Speculations on the W-Mass Measurement at CDF

Jiayin Gu; Jing Shu; Teng Ma; Zhen Liu

REVIEW

Speculations on the W-Mass Measurement at CDF

Jiayin Gu, Zhen Liu, Teng Ma, Jing Shu

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 11 Apr 2022 · 54 references

Pith's verdict: A useful, honest post-CDF-II survey whose electroweak fit tables will be cited, but the top-squark headline result rests on a loop function that does not survive a check at rr = 1.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 30, 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 · 10 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2204.05296 (version 2)

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

CitationJiayin Gu, Jing Shu, Teng Ma, Zhen Liu. "Speculations on the W-Mass Measurement at CDF." arXiv:2204.05296 (2022). https://pith.science/paper/AZWKKGXG

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

Worth your time for the fit tables, not for the stop section as printed. The durable content is Section II: the S-T, S-T-δG_F, and eight-parameter fits redone with the CDF II m_W in place of the PDG average, with the operator basis and observable list stated explicitly and the S, T numbers cross-checked against the Gfitter values. The qualitative conclusion — you need positive T and positive δG_F with S near zero to move m_W without disturbing the Z pole — is correct and cleanly derived from Eq. (4). Table I is a genuinely handy summary. I also give them credit for reporting the negative result: the left-handed SU(2)₁×SU(2)₂ case makes the fit worse, and they say so rather than burying it. The observation that rr = m_U3²/m_Q3² < 1 enhances the custodial-breaking coefficients is a real extension of the degenerate-stop analysis, and the physical picture — a light right-handed stop with large left-right mixing — is sensible and less LHC-constrained than the degenerate case. That much is right. The problem is Eq. (44). Expand the printed c_T, c_W, c_B, c_WB coefficients at rr = 1 − ε and they diverge: −9/ε⁴ in the c_T X_t⁴ term, −7/(4ε³) in the c_T X_t² term, and so on. Eq. (42) gives a finite degenerate limit, and the Fig. 7 caption quotes finite rr = 1 reference values (1/40, −1/16, 1/40, 1/40, 1/30). So Eq. (44) contradicts both. My guess is a transcription slip in the (1−rr) powers — the Huo and Drozd-Ellis-Quevillon-You expressions are finite — but as printed, Fig. 7 and the Fig. 8 allowed region cannot be reproduced from the formula, and the enhancement claim is unsupported until someone recomputes. That is the one thing a referee must force. Smaller items: the Fig. 8 caption says 'degenerate' where the text means non-degenerate; the 6 MeV theory error is hand-chosen and never varied, which sets the required new-physics size; and the Z′ escape route works by tuning the fermion couplings to zero, which is evasion rather than explanation. The vacuum-stability caveat they flag themselves, so I won't hold it against them. Send it out. The fit material deserves refereeing and the stop section needs the correction before anyone builds on it.

Referee report

Major objections (2)

[§III C, Eq. (44) and Fig. 7] The printed non-degenerate loop functions do not reduce to the degenerate limit Eq. (42) as rr→1; they diverge. For example, the c_T coefficient of X_t²/m_Q3² contains (-1-5rr-2rr²)/(8(1-rr)³) + 3rr²/(4(1-rr)⁴) log rr, whose numerator at rr=1 is -8 while the denominator vanishes as (1-rr)³, giving a leading -1/ε³ divergence (with rr = 1-ε); the log term contributes -3/(4ε³), so the sum diverges as -7/(4ε³). The same happens for the X_t⁴ term and for c_W and c_B. Yet the Fig. 7 caption quotes finite rr=1 reference values (1/40, -1/16, 1/40, 1/40, 1/30), and Eq. (42) gives the degenerate limit. Either the printed Eq. (44) contains a typo in the denominators or the enhancement factors in Fig. 7 and the allowed region in Fig. 8 are wrong. Because the central claim of §III C (abstract:s9) rests on these functions, the authors should verify the loop functions, confirm they reduce to Eq. (42) at rr=1, and recompute Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 if a correction is needed. As a secondary point, the rr=1 reference value quoted in the Fig. 7 caption for c_T(X_t²/m_Q3²) is -1/16, whereas Eq. (42) gives -1/8; the normalization should be reconciled.
[§III C, Fig. 8 and Eqs. (45)-(46)] The boundary of the viable region in Fig. 8 is set by two approximate vacuum stability constraints that the authors describe as 'empirical and approximated' and note depend on 'many other parameters.' The authors acknowledge this and show both bounds, which is appropriate. What remains unresolved is whether a full tunneling calculation would leave any viable region at the large X_t, small rr corner where the enhancement operates; a numerical check, or at least a statement of how the viable region shrinks under the more conservative bound, would strengthen the claim that the non-degenerate stop explanation is 'compatible with current constraints.'

