Interpreting electroweak precision data including the $W$-mass CDF anomaly

Alessandro Strumia

REVIEW

Interpreting electroweak precision data including the $W$-mass CDF anomaly

Alessandro Strumia

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 8 Apr 2022 · 41 references

Pith's verdict: A clean, standard EFT fit showing the CDF W-mass anomaly is absorbable by T-hat ≈ 10^-3, plus a genuinely useful catalogue of tree-level models that can supply it.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 11 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2204.04191 (version 4)

Pith IDZ6X5YLRX, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationAlessandro Strumia. "Interpreting electroweak precision data including the $W$-mass CDF anomaly." arXiv:2204.04191 (2022). https://pith.science/paper/Z6X5YLRX

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Bottom line: the fit itself is a standard exercise and holds up, but the model catalogue is the part worth keeping. Strumia shows that a universal T-hat ≈ (1.13 ± 0.16) × 10^-3, i.e. |H†DμH|^2 at about 5 TeV, absorbs the CDF W-mass anomaly, and then works through which tree-level physics can deliver that correction without running into collider bounds. The Z' scan in fig. 4 is the nicest piece: normalizing Z_H^2 + Z_L^2 + Z_E^2 = 1 turns the charge space into a half-sphere, and the Higgs-only Z' sits at the center as the pure-T-hat point. That is a clean, quotable observation. The little-Higgs refits (figs. 7, 8) are less novel but competently done, and the scalar-VEV list in section 3 is a handy reference table for anyone building a model in the next year. Credit also for the honesty in section 5.3: the author explicitly says the extra-dimensional case cannot be claimed to fit the anomaly compatibly with collider bounds, which is more restraint than that section's competitors usually show. On the soft spots, the stress-test is right that the CDF-only W-mass input is the load-bearing choice, and right that no alternative fit with all M_W values is shown. But the author does quantify the residual tension in eq. (6) (Δχ2 ≈ 2.2), and a quick combination of the non-CDF average with CDF still lands well above the SM prediction, so the existence claim survives while the quoted central value would be pulled down. That is a bounded concern, not a hole. The LHC W,Y bounds in eq. (5) are explicitly approximate, with Y a recast of a dilepton search; they matter for fig. 3 and not for the T-hat claim. The little-Higgs fits lean on the author's own published formalism [37], which is fine. Minor: a few typos ('weather' for 'whether', 'shwow'), and the abstract classifier's 'no limitations found' is simply wrong — the paper states them in 2.1 and 5.3. Who should read it: anyone who needs a reference point for post-CDF electroweak fits, and model builders looking for the allowed Z' charge region. It deserves a referee, mainly to press on the missing all-data fit and to check the little-Higgs algebra.

Referee report

Significance

The paper is a timely and useful map of which new-physics scenarios can accommodate the CDF W-mass anomaly, written by an author with a long track record in electroweak precision physics. The EFT fit machinery is standard and the model survey is broad, covering scalar VEVs, Z' vectors, little-Higgs models, and extra dimensions in a unified framework. The paper is transparent about its approximations: eq. (5) flags the LHC bounds on W and Y as approximate, eq. (6) quantifies the residual tension from the CDF-only data choice, and Section 5.3 explicitly disclaims that the extra-dimensional example can be claimed to fit the anomaly compatibly with collider bounds. The derived scales (v_T ≈ 3 GeV, M_Z'/g_Z' ≈ 8 TeV, f ≈ 9 TeV) are falsifiable predictions that can be tested by future collider searches. The main strengths are the clear global-fit framework and the systematic classification of tree-level versus loop-level explanations.

Major objections (2)

[Section 2.1 and eq. (6)] The global fit includes only the CDF MW measurement and discards the LEP/D0/ATLAS values that disagree with it at about 4σ. The author acknowledges this choice and quantifies the residual tension in eq. (6) ([χ²_CDF only − χ²_no CDF]_{SM+T̂} ≈ 2.22), but the manuscript never presents the fit with all MW measurements included. Because the quoted T̂ = (1.13 ± 0.16)×10^-3 and every derived scale in the paper (v_T ≈ 3 GeV, M_Z'/g_Z' ≈ 8 TeV, f ≈ 9 TeV) are proportional to T̂, a reader cannot tell how much these numbers would shift. A back-of-envelope combination of the non-CDF average (80.379 ± 0.012 GeV) with CDF (80.433 ± 0.0094 GeV) gives ≈80.41 ± 0.0074 GeV, still well above the SM prediction, so the existence claim survives; but the best-fit T̂ would be pulled below 1.13×10^-3. Please add this cross-check, or at least state the expected shift, so that the specific numbers quoted are not conditional on an unstated data choice.
[Eq. (5) and Section 2.3] The LHC bounds on W and Y in eq. (5) are explicitly approximate: the W central value comes from a single CMS analysis, and the Y bound is obtained by recasting an ATLAS Z' search. These bounds are load-bearing for the claim, stated in Section 2.3 and repeated in the conclusions, that W and Y cannot reproduce the anomaly in the custodial-invariant limit (fig. 3a). The 'without LHC' contours in fig. 3a do show the sensitivity, but the text should state explicitly how the conclusion changes if the bounds are varied within their estimated systematic uncertainty, and should justify the recasting procedure for Y in more detail. This is a specific, checkable issue affecting a stated conclusion, not a challenge to the central T̂ fit.

