Erler

    2018 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Freitas, Higher-Order Electroweak Corrections to the Partial Widths and Branching Ratios of the Z Boson, JHEP 1404, 070 (2014) [arXiv:1401.2447 [hep-ph]]

    A. Freitas, Higher-Order Electroweak Corrections to the Partial Widths and Branching Ratios of the Z Boson, JHEP 1404, 070 (2014) [arXiv:1401.2447 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [31]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Estimation of Oblique Electroweak Corrections, Phys. Rev. D 46, 381 (1992)

    1992

  27. [33]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 3, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  28. [34]

    Davier, A

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu and Z. Zhang, Reevaluation of the Hadronic Vacuum Polarisation Contributions to the Standard Model Predictions of the Muon g− 2 and α(M2 Z) Using Newest Hadronic Cross-Section Data, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 12, 827 (2017) [arXiv:1706.09436 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Jegerlehner, Variations on Photon Vacuum Polarization, arXiv:1711.06089 [hep-ph]

    F. Jegerlehner, Variations on Photon Vacuum Polarization, arXiv:1711.06089 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  30. [36]

    Keshavarzi, D

    A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, Muon g− 2 and α(M2 Z): a New Data-Based Analysis, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 11, 114025 (2018) [arXiv:1802.02995 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Erler, Calculation of the QED Coupling α(MZ) in the Modified Minimal Subtraction Scheme, Phys

    J. Erler, Calculation of the QED Coupling α(MZ) in the Modified Minimal Subtraction Scheme, Phys. Rev. D 59, 054008 (1999) [hep-ph/9803453]

    1999 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Erler and M

    J. Erler and M. Luo, Hadronic Loop Corrections to the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 071804 (2001) [hep-ph/0101010]

    2001 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gérardin et al., The Leading Hadronic Contribution to (g− 2)µ from Lattice QCD with Nf = 2 + 1 Flavours of O(a) Improved Wilson Quarks, Phys

    A. Gérardin et al., The Leading Hadronic Contribution to (g− 2)µ from Lattice QCD with Nf = 2 + 1 Flavours of O(a) Improved Wilson Quarks, Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 1, 014510 (2019) [arXiv:1904.03120 [hep-lat]]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    G. W. Bennett et al. [Muon g-2 Collaboration], Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL, Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006) [hep-ex/0602035]

    2006 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Erler and M

    J. Erler and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, The Weak Mixing Angle at Low Energies, Phys. Rev. D 72, 073003 (2005) [hep-ph/0409169]

    2005 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Erler and M

    J. Erler and M. Luo, Precision Determination of Heavy Quark Masses and the Strong Coupling Constant, Phys. Lett. B 558, 125 (2003) [hep-ph/0207114]

    2003 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Aoki et al

    S. Aoki et al. [Flavour Lattice Averaging Group],FLAG Review 2019, arXiv:1902.08191 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Grinstein and M

    B. Grinstein and M. B. Wise, Operator analysis for precision electroweak physics, Phys. Lett. B 265, 326 (1991)

    1991

  39. [47]

    Carena, E

    M. Carena, E. Ponton, J. Santiago and C. E. M. Wagner, Light Kaluza Klein States in Randall-Sundrum Models with Custodial SU(2), Nucl. Phys. B 759, 202 (2006) [hep-ph/0607106]

    2006 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, A Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Extra Dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999) [hep-ph/9905221]

    1999 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. Pich, I. Rosell and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, Oblique S and T Constraints on Electroweak Strongly-Coupled Models with a Light Higgs, JHEP 1401, 157 (2014) [arXiv:1310.3121 [hep-ph]]. 13

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.