Minor objections (10)

[Fig. 8 caption] The caption says 'with degenerate stop soft masses,' but the benchmarks shown are non-degenerate (rr = 0.9, 0.8, 0.6); the caption should be corrected.
[Fig. 8 caption and §III C text] The caption describes the gray shaded region as 'tachyonic light stop mass,' while the text calls it the 'color-breaking parameter space'; these should be reconciled.
[Table I] The SM row lists three numbers (31, 62, 76) under two χ² columns; the column structure should be clarified so the reader can tell which number corresponds to which scenario.
[Eq. (4)] The printed coefficient '12c2w' is ambiguous; the exact normalization of δm_W in terms of T̂, Ŝ, and δG_F should be stated explicitly.
[Eq. (10)] The expression 'mZ′ = mW′ = 12√g1²+g2² v_∆' should read (1/2)√(g1²+g2²) v_∆; the factor should be corrected.
[§II] The 6 MeV effective theory error added in quadrature to the m_W experimental uncertainty is a modeling choice that affects the fit results; a brief sensitivity study, or a justification of the value beyond the citation to Ref. [2], would strengthen the robustness of the quoted shifts.
[§II] The comparison uses the CDF II measurement alone versus the PDG world average rather than a proper combination; the authors acknowledge this, but a sentence on how a combination would shift the fit results would help the reader.
[§III A, Eq. (32)] The claim that vector-like lepton mixing can eliminate the LHC di-muon bounds on Z' is sketched via Eq. (32) but not demonstrated with a scan; a figure showing the viable {tanφ, θ_L, θ_R} region would strengthen the realization claim in the abstract.
[§III C] The statement 'we can safely discard this possibility' for degenerate stops is stronger than the EFT-validity caveat at m_t̃ ~ 200-400 GeV warrants; softening the wording would be more accurate.
[Throughout] Several typographical errors should be corrected: 'simutenously' (should be 'simultaneously'), 'Lagarange' (should be 'Lagrangian'), 'unexclueded' (should be 'unexcluded'), 'parathensis' (should be 'parentheses'), 'dominants' (should be 'dominates'), and 'specifies' (should likely be 'sfermions').

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

The paper

The paper claims

The CDF II W boson mass sits about seven sigma above the Standard Model prediction, and this paper asks which kinds of new physics could produce that shift without disturbing the Z-pole observables that already agree with theory.

The reading

The CDF II experiment measured the W boson mass at $80433.5$ MeV, roughly seven sigma above what a global electroweak fit predicts in the Standard Model. This paper asks what kind of new physics could produce that shift without spoiling the many Z-pole observables that already match the Standard Model, and then checks the candidate models against collider data. The authors first redo the electroweak fit in three effective-field-theory frameworks of increasing generality, and show that the data pull the fit toward a positive $T$ parameter together with a positive shift in the Fermi constant, while leaving $S$ essentially alone. They then survey three model classes: an extra $W'/Z'$ triplet, vector-like top partners, and top squarks. The first two are squeezed by direct LHC searches, while a top squark with unequal left- and right-handed soft masses survives, so the W mass excess would point to a light right-handed stop with large left-right mixing at the TeV scale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the three-parameter electroweak fit in $S$, $T$ and $T$, where $T$ denotes the shift in the inferred Fermi constant from a four-fermion operator affecting muon decay. Only two independent combinations, $T - T$ and $S$, enter the Z-pole observables, so the fit has a flat direction that raises $m_W$ at fixed Z physics. That direction is what every model in the paper is scored against. The second piece of machinery is the one-loop matching of the top squark sector onto the same operator basis: the coefficients $c_T$, $c_W$, $c_B$ and $c_{WB}$ are written as explicit functions of the soft masses, the left-right mixing $X_t$ and $r_r$, and the paper shows that $r_r < 1$ turns the $X_t^4$ and $X_t^2$ terms up by a factor of a few relative to the degenerate case.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a top squark whose left- and right-handed soft masses differ can account for the CDF II W mass while staying inside existing LHC and vacuum-stability bounds, whereas the degenerate-mass version cannot. The argument runs through the electroweak fit. With the PDG world average for $m_W$, the three-parameter fit gives $T = 0.081$ and $T = 0.254$ once the CDF II value is used instead, with $T$ quoted at one $\sigma$ as $0.081$ versus $0.254$, and the Fermi-constant shift moving from $(2.1)$ to $(15.7)$ in units of $10^{-4}$, while $S$ stays at $0.037$. Because the Z-pole data depend only on the combinations $T - T$ and $S$, a shift along the direction where the $T$ parameter and the Fermi-constant shift are equal raises $m_W$ while leaving the Z pole untouched. Degenerate stop soft masses generate the required one-loop Wilson coefficients only for stops of 200 to 400 GeV, below the LHC reach. Taking the soft-mass ratio $r_r = m^2_{U3}/m^2_{Q3} < 1$ enhances $c_T$, $c_B$ and $c_{WB}$ by factors of a few, opening an allowed region at large left-right mixing $X_t/m_{Q3} > 1$ with the left-handed soft mass in the TeV range.