Minor objections (11)

[Section 2, first paragraph] The sentence 'The key issue is weather some new physics can account for the CDF anomaly' contains a typo: 'weather' should be 'whether'.
[Figure 2 caption] The caption reads 'The yellow regions shwow the analogous results'; 'shwow' should be 'show'.
[Section 3] The word 'altought' appears twice in Section 3 and should be 'although'; the phrase 'New electroweak physics is this mass range' should read 'in this mass range'.
[Section 2, first paragraph] The sentence 'the top mass would need to be about 11 GeV than its measured value' is missing 'higher' before 'than'.
[Section 5, first paragraph] The phrase 'the Higgs bosons is affected by new physics' should read 'the Higgs boson is affected by new physics'.
[Section 4, first paragraph] The phrase 'an heavy Z' vector' should read 'a heavy Z''; the same sentence also has 'The situations is illustrated' in Section 1, which should be 'The situation is illustrated'.
[Figure 5 caption] The caption states 'Proportionality constants have sometimes been omitted'; please state explicitly which normalization is used for the charges in the table so that the reader can compare with eq. (13).
[Eq. (7) and Section 2.2] The predicted MW = (80.376 ± 0.025) GeV has an uncertainty larger than CDF's, which is why the fit accommodates the anomaly only at about 2σ. A sentence making this explicit would help the reader understand why the fit is not a perfect match.
[Section 2.2] The identification L ≈ LSM − |H†DμH|²/(5 TeV)² follows from T̂ = −c_H and the normalization of O_H, but a one-line derivation would help the reader verify the 5 TeV suppression.
[Reference [2]] The PDG citation is to the 2020 edition; please check that the top-mass and MW values quoted in eq. (4) are the latest available at the time of publication.
[Section 5.3] The author appropriately flags that the extra-dimensional example in eq. (23) cannot be claimed to fit the anomaly compatibly with collider bounds. A sentence stating what the example is meant to illustrate, given this disclaimer, would clarify its role in the paper.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The CDF W-mass anomaly can be absorbed by one electroweak parameter, a positive shift of about $10^{-3}$ in $T$, and the paper maps which new-physics models deliver it.

The reading

The CDF collaboration reported a W-boson mass about 7$-$8 GeV$/10^5$ heavier than the Standard Model prediction, and this paper asks whether any consistent new physics can account for it without contradicting the rest of the precision electroweak data. Fitting all traditional precision observables plus the Higgs and top masses, the author finds the answer is yes: a universal correction to the $T$ parameter of about $(1.13$-$1.2)$$10^{-3}$, equivalent to the dimension-6 operator $|H^dagger D_mu H|^2$ suppressed by roughly 5 TeV, reproduces the anomaly while leaving the rest of the fit acceptable. The paper then sorts candidate models by whether they generate this correction at tree level or at loop level. Tree-level sources can sit at multi-TeV masses and survive LHC bounds; loop-level sources must be near the weak scale and generically clash with collider searches unless their particles are quasi-degenerate and decay invisibly. The practical payoff is a short list of concrete frameworks, hypercharge-zero scalar triplets, Higgs-philic $Z'$ vectors, specific little-Higgs models, and extra-dimensional gauge towers, that could be responsible if the CDF result holds.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the four-parameter universal fit in $hat S$, $hat T$, $W$, $Y$, defined as coefficients of the SU(2)-invariant dimension-6 operators $O_{WB}$, $O_H = |H^dagger D_mu H|^2$, $O_{WW}$, and $O_{BB}$, with the Standard Model at the origin. The $hat T$ parameter is the one that shifts the ratio of W and Z masses, so a positive $hat T$ makes the W heavier relative to the Z, which is exactly the direction CDF reports. The paper then translates $hat T$ into model space: scalar multiplets with vacuum expectation values (a hypercharge-zero triplet gives $hat T = 2v_T^2/v^2 > 0$ and fits for $v_T approx 3$ GeV), extra $Z'$ vectors (where $hat T propto (Z_E - Z_H + Z_L)^2$ and the best case is a $Z'$ coupled to the Higgs alone), little-Higgs models with two gauged copies of the electroweak group, and flat extra dimensions with boundary-localized vector kinetic terms.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the CDF W-mass anomaly is reproducible by universal new physics of the oblique kind, dominantly a positive $hat T approx (1.13 pm 0.16) times 10^{-3}$, which corresponds to adding $mathcal{L} = mathcal{L}_{rm SM} - |H^dagger D_mu H|^2/(5~{rm TeV})^2$. Allowing $hat S$ to float as well gives $hat T approx (1.2 pm 0.5) times 10^{-3}$ and $hat S approx (0.5 pm 0.7) times 10^{-3}$ with strong correlation $rho approx 0.94$, so a comparable $hat S$ is permitted but not required. The fit quality is good: the difference in $chi^2$ between including and excluding the CDF measurement drops from about 7.2 in the Standard Model to about 2.2 once $hat T$ is free. The paper also shows that the recently derived LHC constraints on the $W$ and $Y$ parameters, at the $10^{-4}$ level, are too strong for custodial-isospin-preserving new physics to fit the anomaly, which is why the correction must enter through $hat T$ rather than through the transverse parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The fit includes only the new CDF W-mass value and sets aside the earlier LEP, D0, and ATLAS measurements, which disagree with it at roughly four standard deviations; if that disagreement reflects an error or fluctuation in the CDF result rather than a real shift, the preferred $hat T$ of $10^{-3}$ is fitting noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single number, $hat T approx 10^{-3}$, becomes the target that any explanation of the CDF anomaly must hit, and models that cannot generate it at tree level are disfavored.
A $Z'$ coupled only to the Higgs, with $M_{Z'}/g_{Z'} approx 8$ TeV, is singled out as the cleanest vector explanation, since it corrects $hat T$ and leaves $hat S$, $W$, and $Y$ untouched.
Scalar triplets with zero hypercharge and quadruplets with hypercharge $1/2$ can fit with vacuum expectation values of a few GeV while their masses stay above LHC reach.
Little-Higgs models based on $SU(5)/SO(5)$ and $SU(6)/Sp(6)$ symmetries, previously under pressure from precision data, become viable again for $f approx 9$ TeV with sufficiently strong extra gauge couplings.
Loop-level explanations are pushed to the few-hundred-GeV range and therefore require quasi-degenerate spectra decaying into invisible states, such as an inert Higgs doublet or Higgsino/gaugino systems, to evade collider searches.

Reading between the lines

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

If a future CMS W-mass measurement lands near the older LEP/D0/ATLAS average of about 80.379 GeV, the preferred $hat T$ would return to zero and the entire model survey in this paper becomes a catalogue of constraints rather than of explanations.
The strong $hat T$-$hat S$ correlation means that a modest improvement in the $hat S$ measurement, for example from a future Z-pole run, would sharpen the discrimination between a Higgs-only $Z'$ and the fermion-coupled alternatives more efficiently than improving the W mass itself.
Because the same $|H^dagger D_mu H|^2$ operator feeds energy-enhanced longitudinal gauge-boson scattering, the multi-TeV scale inferred here sets an implicit target for high-energy diboson and vector-boson-fusion measurements, which probe the operator by a different route than the W mass.
The pattern in which tree-level multi-TeV sources survive while loop-level weak-scale sources do not suggests that any confirmed W-mass anomaly would preferentially point to a new symmetry-breaking sector rather than to new weakly coupled matter at the TeV scale.

Original abstract

We perform a global fit of electroweak data, finding that the anomaly in the $W$ mass claimed by the CDF collaboration can be reproduced as a universal new-physics correction to the $T$ parameter or $| H^\dagger D_\mu H|^2$ operator. Contributions at tree-level from multi-TeV new physics can fit the anomaly compatibly with collider bounds: we explore which scalar vacuum expectation values (such as a triplet with zero hypercharge), $Z'$ vectors (such as a $Z'$ coupled to the Higgs only), little-Higgs models or higher-dimensional geometries provide good global fits. On the other hand, new physics that contributes at loop-level must be around the weak scale to fit the anomaly. Thereby it generically conflicts with collider bounds, that can be bypassed assuming special kinematics like quasi-degenerate particles that decay into Dark Matter (such as an inert Higgs doublet or appropriate supersymmetric particles).

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,867 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.61 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.21 · compares with prior results 0.19 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v4. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We perform a global fit of electroweak data, finding that the anomaly in the $W$ mass claimed by the CDF collaboration can be reproduced as a universal new-physics correction to the $T$ parameter or $| H^\dagger D_\mu H|^2$ operator. Contributions at tree-level from multi-TeV new physics can fit the anomaly compatibly with collider bounds: we explore which scalar vacuum expectation values (such as a triplet with zero hypercharge), $Z'$ vectors (such as a $Z'$ coupled to the Higgs only), little-Higgs models or higher-dimensional geometries provide good global fits. On the other hand, new physics that contributes at loop-level must be around the weak scale to fit the anomaly. Thereby it generically conflicts with collider bounds, that can be bypassed assuming special kinematics like quasi-degenerate particles that decay into Dark Matter (such as an inert Higgs doublet or appropriate supersymmetric particles).

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We perform a global fit of electroweak data, finding that the anomaly in the $W$ mass claimed by the CDF collaboration can be reproduced as a universal new-physics correction to the $T$ parameter or $\| H^\dagger D_\mu H\|^2$ operator.	result 0.84	0.95	0.78	asserted 1.00
s1	Contributions at tree-level from multi-TeV new physics can fit the anomaly compatibly with collider bounds: we explore which scalar vacuum expectation values (such as a triplet with zero hypercharge), $Z'$ vectors (such as a $Z'$ coupled to the Higgs only), little-Higgs models or higher-dimensional geometries provide good global fits.	result 0.59	0.80	0.13	asserted 0.53
s2	On the other hand, new physics that contributes at loop-level must be around the weak scale to fit the anomaly.	result 0.93	0.71	0.11	asserted 0.98
s3	Thereby it generically conflicts with collider bounds, that can be bypassed assuming special kinematics like quasi-degenerate particles that decay into Dark Matter (such as an inert Higgs doublet or appropriate supersymmetric particles).	interpretation 0.52	0.50	0.09	asserted 0.72

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.86 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.95.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v4

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Measurements of the W-boson mass compared to the ±1σ band predicted by the SM (darker thinner band) and by the SM extended allowing for a free T parameter (lighter wider band and eq. (7)). operators listed in table 1 Leff = LSM + 1 v 2 cW BOW B + cHOH + cWW OWW + cBBOBB . (2) Here v ≈ 174 GeV is the Higgs vacuum expectation value, hHi = (0, v), and the coefficients can be conveniently written in terms of corrections to effective SM vector boson propagators as Sb = 2 cW sW cW B , Tb = −cH , W = −g 2 cWW , Y = −g 2 cBB (3) where the Sb, Tb , W and Y coefficients are defin

**Figure 2.** The green regions are favoured by our global fit of the universal S, b T , W, Y b electroweak parameters. The yellow regions shwow the analogous results computed without including the new LHC bounds on W, Y . -4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4 1000 W 1000 Y Universal fit, S  ,T  = 0 68, 90, 99% CL (2 dof) Δχ2 ≈ 3.5 SM Without LHC With LHC -4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4 1000 W 1000 Y Universal fit, any S  ,T  68, 90, 99% CL (2 dof) Δχ2 ≈ 55. Without LHC With LHC

**Figure 3.** Global fit of the universal W and Y electroweak parameters. Regions as in fig. 2. 5

**Figure 4.** Extra Z 0 that fit electroweak data, including the MW anomaly. The Z 0 effects dominantly depend on the Z 0 charge of the Higgs and the leptons: we here assume the normalization Z 2 L+Z 2 E+Z 2 H = 1 such that ZH = 0 at the boundary of the circles, and ZH = 1 in their centers. The three panels assume different sets of quark charges, and show similar results. The green contours show the best-fit regions at 68% and 90% confidence levels. The red dashed contours show the best-fit values of MZ 0/gZ 0 in TeV. The dashed line in the middle panel corresponds to a universal Z 0 a

**Figure 6.** Minimal Z 0 with charges Zi = (B − L)i cos θ + Yi sin θ favoured by the global fit. allow TeV-scale quantum gravity (where the Higgs supposedly becomes some stringy-like object). We here focus on little-Higgs models that tried to obtain a naturally light Higgs as the pseudo-Goldstone boson of a suitable complicated pattern of symmetry breaking. Such models contribute to electro-weak precision data at tree-level that thereby prevent them from reaching their naturalness goal. A simple way of computing corrections to precision data in such models was described in [37], where it was…

**Figure 7.** Best-fit regions on the parameters of SU(5) little-Higgs models. The red dashed contours indicate the values of the scale f in TeV. As described in the text, in each model the angles φ parameterize the gauge couplings of the extra gauge groups, which become strongly coupled at φ, φ0 → 0, π/2. where cos φ = g/g1 sin φ = g/g2 cos φ 0 = g 0 /g0 1 sin φ 0 = g 0 /g0 2 (21) and tan β = v2/v1 is the ratio between the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets of the model. The analytical expressions show that the corrections to precision data only mildly depends on β. We

**Figure 8.** As in fig. 7, for SU(6) little-Higgs models. The resulting best fits are reported in fig. 8b. Again, the MW anomaly can be reproduced, and large SU(2) couplings are here needed to avoid collider bounds and bounds on W. We verified that other little-higgs models that do not contribute to Tb at tree-level do not provide good fits to the MW anomaly. 5.3 Gauge bosons and Higgs in extra dimensions Finally, we recall that similar structures (with the two copies of electroweak vectors replaced by an infinite massive tower) arise in models with extra dimensions. A dominant correction to Tb…

Showing 7 of the paper's 8 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:2204.04191 by the authors.