Load-bearing premise

The edge of the allowed stop region is drawn with two approximate vacuum-stability conditions that the authors themselves describe as empirical and approximated, and the paper does not independently check that they hold in the large-mixing, small-soft-mass-ratio corner where the explanation lives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the CDF II value is correct, any viable model must shift the $T$ parameter and the Fermi constant together, so it needs both a source of custodial-symmetry breaking and a four-fermion operator that touches muon decay.
A $Z'$ explanation survives the LHC dilepton limits only if the $Z'$ is made fermiophobic or leptophobic, which requires extra vector fermions mixing with the Standard Model ones and gives exotic-fermion searches a target.
Vector-like top partners supply only part of the needed shift, so they work as one ingredient of an explanation rather than a complete one.
The preferred stop region has large left-right mixing, which also lifts the Higgs mass toward 125 GeV and ties the W mass explanation to a Higgs-sector prediction.
A $WW$-threshold scan at a future lepton collider, measuring $m_W$ to about 1 MeV, would establish whether the anomaly is real and would put an upper bound on the scale of the new physics.
The eight-parameter flavor-universal fit lowers the minimum $\chi^2$ from 28.3 to 17.1, so part of the nominal seven-sigma tension can be absorbed by operators unrelated to $m_W$.

Reading between the lines

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

The flat direction the paper identifies is effectively a one-number target, which means the model survey is less a search over theories than a test of which theories can hit that number without leaving other traces; the leptophobic $Z'$ construction is doing more work than the abstract's phrasing suggests.
Because the tension shrinks as the fit gains parameters, a reader should treat the seven sigma as framework-dependent rather than as a fixed experimental number, and the paper's own caveat that a new world average is needed makes the size of the anomaly a moving target.
If the non-degenerate stop corner is real, the same large $A_t$ that fixes $m_W$ also controls stop decays and Higgs-to-stop-pair phase space, so a stop search and a Higgs invisible-width measurement would probe the same parameter.
The paper's emphasis that the lightest stop should be right-handed to evade LHC bounds suggests a concrete search strategy: soft displaced vertices from a compressed right-handed stop spectrum, which the authors note is not yet covered.

Original abstract

The W Mass determination at the Tevatron CDF experiment reported a deviation from the SM expectation at 7$\sigma$ level. We discuss a few possible interpretations and their collider implications. We perform electroweak global fits under various frameworks and assumptions. We consider three types of electroweak global fits in the effective-field-theory framework: the $S$-$T$, the $S$-$T$-$\delta G_F$, and the eight-parameter flavor-universal one. We discuss the amounts of tensions between different $m_W$ measurements reflected in these fits and the corresponding shifts in central values of these parameters. With these electroweak fit pictures in hand, we present a few different classes of models and discuss their compatibility with these results. We find that while explaining the $m_W$ discrepancy, the single gauge boson extensions face strong LHC direct search constraints unless the $Z'$ is fermiophobic (leptophobic) which can be realized if extra vector fermions (leptons) mix with the SM fermions (leptons). Vector-like top partners can partially generate the needed shift to the electroweak observables. The compatibility with top squark is also studied in detail. We find non-degenerate top squark soft masses enhance the needed operator coefficients, enabling an allowed explanation compatible with current LHC measurements. Overall, more theory and experimental developments are highly in demand to reveal the physics behind this discrepancy.

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, 8,156 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.78 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.21 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.79 · compares with prior results 0.79 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

The W Mass determination at the Tevatron CDF experiment reported a deviation from the SM expectation at 7$\sigma$ level. We discuss a few possible interpretations and their collider implications. We perform electroweak global fits under various frameworks and assumptions. We consider three types of electroweak global fits in the effective-field-theory framework: the $S$-$T$, the $S$-$T$-$\delta G_F$, and the eight-parameter flavor-universal one. We discuss the amounts of tensions between different $m_W$ measurements reflected in these fits and the corresponding shifts in central values of these parameters. With these electroweak fit pictures in hand, we present a few different classes of models and discuss their compatibility with these results. We find that while explaining the $m_W$ discrepancy, the single gauge boson extensions face strong LHC direct search constraints unless the $Z'$ is fermiophobic (leptophobic) which can be realized if extra vector fermions (leptons) mix with the SM fermions (leptons). Vector-like top partners can partially generate the needed shift to the electroweak observables. The compatibility with top squark is also studied in detail. We find non-degenerate top squark soft masses enhance the needed operator coefficients, enabling an allowed explanation compatible with current LHC measurements. Overall, more theory and experimental developments are highly in demand to reveal the physics behind this discrepancy.