References

Works cited (41)

[37]

G. Marandella, C. Schappacher, A. Strumia, ‘Little-Higgs corrections to precision data after LEP2’ , Phys.Rev.D 72 (2005) 035014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0502096]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[1]

CDF Collaboration, ‘High-precision measure- ment of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector’, Science 376 (2022) 170

View on Pith 2022
[2]

Particle Data Group Collaboration, ‘Re- view of Particle Physics’ , PTEP 2020 (2020) 083C01. Top mass from 2021 particle listings, pdg.lbl.gov

View on Pith 2020
[3]

M.E. Peskin, T. Takeuchi, ‘A New constraint on a strongly interacting Higgs sector’ , Phys.Rev.Lett. 65 (1990) 964

View on Pith 1990
[4]

R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, A. Stru- mia, ‘Electroweak symmetry breaking after LEP-1 and LEP-2’ , Nucl.Phys.B 703 (2004) 127 [arXiv:hep-ph/0405040]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[5]

S.-Q. Wang, R.-Q. Meng, X.-G. Wu, L. Chen, J.-M. Shen, ‘Revisiting the bottom quark forward–backward asymmetry AFB in elec- tron–positron collisions’ , Eur.Phys.J.C 80 (2020) 649 [arXiv:2003.13941]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[6]

CMS Collaboration, “A proﬁle likelihood ap- proach to measure the top quark mass in the lepton+jets channel at√s = 13 TeV”, CMS PAS TOP-20-008

View on Pith
[7]

A. Strumia, ‘Bounds on Kaluza-Klein exci- tations of the SM vector bosons from elec- 16 troweak tests’ , Phys.Lett.B 466 (1999) 107 [arXiv:hep-ph/9906266]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[8]

R. Franceschini, G. Panico, A. Pomarol, F. Riva, A. Wulzer, ‘Electroweak Precision Tests in High-Energy Diboson Processes’ , JHEP 02 (2018) 111 [arXiv:1712.01310]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[9]

J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz, T. You, ‘Top, Higgs, Diboson and Elec- troweak Fit to the Standard Model Ef- fective Field Theory’ , JHEP 04 (2021) 279 [arXiv:2012.02779]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[10]

CMS Collaboration, ‘Search for new physics in the lepton plus missing transverse mo- mentum ﬁnal state in proton-proton colli- sions at √s = 13 TeV’ [arXiv:2202.06075]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[11]

ATLAS Collaboration, ‘Search for new high- mass phenomena in the dilepton ﬁnal state using 36 fb −1 of proton-proton collision data at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector’ , JHEP 10 (2017) 182 [arXiv:1707.02424]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[12]

M. Farina, G. Panico, D. Pappadopulo, J.T. Ruderman, R. Torre, A. Wulzer, ‘Energy helps accuracy: electroweak precision tests at hadron colliders’ , Phys.Lett.B 772 (2017) 210 [arXiv:1609.08157]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[13]

R. Torre, L. Ricci, A. Wulzer, ‘On the W,Y interpretation of high-energy Drell- Yan measurements’ , JHEP 02 (2021) 144 [arXiv:2008.12978]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[14]

G. Panico, L. Ricci, A. Wulzer, ‘High-energy EFT probes with fully diﬀerential Drell- Yan measurements’ , JHEP 07 (2021) 086 [arXiv:2103.10532]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[15]

G. Marandella, C. Schappacher, A. Strumia, ‘Supersymmetry and precision data after LEP2’, Nucl.Phys.B 715 (2005) 173 [arXiv:hep- ph/0502095]

View on Pith 2005
[16]

ATLAS Collaboration, ‘ATLAS Run 1 searches for direct pair production of third-generation squarks at the Large Hadron Collider’ , Eur.Phys.J.C 75 (2015) 510 [arXiv:1506.08616]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[17]

CMS Collaboration, ‘Search for supersym- metry in the all-hadronic ﬁnal state us- ing top quark tagging in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV’, Phys.Rev.D 96 (2017) 012004 [arXiv:1701.01954]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[18]

CMS Collaboration, ‘Search for top squark production in fully-hadronic ﬁnal states in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV’ , Phys.Rev.D 104 (2021) 052001 [arXiv:2103.01290]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[19]

K. Kannike, M. Raidal, D.M. Straub, A. Stru- mia, ‘Anthropic solution to the magnetic muon anomaly: the charged see-saw’ , JHEP 02 (2012) 106 [arXiv:1111.2551]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[20]

N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado, G.F. Giudice, ‘The Well-tempered neutralino’, Nucl.Phys.B 741 (2006) 108 [arXiv:hep-ph/0601041]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[21]

R. Barbieri, L.J. Hall, V.S. Rychkov, ‘Improved naturalness with a heavy Higgs: An Alter- native road to LHC physics’ , Phys.Rev.D 74 (2006) 015007 [arXiv:hep-ph/0603188]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[22]

D. Dercks, T. Robens, ‘Constraining the Inert Doublet Model using Vector Boson Fusion’ , Eur.Phys.J.C 79 (2019) 924 [arXiv:1812.07913]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[23]

E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar, M. Trott, ‘Renor- malization Group Evolution of the Stan- dard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence’ , JHEP 01 (2014) 035 [arXiv:1310.4838]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[24]

R. Alonso, E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar, M. Trott, ‘Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Op- erators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology’ , JHEP 04 (2014) 159 [arXiv:1312.2014]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[25]

J. Elias-Mir´ o, C. Grojean, R.S. Gupta, D. Marzocca, ‘Scaling and tuning of EW and Higgs observables’ , JHEP 05 (2014) 019 [arXiv:1312.2928]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[26]

M. Ghezzi, R. Gomez-Ambrosio, G. Passarino, S. Uccirati, ‘NLO Higgs eﬀective ﬁeld the- ory and κ-framework’, JHEP 07 (2015) 175 [arXiv:1505.03706]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[27]

J. Elias-Miro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, H.M. Lee, A. Strumia, ‘Stabilization of the Elec- troweak Vacuum by a Scalar Threshold Ef- fect’, JHEP 06 (2012) 031 [arXiv:1203.0237]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[28]

C.-W. Chiang, G. Cottin, Y. Du, K. Fuyuto, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, ‘Collider Probes of Real Triplet Scalar Dark Matter’ , JHEP 01 (2021) 198 [arXiv:2003.07867]. 17

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[29]

B.W. Lynn, E. Nardi, ‘Radiative corrections in unconstrained SU(2) ⊗ U(1) and the top mass problem’, Nucl.Phys.B 381 (1992) 467

View on Pith 1992
[30]

M. Hirsch, R.A. Lineros, S. Morisi, J. Palacio, N. Rojas, J.W.F. Valle,‘WIMP dark matter as radiative neutrino mass messenger’, JHEP 10 (2013) 149 [arXiv:1307.8134]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[31]

P. Bandyopadhyay, A. Costantini, ‘Obscure Higgs boson at Colliders’ , Phys.Rev.D 103 (2021) 015025 [arXiv:2010.02597]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[32]

S. Dawson, C.W. Murphy, ‘Standard Model EFT and Extended Scalar Sec- tors’, Phys.Rev.D 96 (2017) 015041 [arXiv:1704.07851]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[33]

C.W. Murphy, ‘Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Eﬀective Field Theory’ , JHEP 10 (2020) 174 [arXiv:2005.00059]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[34]

D. Aristizabal Sierra, C. Simoes, D. Wegman, ‘Radiative accidental matter’, JHEP 07 (2016) 124 [arXiv:1605.08267]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[35]

G. Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, G. Marandella, A. Strumia, ‘The Minimal Set of Electroweak Precision Parameters’, Phys.Rev.D 74 (2006) 033011 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604111]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[36]

E. Salvioni, G. Villadoro, F. Zwirner, ‘Min- imal Z-prime models: Present bounds and early LHC reach’ , JHEP 11 (2009) 068 [arXiv:0909.1320]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[38]

N. Arkani-Hamed, A.G. Cohen, E. Katz, A.E. Nelson, ‘The Littlest Higgs’ , JHEP 07 (2002) 034 [arXiv:hep-ph/0206021]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[39]

C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, G.D. Kribs, P. Meade, J. Terning, ‘Big corrections from a lit- tle Higgs’ , Phys.Rev.D 67 (2003) 115002 [arXiv:hep-ph/0211124]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[40]

I. Low, W. Skiba, D. Tucker-Smith, ‘Lit- tle Higgses from an antisymmetric conden- sate’, Phys.Rev.D 66 (2002) 072001 [arXiv:hep- ph/0207243]

View on Pith 2002
[41]

T. Gregoire, D. Tucker-Smith, J.G. Wacker, ‘What precision electroweak physics says about the SU(6)/Sp(6) little Higgs’ , Phys.Rev.D 69 (2004) 115008 [arXiv:hep- ph/0305275]. 18

View on Pith 2004

Forward citations

Cited by 28 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

The last Complex WIMPs standing
hep-ph 2022-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Complex hypercharged WIMP multiplets up to the perturbative unitarity limit are classified and their thermal masses computed, and only the hypercharge-1/2 doublet escapes all planned direct detection experiments, leav...
Precise calculation of the W boson pole mass beyond the Standard Model with FlexibleSUSY
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A rebuilt W boson mass calculation in FlexibleSUSY removes spurious non-decoupling logarithms from earlier versions, and the MRSSM is shown to reach the 2022 CDF W mass value at a Higgs mass of 125 GeV.
Status of the two-Higgs-doublet model in light of the CDF $m_W$ measurement
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining the CDF W-mass shift with RGE cutoff, flavor, and collider constraints caps heavy 2HDM Higgs masses near 1.1 TeV (normal) and 450 GeV (inverted), and excludes inverted type II and type Y.
Combined explanation of $W$-mass, muon $g-2$, $R_{K^{(*)}}$ and $R_{D^{(*)}}$ anomalies in a singlet-triplet scalar leptoquark model
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A singlet-triplet scalar leptoquark model with Higgs-portal mixing can simultaneously fit the W mass, muon g-2, R_K(*), and R_D(*) anomalies for leptoquark masses between about 1.5 and 8 TeV.
$W$ boson mass shift and muon magnetic moment in the Zee model
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Within the Zee model, a hierarchical scalar spectrum with m_H < m_A < m_H+ can simultaneously fit the CDF W boson mass, the muon g-2 anomaly, and neutrino oscillation data, with a same-sign dimuon signal as a test.