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	The W Mass determination at the Tevatron CDF experiment reported a deviation from the SM expectation at 7$\sigma$ level.	background 0.97	0.09	0.16	asserted 1.00
s1	We discuss a few possible interpretations and their collider implications.	contribution 0.92	0.65	0.03	unclear 0.59
s2	We perform electroweak global fits under various frameworks and assumptions.	method 0.78	0.93	0.03	asserted 0.95
s3	We consider three types of electroweak global fits in the effective-field-theory framework: the $S$-$T$, the $S$-$T$-$\delta G_F$, and the eight-parameter flavor-universal one.	method 0.91	0.86	0.03	asserted 0.93
s4	We discuss the amounts of tensions between different $m_W$ measurements reflected in these fits and the corresponding shifts in central values of these parameters.	contribution 0.48	0.75	0.04	asserted 0.61
s5	With these electroweak fit pictures in hand, we present a few different classes of models and discuss their compatibility with these results.	contribution 0.86	0.82	0.05	asserted 0.58
s6	We find that while explaining the $m_W$ discrepancy, the single gauge boson extensions face strong LHC direct search constraints unless the $Z'$ is fermiophobic (leptophobic) which can be realized if extra vector fermions (leptons) mix with the SM fermions (leptons).	result 0.93	0.90	0.31	asserted 0.99
s7	Vector-like top partners can partially generate the needed shift to the electroweak observables.	result 0.93	0.63	0.06	hedged possibility 0.60
s8	The compatibility with top squark is also studied in detail.	contribution 0.97	0.76	0.03	asserted 0.63
s9	We find non-degenerate top squark soft masses enhance the needed operator coefficients, enabling an allowed explanation compatible with current LHC measurements.	result 0.99	0.92	0.16	asserted 1.00
s10	Overall, more theory and experimental developments are highly in demand to reveal the physics behind this discrepancy.	future work 1.00	0.16	0.20	asserted 0.73

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.61 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.83.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

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.** FIG. 1. Results from a 2-parameter fit of

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. One-sigma bounds from the 8-parameter SMEFT fit with the operator coefficients listed in

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The red and light blue contours correspond to the 95% best-fit band with and without recent CDF-II

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. The red and blue contours correspond to the 95% best-fit bands with and without the most recent

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. In these two panels, the red and blue contours correspond to the 95% best-fit band with and without

**Figure 6.** FIG. 6. 68% and 95% fitted parameter range in the top squark parameter space with degenerate stop soft

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7. The ratios of various terms in the Wilson coefficients as a function of the soft mass ratios

**Figure 8.** FIG. 8. 68% and 95% fitted parameter range in the top squark parameter space with degenerate stop soft

Figures reproduced from arXiv:2204.05296 by the authors.

References

Works cited (54)

[18]

Gﬁtter Group Collaboration, M. Baak, J. C´ uth, J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. M¨ onig, M. Schott, and J. Stelzer, “The global electroweak ﬁt at NNLO and prospects for the LHC and ILC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3046, arXiv:1407.3792 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[1]

CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., “High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector,” Science 376 (2022) no. 6589, 170–176

View on Pith 2022
[2]

Particle Data Group Collaboration, P. Zyla et al., “Review of Particle Physics,” PTEP 2020 (2020) no. 8, 083C01

View on Pith 2020
[3]

ALEPH, CDF, D0, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak, Heavy Flavour Groups Collaboration, “Precision Electroweak Measurements and Constraints on the Standard Model,” arXiv:1012.2367 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[4]

CDF, D0 Collaboration, T. A. Aaltonen et al., “Combination of CDF and D0 W -Boson Mass Measurements,” Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) no. 5, 052018, arXiv:1307.7627 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[5]

ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., “Measurement of the W -boson mass in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no. 2, 110, arXiv:1701.07240 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 78, 898 (2018)]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[6]

LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of the W boson mass,” JHEP 01 (2022) 036, arXiv:2109.01113 [hep-ex]

View on Pith arXiv 2022
[7]

W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, “Eﬀective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,” Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 621–653

View on Pith 1986
[8]

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,” JHEP 10 (2010) 085, arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[9]

ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group Collaboration, S. Schael et al., “Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance,” Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257–454, arXiv:hep-ex/0509008 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[10]

ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak Collaboration, S. Schael et al., “Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP,” Phys. Rept. 532 (2013) 119–244, arXiv:1302.3415 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[11]

A. Falkowski and F. Riva, “Model-independent precision constraints on dimension-6 operators,” JHEP 02 (2015) 039, arXiv:1411.0669 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[12]

A. Efrati, A. Falkowski, and Y. Soreq, “Electroweak constraints on ﬂavorful eﬀective theories,” JHEP 07 (2015) 018, arXiv:1503.07872 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[13]

J. Ellis, C. W. Murphy, V. Sanz, and T. You, “Updated Global SMEFT Fit to Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Data,” JHEP 06 (2018) 146, arXiv:1803.03252 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[14]

S. Dawson, S. Homiller, and S. D. Lane, “Putting standard model EFT ﬁts to work,” Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no. 5, 055012, arXiv:2007.01296 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[15]

J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz, and T. You, “Top, Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Fit to 28 the Standard Model Eﬀective Field Theory,” JHEP 04 (2021) 279, arXiv:2012.02779 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[16]