Show 23 more citing papers

Type II Dirac Seesaw with Observable $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ in the light of W-mass Anomaly
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A type II Dirac seesaw with a real scalar triplet reproduces the CDF W-mass shift and predicts observable extra relativistic degrees of freedom, at the cost of a stated tension with the Z-pole weak mixing angle.
$W$ boson mass and muon $g-2$ in a lepton portal dark matter model
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Two vector-like leptons plus a scalar dark matter particle can jointly explain the CDF W mass shift, the muon g-2 anomaly, and the dark matter relic density, with the lightest new lepton below 200 GeV.
Excesses in the low-mass Higgs-boson search and the W-boson mass measurement
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In the N2HDM type IV, parameter points that describe the 95 GeV excesses in the diphoton, tau-pair and b-bbar channels can also raise the predicted W-boson mass to the CDF value, at the cost of tension with the LEP ef...
Iso-doublet Vector Leptoquark solution to the Muon $g-2$, $R_{K, K^*}$, $R_{D,D^*}$, and $W$-mass Anomalies
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The iso-doublet vector leptoquark V2 can fit the B-meson R_K and R_D anomalies and, with a 25-30 GeV isospin splitting, the CDF W-boson mass, but its muon g-2 fit requires a coupling above the perturbative limit.
Impact of the CDF $W$-mass anomaly on two Higgs doublet model
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In the general two-Higgs-doublet model, the CDF W-mass anomaly combined with unitarity and vacuum-stability constraints caps the heavy Higgs boson masses at roughly 1 TeV.
Violation of custodial symmetry from W-boson mass measurements
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining the new CDF II W-boson mass with electroweak precision data implies a non-zero custodial-symmetry-violating T parameter at 4.5 sigma within a restricted four-operator SMEFT fit.
Correlating Gravitational Waves with $W$-boson Mass, FIMP Dark Matter, and Majorana Seesaw Mechanism
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In a scotogenic model with right-handed neutrinos, the mass splitting that fits the CDF W-boson mass also strengthens the electroweak phase transition and yields a gravitational-wave signal near U-DECIGO sensitivity.
$W$-Boson Mass Anomaly from Scale Invariant 2HDM
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The scale-invariant 2HDM can accommodate the CDF-II W-boson mass anomaly through oblique corrections for scalar masses between roughly 100 and 500 GeV, with viable regions only in the type-I fermion assignment.
Explaining the $W$ boson mass anomaly and dark matter with a $U(1)$ dark sector
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A U(1) extension mixing with the Standard Model through hypercharge can produce the 77 MeV CDF W boson mass shift and a fermionic dark matter candidate, whereas kinetic mixing alone yields at most 10 MeV.
Implication of the $W$ boson mass anomaly at CDF II in the Higgs triplet model with a mass difference
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A Higgs triplet with a vacuum expectation value of a few GeV and a splitting of roughly 100 GeV among the triplet-like Higgs bosons can account for the CDF II W mass shift within electroweak precision and LHC bounds.
On the $W$-mass and New Higgs Bosons
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A real scalar triplet with a vacuum expectation value of 5.4 GeV accommodates the CDF II W mass anomaly and predicts a fermiophobic neutral Higgs and a charged Higgs with specific branching ratios.
Type III seesaw with R-parity violation in light of $m_W$ (CDF)
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A type III seesaw MSSM with R-parity violation accommodates the CDF W mass and the LEP rho parameter at 2 sigma via a roughly 4 GeV triplet vacuum expectation value.
A joint explanation of W-mass and muon g-2 in 2HDM
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A mu-tau lepton-flavor-violating two-Higgs-doublet model can simultaneously fit the CDF W mass, the Fermilab muon g-2, and tau lepton universality at two sigma, but only in narrow mass-splitting windows.
On the implications of positive W mass shift
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A global SMEFT fit to electroweak data including the CDF W mass finds that oblique-parameter or vacuum-expectation-value new physics improves agreement, with a 21-parameter flavorful fit giving the best description.
New physics interpretation of $W$-boson mass anomaly
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Single-field extensions of the Standard Model with new scalars, vectors, or fermions at multi-TeV scales can relax the CDF W-boson mass anomaly by shifting the Fermi coupling constant.
Explaining The CDF-II W-Boson Mass Anomaly in the Georgi-Machacek Extension Models
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Small misalignment between the two triplet vacuum expectation values in the Georgi-Machacek model, or an added right-handed neutrino sector, can generate the W-boson mass shift reported by CDF-II.
Extra $W$-Boson Mass from a D3-Brane
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Separating a probe D3-brane from the visible 7-branes by a few TeV suppresses its contribution to the rho parameter to the roughly 10^-3 level reported by CDF, while keeping the S parameter and direct-search constrain...
Speculations on the W-Mass Measurement at CDF
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Non-degenerate top squark soft masses, and a Z-prime made leptophobic by mixing with vector-like leptons, are the two scenarios that can accommodate the CDF II W mass without conflicting with LHC searches.
Higgs physics confronts the $M_W$ anomaly
hep-ph 2022-04 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

New physics that explains the CDF W-mass anomaly through the T parameter also shifts Higgs decay rates, with h to gamma gamma the most promising probe and five specific new-particle representations identified.
Oblique Lessons from the $W$ Mass Measurement at CDF II
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Including the CDF II W mass in a global electroweak fit drives S and T to roughly (0.17, 0.27), a region a TeV-scale real SU(2) triplet scalar can fill but a kinetically mixed dark photon cannot.
SMEFT Analysis of $m_{W}$
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The CDF W-mass excess can be fitted by the dimension-6 SMEFT operators O_HD, O_HWB, O_ll or O_Hl^(3), favouring a Z-prime singlet, a scalar electroweak triplet, or a Y=1 vector triplet at multi-TeV masses.
Electroweak Phase Transition in 2HDM under Higgs, Z-pole, and W precision measurements
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Type-I and Type-II two-Higgs-doublet models can accommodate a strong first-order electroweak phase transition and the CDF-II W mass shift in overlapping regions of heavy-Higgs mass splitting, but future lepton collide...
NMSSM neutralino dark matter for CDF II $W$-boson mass and muon $g-2$ and the promising prospect of direct detection
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A bino-like neutralino in the 180-280 GeV range can fit the muon g-2 and CDF II W-mass anomalies in the NMSSM while satisfying relic density and direct-detection limits.

How the literature uses it

106 arXiv papers cite this in 162 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 84 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 1 paper

The combined constraints on $W$ and $Y$ in Ref. [ref] are also based upon the $V=0$ assumption, and therefore become invalid again.

Corrections to electroweak precision observables from mixings of an exotic vector boson in light of the CDF $W$-mass anomaly · Bounds on the oblique parameters $W$ and $Y$ · contest 0.82

Uses its method or tool 1 paper

We are going to use the formalism given in references [ref] to show how heavy $Z'$ bosons can modify the oblique parameters and, since SLH is not an Universal theory[An universal theory is such that Z' couples to the fermions universally (which does not occur in SLH) or proportionally to the SM vectors. ], these corrections cannot be fully represented with four universal parameters: $Ŝ$, $T̂$, $Y$, $W$.

Lepton flavor violation within the Simplest Little Higgs model · The CDF TEXT measurement within the SLH model · 0.92

Uses its data or values 9 papers

By assuming $U=0$, the recent CDF measurement of the $W$ mass can be translated to best fit values for the $S$ and $T$ parameters [ref] : [equation] with a strong correlation $ρ≈0.95$. while the previous Particle Data Group (PDG) value before the CDF measurement was [ref] [equation] with the correlation $ρ≈0.92$.

Electroweak precision tests of composite Higgs models · Introduction · 0.87
We will employ the recent global fit of electroweak data incorporating the CDF-II measurements of the W mass, estimated in [ref] as $S = 0.064 ±0.090$ and $T = 0.14 ±0.064$ while fixing $U ∼0$.

$W$-Boson Mass Anomaly from Scale Invariant 2HDM · Results · 1.00
Otherwise, the values of $W$ and $Y$ have similar order as $T̂ ≡α_em T$ and the LHC constraints are $|W| ≲1.8 ×10^-4$ and $|Y| ≲2.0 ×10^-4$ at $1 σ$ confidence level [ref] .

An alternative gauged $U(1)_R$ symmetric model in light of the CDF II $W$ boson mass anomaly · Oblique parameters · 0.88

Compares with it 5 papers

We note that the allowed range for $S$ and $T$ parameters is consistent with the recent results found in the literature [ref] .

Is the new CDF $M_W$ measurement consistent with the two higgs doublet model? · Results and discussions · 0.83
Our results are consistent within $1σ$ with Ref. [ref] .

Electroweak precision tests for triplet scalars · Electroweak global fits · 1.00
It is worth emphasising that the scale of new physics, $Λ∼800$ GeV considered here is much smaller than the $O$ (6 TeV) scale [ref] required if UV contributions to the $Ŝ$ and $T̂$ parameters are to entirely explain the anomaly.

Running away from the T-parameter solution to the W mass anomaly · RG evolution of constraints to matching scale · 0.87

Cites it as support 4 papers

However the W boson anomaly cannot be explained if charged-leptons have nonzero $U(1)_R$ charge because of the constraints from $W$ and $Y$ oblique parameters [ref] .

An alternative gauged $U(1)_R$ symmetric model in light of the CDF II $W$ boson mass anomaly · Introduction · 0.99
According to Ref. [ref] , it is hard to explain $m^CDF_W$ without going beyond the SM.

Status of the two-Higgs-doublet model in light of the CDF $m_W$ measurement · Introduction · 1.00
The discrepancy, $δM_W ≡(M_W)_exp - (M_W)_SM ∼60$ MeV is easily explained by the small vacuum expectation value (VEV) of a $SU(2)_L$ triplet Higgs boson with zero hypercharge [ref] , which only contributes to the $W^±$ mass at the tree-level [ref] .

The anomalous shift of the weak boson mass and the quintessence electroweak axion · The $W$ boson mass shift and the weak SU(2) gauge coupling constant · 0.98

Cites it as background 53 papers

Many analyses on the oblique parameters based on the new $M_W$ measured by the CDF collaboration have been conducted [ref] .

Explaining the $R_{K^{(*)}}$ anomalies and the CDF $M_W$ in Flavorful Top Seesaw Models with Gauged $U(1)_{L(-R)}$ · The CDF $W$ mass and the constraint on the scale $f$ · 0.86
The EW global fits with the CDF $m_W$ data considered have been performed in Refs. [ref] .

Corrections to electroweak precision observables from mixings of an exotic vector boson in light of the CDF $W$-mass anomaly · Introduction · 0.85
Most effort has been focused on explanations through oblique parameters [ref] probing universal theories [ref] .

Beta-decay implications for the W-boson mass anomaly · Introduction · 0.99

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [37]

G. Marandella, C. Schappacher, A. Strumia, ‘Little-Higgs corrections to precision data after LEP2’ , Phys.Rev.D 72 (2005) 035014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0502096]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[2] [1]

CDF Collaboration, ‘High-precision measure- ment of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector’, Science 376 (2022) 170

View on Pith 2022

[3] [2]

Particle Data Group Collaboration, ‘Re- view of Particle Physics’ , PTEP 2020 (2020) 083C01. Top mass from 2021 particle listings, pdg.lbl.gov

View on Pith 2020

[4] [3]

M.E. Peskin, T. Takeuchi, ‘A New constraint on a strongly interacting Higgs sector’ , Phys.Rev.Lett. 65 (1990) 964

View on Pith 1990

[5] [4]

R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, A. Stru- mia, ‘Electroweak symmetry breaking after LEP-1 and LEP-2’ , Nucl.Phys.B 703 (2004) 127 [arXiv:hep-ph/0405040]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[6] [5]

S.-Q. Wang, R.-Q. Meng, X.-G. Wu, L. Chen, J.-M. Shen, ‘Revisiting the bottom quark forward–backward asymmetry AFB in elec- tron–positron collisions’ , Eur.Phys.J.C 80 (2020) 649 [arXiv:2003.13941]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[7] [6]

CMS Collaboration, “A proﬁle likelihood ap- proach to measure the top quark mass in the lepton+jets channel at√s = 13 TeV”, CMS PAS TOP-20-008

View on Pith

[8] [7]

A. Strumia, ‘Bounds on Kaluza-Klein exci- tations of the SM vector bosons from elec- 16 troweak tests’ , Phys.Lett.B 466 (1999) 107 [arXiv:hep-ph/9906266]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[9] [8]

R. Franceschini, G. Panico, A. Pomarol, F. Riva, A. Wulzer, ‘Electroweak Precision Tests in High-Energy Diboson Processes’ , JHEP 02 (2018) 111 [arXiv:1712.01310]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[10] [9]

J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz, T. You, ‘Top, Higgs, Diboson and Elec- troweak Fit to the Standard Model Ef- fective Field Theory’ , JHEP 04 (2021) 279 [arXiv:2012.02779]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[11] [10]

CMS Collaboration, ‘Search for new physics in the lepton plus missing transverse mo- mentum ﬁnal state in proton-proton colli- sions at √s = 13 TeV’ [arXiv:2202.06075]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[12] [11]

ATLAS Collaboration, ‘Search for new high- mass phenomena in the dilepton ﬁnal state using 36 fb −1 of proton-proton collision data at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector’ , JHEP 10 (2017) 182 [arXiv:1707.02424]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[13] [12]

M. Farina, G. Panico, D. Pappadopulo, J.T. Ruderman, R. Torre, A. Wulzer, ‘Energy helps accuracy: electroweak precision tests at hadron colliders’ , Phys.Lett.B 772 (2017) 210 [arXiv:1609.08157]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[14] [13]