SMEFiT Collaboration, J. J. Ethier, G. Magni, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, “Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC,” JHEP 11 (2021) 089, arXiv:2105.00006 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[17]

E. d. S. Almeida, A. Alves, O. J. P. ´Eboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, “Electroweak legacy of the LHC Run II,” arXiv:2108.04828 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[19]

R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, and A. Strumia, “Electroweak symmetry breaking after LEP-1 and LEP-2,” Nucl. Phys. B 703 (2004) 127–146, arXiv:hep-ph/0405040

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[20]

M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, “Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,” Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 381–409

View on Pith 1992
[21]

J. de Blas, G. Durieux, C. Grojean, J. Gu, and A. Paul, “On the future of Higgs, electroweak and diboson measurements at lepton colliders,” JHEP 12 (2019) 117, arXiv:1907.04311 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[22]

J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, E. Masso, and A. Pomarol, “Higgs windows to new physics through d=6 operators: constraints and one-loop anomalous dimensions,” JHEP 11 (2013) 066, arXiv:1308.1879 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[23]

A. Pomarol and F. Riva, “Towards the Ultimate SM Fit to Close in on Higgs Physics,” JHEP 01 (2014) 151, arXiv:1308.2803 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[24]

D. Choudhury, T. M. P. Tait, and C. E. M. Wagner, “Beautiful mirrors and precision electroweak data,” Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 053002, arXiv:hep-ph/0109097

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[25]

S. Gori, J. Gu, and L.-T. Wang, “The Zbb couplings at future e+e− colliders,” JHEP 04 (2016) 062, arXiv:1508.07010 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[26]

Z. Han and W. Skiba, “Eﬀective theory analysis of precision electroweak data,” Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 075009, arXiv:hep-ph/0412166

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[27]

J. Shu, K. Wang, and G. Zhu, “A Revisit to Top Quark Forward-Backward Asymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 034008, arXiv:1104.0083 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[28]

B. A. Dobrescu and Z. Liu, “W’ Boson near 2 TeV: Predictions for Run 2 of the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) no. 21, 211802, arXiv:1506.06736 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[29]

B. A. Dobrescu and Z. Liu, “Heavy Higgs bosons and the 2 TeV W ′ boson,” JHEP 10 (2015) 118, arXiv:1507.01923 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[30]

M. Alguer´ o, A. Crivellin, C. A. Manzari, and J. Matias, “Importance of Z−Z′ Mixing in b→s𝓁+𝓁− and the W mass,” arXiv:2201.08170 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[31]

CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton ﬁnal states at√s = 13 TeV,” JHEP 07 (2021) 208, arXiv:2103.02708 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[32]

G. Panico, M. Safari, and M. Serone, “Simple and Realistic Composite Higgs Models in Flat Extra 29 Dimensions,” JHEP 02 (2011) 103, arXiv:1012.2875 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[33]

D. Marzocca, M. Serone, and J. Shu, “General Composite Higgs Models,” JHEP 08 (2012) 013, arXiv:1205.0770 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[34]

Z. Han, “Electroweak constraints on eﬀective theories with U(2) x (1) ﬂavor symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 015005, arXiv:hep-ph/0510125

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[35]

ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., “Combination of the searches for pair-produced vector-like partners of the third-generation quarks at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no. 21, 211801, arXiv:1808.02343 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[36]

H. An, Z. Hu, Z. Liu, and D. Yang, “Exploring Uncharted Soft Displaced Vertices in Open Data,” arXiv:2107.11405 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[37]

B. Henning, X. Lu, and H. Murayama, “How to use the Standard Model eﬀective ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 01 (2016) 023, arXiv:1412.1837 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[38]

K. Agashe, M. Ekhterachian, Z. Liu, and R. Sundrum, “Sleptonic SUSY: From UV Framework to IR Phenomenology,” arXiv:2203.01796 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[39]

J. M. Yang and Y. Zhang, “Low energy SUSY confronted with new measurements of W-boson mass and muon g-2,” arXiv:2204.04202 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[40]

R. Huo, “Eﬀective Field Theory of Integrating out Sfermions in the MSSM: Complete One-Loop Analysis,” Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no. 7, 075013, arXiv:1509.05942 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[41]

A. Drozd, J. Ellis, J. Quevillon, and T. You, “The Universal One-Loop Eﬀective Action,” JHEP 03 (2016) 180, arXiv:1512.03003 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[42]

A. Kusenko, P. Langacker, and G. Segre, “Phase transitions and vacuum tunneling into charge and color breaking minima in the MSSM,” Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 5824–5834, arXiv:hep-ph/9602414

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[43]

N. Blinov and D. E. Morrissey, “Vacuum Stability and the MSSM Higgs Mass,” JHEP 03 (2014) 106, arXiv:1310.4174 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[44]

ILC Collaboration, I. Adachi et al., “The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021,” arXiv:2203.07622 [physics.acc-ph]

View on Pith arXiv 2021
[45]

CEPC Study Group Collaboration, M. Dong et al., “CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,” arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[46]

FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al., “FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,” Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019) no. 2, 261–623

View on Pith 2019
[47]

S. Dasu et al., “Strategy for Understanding the Higgs Physics: The Cool Copper Collider,” in 2022 Snowmass Summer Study . 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.07646 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[48]

C. Aim` eet al., “Muon Collider Physics Summary,” in 2022 Snowmass Summer Study . 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.07256 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[49]

FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al., “FCC-hh: The Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 3,” Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019) no. 4, 755–1107

View on Pith 2019
[50]

C.-S. S. Group, “CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report. 1. Physics and Detector,”. 30

View on Pith
[51]

C.-T. Lu, L. Wu, Y. Wu, and B. Zhu, “Electroweak Precision Fit and New Physics in light of W Boson Mass,” arXiv:2204.03796 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[52]

J. de Blas, M. Pierini, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, “Impact of the recent measurements of the top-quark and W-boson masses on electroweak precision ﬁts,” arXiv:2204.04204 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[53]

A. Strumia, “Interpreting electroweak precision data including the W -mass CDF anomaly,” arXiv:2204.04191 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[54]

P. Athron, A. Fowlie, C.-T. Lu, L. Wu, Y. Wu, and B. Zhu, “The W boson Mass and Muon g− 2: Hadronic Uncertainties or New Physics?,” arXiv:2204.03996 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

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

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.
$W$ 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...

Show 9 more citing papers

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.
$W$-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.
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.

How the literature uses it

59 arXiv papers cite this in 72 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 · 33 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 1 paper

Our analysis mainly follows Refs. [ref] , and is a slightly simplified version of the ones in Refs. [ref] .

Accommodating the CDF W-boson Mass Measurement in the Beautiful Mirror Model · Electroweak global fit · 0.97

Uses its data or values 1 paper

The recent result reported by the CDF collaboration improve the precision to $δm_W =9.4$ MeV [ref] (with an intriguing deviation from the SM electroweak fit and other collider measurements [ref] ).

Physics at Future Colliders: the Interplay Between Energy and Luminosity · Lepton colliders: sub-TeV case · 0.92

Compares with it 1 paper

Our results are consistent within $1σ$ with Ref. [ref] .

Electroweak precision tests for triplet scalars · Electroweak global fits · 1.00

Cites it as support 1 paper

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

Cites it as background 34 papers

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
For recent work on PEW fits in light of the new CDF $W$ mass measurement as well as applications to the dark photon model see Refs. [ref] .

Precision Electroweak Tensions and a Dark Photon · Introduction · 0.88
There have been many attempts to resolve the W mass anomaly, see e.g. [ref] .

Constraints from New CDF II W-Boson Mass On Top-Bottom Seesaw and the TopFlavor Models · Introduction · 0.99

What it cites · 35 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 10 papers

The SMEFT parameterization in our analysis follow closely the ones in Refs. [ref] (see also Refs. [ref] ), where the contributions to observables from the dimension-6 operators are calculated at the tree-level, but normalized to the SM predictions.

Updated Global SMEFT Fit to Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Data · EW Fit · 1.00
The SMEFT parameterization in our analysis follow closely the ones in Refs. [ref] (see also Refs. [ref] ), where the contributions to observables from the dimension-6 operators are calculated at the tree-level, but normalized to the SM predictions.

Putting SMEFT Fits to Work · EW Fit · 1.00
The SMEFT parameterization in our analysis follow closely the ones in Refs. [ref] (see also Refs. [ref] ), where the contributions to observables from the dimension-6 operators are calculated at the tree-level, but normalized to the SM predictions.

Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC · EW Fit · 1.00

Uses data or values from 6 papers

The SM predictions are taken from the central values of the SM-fit in Ref. [ref] , except for $m_W$, which is from Ref. [ref] .

The global electroweak fit at NNLO and prospects for the LHC and ILC · EW Fit · 1.00
For the Z-pole measurements, we use the results in Ref. [ref] , where the correlations (if available) are also included.

Precision Electroweak Measurements on the Z Resonance · EW Fit · 1.00
The direct detection of $13$ TeV LHC on singlet top partner excludes the mass region $m_T <1.31$ TeV [ref] , which corresponds to the black region in <ref>.

Combination of the searches for pair-produced vector-like partners of the third-generation quarks at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector · singlet top partner · 0.91

Compares with 6 papers

As in Ref. [ref] , here the central values of $c_WB$ and $C_T$ becomes negative, and we observe very strong correlations among $c_WB$, $c_T$ and $c_He$ in the range $0.93$-$0.96$ (see <ref>), which are also strongly correlated with $c^1221_ℓℓ$.

Model-independent precision constraints on dimension-6 operators · EW Fit · 0.93
Our results from this simple treatment for the $S, T$ parameters are in good agreement with the ones from Ref. [ref] .