R. Torre, L. Ricci, A. Wulzer, ‘On the W,Y interpretation of high-energy Drell- Yan measurements’ , JHEP 02 (2021) 144 [arXiv:2008.12978]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[15] [14]

G. Panico, L. Ricci, A. Wulzer, ‘High-energy EFT probes with fully diﬀerential Drell- Yan measurements’ , JHEP 07 (2021) 086 [arXiv:2103.10532]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[16] [15]

G. Marandella, C. Schappacher, A. Strumia, ‘Supersymmetry and precision data after LEP2’, Nucl.Phys.B 715 (2005) 173 [arXiv:hep- ph/0502095]

View on Pith 2005

[17] [16]

ATLAS Collaboration, ‘ATLAS Run 1 searches for direct pair production of third-generation squarks at the Large Hadron Collider’ , Eur.Phys.J.C 75 (2015) 510 [arXiv:1506.08616]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[18] [17]

CMS Collaboration, ‘Search for supersym- metry in the all-hadronic ﬁnal state us- ing top quark tagging in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV’, Phys.Rev.D 96 (2017) 012004 [arXiv:1701.01954]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[19] [18]

CMS Collaboration, ‘Search for top squark production in fully-hadronic ﬁnal states in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV’ , Phys.Rev.D 104 (2021) 052001 [arXiv:2103.01290]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[20] [19]

K. Kannike, M. Raidal, D.M. Straub, A. Stru- mia, ‘Anthropic solution to the magnetic muon anomaly: the charged see-saw’ , JHEP 02 (2012) 106 [arXiv:1111.2551]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[21] [20]

N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado, G.F. Giudice, ‘The Well-tempered neutralino’, Nucl.Phys.B 741 (2006) 108 [arXiv:hep-ph/0601041]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[22] [21]

R. Barbieri, L.J. Hall, V.S. Rychkov, ‘Improved naturalness with a heavy Higgs: An Alter- native road to LHC physics’ , Phys.Rev.D 74 (2006) 015007 [arXiv:hep-ph/0603188]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[23] [22]

D. Dercks, T. Robens, ‘Constraining the Inert Doublet Model using Vector Boson Fusion’ , Eur.Phys.J.C 79 (2019) 924 [arXiv:1812.07913]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[24] [23]

E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar, M. Trott, ‘Renor- malization Group Evolution of the Stan- dard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence’ , JHEP 01 (2014) 035 [arXiv:1310.4838]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[25] [24]

R. Alonso, E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar, M. Trott, ‘Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Op- erators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology’ , JHEP 04 (2014) 159 [arXiv:1312.2014]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[26] [25]

J. Elias-Mir´ o, C. Grojean, R.S. Gupta, D. Marzocca, ‘Scaling and tuning of EW and Higgs observables’ , JHEP 05 (2014) 019 [arXiv:1312.2928]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[27] [26]

M. Ghezzi, R. Gomez-Ambrosio, G. Passarino, S. Uccirati, ‘NLO Higgs eﬀective ﬁeld the- ory and κ-framework’, JHEP 07 (2015) 175 [arXiv:1505.03706]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[28] [27]

J. Elias-Miro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, H.M. Lee, A. Strumia, ‘Stabilization of the Elec- troweak Vacuum by a Scalar Threshold Ef- fect’, JHEP 06 (2012) 031 [arXiv:1203.0237]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[29] [28]

C.-W. Chiang, G. Cottin, Y. Du, K. Fuyuto, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, ‘Collider Probes of Real Triplet Scalar Dark Matter’ , JHEP 01 (2021) 198 [arXiv:2003.07867]. 17

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[30] [29]

B.W. Lynn, E. Nardi, ‘Radiative corrections in unconstrained SU(2) ⊗ U(1) and the top mass problem’, Nucl.Phys.B 381 (1992) 467

View on Pith 1992

[31] [30]

M. Hirsch, R.A. Lineros, S. Morisi, J. Palacio, N. Rojas, J.W.F. Valle,‘WIMP dark matter as radiative neutrino mass messenger’, JHEP 10 (2013) 149 [arXiv:1307.8134]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[32] [31]

P. Bandyopadhyay, A. Costantini, ‘Obscure Higgs boson at Colliders’ , Phys.Rev.D 103 (2021) 015025 [arXiv:2010.02597]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[33] [32]

S. Dawson, C.W. Murphy, ‘Standard Model EFT and Extended Scalar Sec- tors’, Phys.Rev.D 96 (2017) 015041 [arXiv:1704.07851]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[34] [33]

C.W. Murphy, ‘Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Eﬀective Field Theory’ , JHEP 10 (2020) 174 [arXiv:2005.00059]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[35] [34]

D. Aristizabal Sierra, C. Simoes, D. Wegman, ‘Radiative accidental matter’, JHEP 07 (2016) 124 [arXiv:1605.08267]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[36] [35]

G. Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, G. Marandella, A. Strumia, ‘The Minimal Set of Electroweak Precision Parameters’, Phys.Rev.D 74 (2006) 033011 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604111]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[37] [36]

E. Salvioni, G. Villadoro, F. Zwirner, ‘Min- imal Z-prime models: Present bounds and early LHC reach’ , JHEP 11 (2009) 068 [arXiv:0909.1320]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[38] [38]

N. Arkani-Hamed, A.G. Cohen, E. Katz, A.E. Nelson, ‘The Littlest Higgs’ , JHEP 07 (2002) 034 [arXiv:hep-ph/0206021]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[39] [39]

C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, G.D. Kribs, P. Meade, J. Terning, ‘Big corrections from a lit- tle Higgs’ , Phys.Rev.D 67 (2003) 115002 [arXiv:hep-ph/0211124]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[40] [40]

I. Low, W. Skiba, D. Tucker-Smith, ‘Lit- tle Higgses from an antisymmetric conden- sate’, Phys.Rev.D 66 (2002) 072001 [arXiv:hep- ph/0207243]

View on Pith 2002

[41] [41]

T. Gregoire, D. Tucker-Smith, J.G. Wacker, ‘What precision electroweak physics says about the SU(6)/Sp(6) little Higgs’ , Phys.Rev.D 69 (2004) 115008 [arXiv:hep- ph/0305275]. 18

View on Pith 2004