The global electroweak fit at NNLO and prospects for the LHC and ILC · EW Fit · 1.00
Note added: Recent studies [ref] also performed EW global fits to the new CDF $m_W$ measurements, which are generally in good agreement with our results.

Impact of the recent measurements of the top-quark and W-boson masses on electroweak precision fits · Outlook · 0.90

Cites as background 1 paper

And then the electroweak symmetry $SU(2)_L ×U(1)_Y$ is broken by Higgs doublet [ref] .

A Revisit to Top Quark Forward-Backward Asymmetry · case II: right-handed breaking · 0.85

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] [18]

Gﬁtter Group Collaboration, M. Baak, J. C´ uth, J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. M¨ onig, M. Schott, and J. Stelzer, “The global electroweak ﬁt at NNLO and prospects for the LHC and ILC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3046, arXiv:1407.3792 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[2] [1]

CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., “High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector,” Science 376 (2022) no. 6589, 170–176

View on Pith 2022

[3] [2]

Particle Data Group Collaboration, P. Zyla et al., “Review of Particle Physics,” PTEP 2020 (2020) no. 8, 083C01

View on Pith 2020

[4] [3]

ALEPH, CDF, D0, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak, Heavy Flavour Groups Collaboration, “Precision Electroweak Measurements and Constraints on the Standard Model,” arXiv:1012.2367 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[5] [4]

CDF, D0 Collaboration, T. A. Aaltonen et al., “Combination of CDF and D0 W -Boson Mass Measurements,” Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) no. 5, 052018, arXiv:1307.7627 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[6] [5]

ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., “Measurement of the W -boson mass in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no. 2, 110, arXiv:1701.07240 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 78, 898 (2018)]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[7] [6]

LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of the W boson mass,” JHEP 01 (2022) 036, arXiv:2109.01113 [hep-ex]

View on Pith arXiv 2022

[8] [7]

W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, “Eﬀective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,” Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 621–653

View on Pith 1986

[9] [8]

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,” JHEP 10 (2010) 085, arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[10] [9]

ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group Collaboration, S. Schael et al., “Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance,” Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257–454, arXiv:hep-ex/0509008 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[11] [10]

ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak Collaboration, S. Schael et al., “Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP,” Phys. Rept. 532 (2013) 119–244, arXiv:1302.3415 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[12] [11]

A. Falkowski and F. Riva, “Model-independent precision constraints on dimension-6 operators,” JHEP 02 (2015) 039, arXiv:1411.0669 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[13] [12]

A. Efrati, A. Falkowski, and Y. Soreq, “Electroweak constraints on ﬂavorful eﬀective theories,” JHEP 07 (2015) 018, arXiv:1503.07872 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[14] [13]

J. Ellis, C. W. Murphy, V. Sanz, and T. You, “Updated Global SMEFT Fit to Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Data,” JHEP 06 (2018) 146, arXiv:1803.03252 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[15] [14]

S. Dawson, S. Homiller, and S. D. Lane, “Putting standard model EFT ﬁts to work,” Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no. 5, 055012, arXiv:2007.01296 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[16] [15]

J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz, and T. You, “Top, Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Fit to 28 the Standard Model Eﬀective Field Theory,” JHEP 04 (2021) 279, arXiv:2012.02779 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[17] [16]

SMEFiT Collaboration, J. J. Ethier, G. Magni, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, “Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC,” JHEP 11 (2021) 089, arXiv:2105.00006 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[18] [17]

E. d. S. Almeida, A. Alves, O. J. P. ´Eboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, “Electroweak legacy of the LHC Run II,” arXiv:2108.04828 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[19] [19]

R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, and A. Strumia, “Electroweak symmetry breaking after LEP-1 and LEP-2,” Nucl. Phys. B 703 (2004) 127–146, arXiv:hep-ph/0405040

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[20] [20]

M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, “Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,” Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 381–409

View on Pith 1992

[21] [21]

J. de Blas, G. Durieux, C. Grojean, J. Gu, and A. Paul, “On the future of Higgs, electroweak and diboson measurements at lepton colliders,” JHEP 12 (2019) 117, arXiv:1907.04311 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[22] [22]

J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, E. Masso, and A. Pomarol, “Higgs windows to new physics through d=6 operators: constraints and one-loop anomalous dimensions,” JHEP 11 (2013) 066, arXiv:1308.1879 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[23] [23]

A. Pomarol and F. Riva, “Towards the Ultimate SM Fit to Close in on Higgs Physics,” JHEP 01 (2014) 151, arXiv:1308.2803 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[24] [24]

D. Choudhury, T. M. P. Tait, and C. E. M. Wagner, “Beautiful mirrors and precision electroweak data,” Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 053002, arXiv:hep-ph/0109097

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[25] [25]

S. Gori, J. Gu, and L.-T. Wang, “The Zbb couplings at future e+e− colliders,” JHEP 04 (2016) 062, arXiv:1508.07010 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[26] [26]

Z. Han and W. Skiba, “Eﬀective theory analysis of precision electroweak data,” Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 075009, arXiv:hep-ph/0412166

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[27] [27]

J. Shu, K. Wang, and G. Zhu, “A Revisit to Top Quark Forward-Backward Asymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 034008, arXiv:1104.0083 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[28] [28]

B. A. Dobrescu and Z. Liu, “W’ Boson near 2 TeV: Predictions for Run 2 of the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) no. 21, 211802, arXiv:1506.06736 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[29] [29]

B. A. Dobrescu and Z. Liu, “Heavy Higgs bosons and the 2 TeV W ′ boson,” JHEP 10 (2015) 118, arXiv:1507.01923 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[30] [30]

M. Alguer´ o, A. Crivellin, C. A. Manzari, and J. Matias, “Importance of Z−Z′ Mixing in b→s𝓁+𝓁− and the W mass,” arXiv:2201.08170 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[31] [31]

CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton ﬁnal states at√s = 13 TeV,” JHEP 07 (2021) 208, arXiv:2103.02708 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[32] [32]

G. Panico, M. Safari, and M. Serone, “Simple and Realistic Composite Higgs Models in Flat Extra 29 Dimensions,” JHEP 02 (2011) 103, arXiv:1012.2875 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[33] [33]

D. Marzocca, M. Serone, and J. Shu, “General Composite Higgs Models,” JHEP 08 (2012) 013, arXiv:1205.0770 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[34] [34]

Z. Han, “Electroweak constraints on eﬀective theories with U(2) x (1) ﬂavor symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 015005, arXiv:hep-ph/0510125

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[35] [35]

ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., “Combination of the searches for pair-produced vector-like partners of the third-generation quarks at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no. 21, 211801, arXiv:1808.02343 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[36] [36]

H. An, Z. Hu, Z. Liu, and D. Yang, “Exploring Uncharted Soft Displaced Vertices in Open Data,” arXiv:2107.11405 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[37] [37]

B. Henning, X. Lu, and H. Murayama, “How to use the Standard Model eﬀective ﬁeld theory,” JHEP 01 (2016) 023, arXiv:1412.1837 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[38] [38]

K. Agashe, M. Ekhterachian, Z. Liu, and R. Sundrum, “Sleptonic SUSY: From UV Framework to IR Phenomenology,” arXiv:2203.01796 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[39] [39]

J. M. Yang and Y. Zhang, “Low energy SUSY confronted with new measurements of W-boson mass and muon g-2,” arXiv:2204.04202 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[40] [40]

R. Huo, “Eﬀective Field Theory of Integrating out Sfermions in the MSSM: Complete One-Loop Analysis,” Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no. 7, 075013, arXiv:1509.05942 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[41] [41]

A. Drozd, J. Ellis, J. Quevillon, and T. You, “The Universal One-Loop Eﬀective Action,” JHEP 03 (2016) 180, arXiv:1512.03003 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[42] [42]

A. Kusenko, P. Langacker, and G. Segre, “Phase transitions and vacuum tunneling into charge and color breaking minima in the MSSM,” Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 5824–5834, arXiv:hep-ph/9602414

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[43] [43]

N. Blinov and D. E. Morrissey, “Vacuum Stability and the MSSM Higgs Mass,” JHEP 03 (2014) 106, arXiv:1310.4174 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[44] [44]

ILC Collaboration, I. Adachi et al., “The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021,” arXiv:2203.07622 [physics.acc-ph]

View on Pith arXiv 2021

[45] [45]

CEPC Study Group Collaboration, M. Dong et al., “CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,” arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[46] [46]

FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al., “FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,” Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019) no. 2, 261–623

View on Pith 2019

[47] [47]

S. Dasu et al., “Strategy for Understanding the Higgs Physics: The Cool Copper Collider,” in 2022 Snowmass Summer Study . 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.07646 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[48] [48]

C. Aim` eet al., “Muon Collider Physics Summary,” in 2022 Snowmass Summer Study . 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.07256 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[49] [49]

FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al., “FCC-hh: The Hadron Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 3,” Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019) no. 4, 755–1107

View on Pith 2019

[50] [50]

C.-S. S. Group, “CEPC-SPPC Preliminary Conceptual Design Report. 1. Physics and Detector,”. 30

View on Pith

[51] [51]

C.-T. Lu, L. Wu, Y. Wu, and B. Zhu, “Electroweak Precision Fit and New Physics in light of W Boson Mass,” arXiv:2204.03796 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[52] [52]

J. de Blas, M. Pierini, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, “Impact of the recent measurements of the top-quark and W-boson masses on electroweak precision ﬁts,” arXiv:2204.04204 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[53] [53]

A. Strumia, “Interpreting electroweak precision data including the W -mass CDF anomaly,” arXiv:2204.04191 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[54] [54]

P. Athron, A. Fowlie, C.-T. Lu, L. Wu, Y. Wu, and B. Zhu, “The W boson Mass and Muon g− 2: Hadronic Uncertainties or New Physics?,” arXiv:2204.03996 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv