Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Left-right asymmetry calculation comparisons and projected sensitivity to the weak mixing angle in polarized Bhabha scattering at 10.58 GeV

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read With a polarized electron beam, 40 ab⁻¹ of data at 10.58 GeV could determine the weak mixing angle from Bhabha scattering to ±0.00032 or better, matching the precision of Z-pole and MOLLER measurements.

desk verdict Useful Chiral Belle Bhabha sensitivity projection, but the ReneSANCe/Ref [7] cross-check has a phase-space matching issue that needs to be addressed before the 0.3% agreement is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16592 v4 pith:FHIQWGOQ submitted 2024-11-25 hep-ph hep-ex

Caleb Miller , J. Michael Roney This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords weakmixingangleleft-rightasymmetryBhabhascatteringpolarizedelectronbeamReneSANCeSuperKEKBBelleIINNLOelectroweakcorrections
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to establish that the ReneSANCe Monte Carlo generator agrees with an independent next-to-leading-order calculation of the left-right asymmetry in polarized Bhabha scattering at 10.58 GeV to within 0.3%, and that this agreement is sufficient to project a competitive measurement of the weak mixing angle. The projected statistics-dominated uncertainty is ±0.00032 or better on sin²θW with 40 ab⁻¹ of data at 70% polarization, improving to ±0.00019 when electron, muon, and tau asymmetries are combined under lepton universality. Those precisions would put a 10.58 GeV measurement in the same class as the most precise determinations made at the Z pole or planned for MOLLER, and would probe the running of sin²θW at low energy. The authors also argue that a full NNLO calculation of Bhabha scattering is needed before the projected experimental precision can be fully interpreted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the left-right asymmetry ALR = (σL − σR)/(σL + σR), integrated over an angular acceptance to give ALRΣ. At 10.58 GeV the asymmetry is dominated by γ–Z interference, and at Born level it is proportional to the electron axial and vector couplings, g e A and g e V, which carry the sin²θW dependence. The sensitivity projection is carried by the ratio Δsin²θW/ΔALR, computed by varying the W-boson mass in ReneSANCe around the PDG value and using sin²θW = 1 − m²W/m²Z; the weighted average of that ratio over cos θ bins is found to be 230, which converts the statistical uncertainty on the measured asymmetry into an uncertainty on sin²θW. The comparison between ReneSANCe and the independent NLO calculation is what certifies the generator as the projection tool.

What would settle it

A full NNLO calculation of e⁺e⁻→e⁺e⁻(γ) at 10.577 GeV, or a dedicated tag-and-probe measurement of Bhabha efficiency with a polarized beam in each cos θ bin, would settle the projection. If the true NNLO correction to ALRΣ exceeds the estimated ~1.5×10⁻⁶ scale (about 1% of the asymmetry), the sin²θW uncertainty would no longer be statistics-dominated, and if the per-bin efficiency differs from 0.3593, the projected event counts and uncertainties would change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of the full-text analysis is that ALRΣ = (ΣL − ΣR)/(ΣL + ΣR) for e⁺e⁻ → e⁺e⁻(γ) at 10.577 GeV, computed with ReneSANCe and with an independent NLO calculation, agree to 4.4×10⁻⁷, a relative difference of 0.3% that the authors deem negligible for the planned measurement. Using ReneSANCe cross sections together with the published Belle II Bhabha detection efficiency, the paper further finds that a 40 ab⁻¹ dataset with 70% electron-beam polarization would determine sin²θW from the electron channel alone with uncertainty ±0.00032 or better, and that combining with muon and tau channels under lepton universality gives ±0.00019. These precision estimates are comparable to the best existing Z-pole determinations and the projected MOLLER sensitivity, so the paper claims that a B-factory with a polarized beam would provide a competitive, independent low-energy probe of the weak mixing angle and its running.

Load-bearing premise

The projection assumes that the published Belle II Bhabha detection efficiency of 0.3593, measured for |cosθ| < 0.819, also holds for the polarized ALR selection in every cos θ bin and for the wider |cosθ| < 0.90 acceptance that gives the best sensitivity; if the polarized selection changes the efficiency, the event count and the sin²θW uncertainty would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ReneSANCe is validated at the 0.3% level against an independent NLO calculation, so it can be used to generate polarized Bhabha samples for Chiral Belle studies.
  • A 40 ab⁻¹, 70%-polarization run would measure sin²θW from e⁺e⁻ alone with a precision of ±0.00032 or better, or ±0.00028 with the |cosθ| < 0.90 acceptance, rivaling Z-pole and MOLLER sensitivities.
  • Combining electron, muon, and tau asymmetries under lepton universality would give ±0.00019 on sin²θW.
  • Because this measurement is at 10.58 GeV rather than at the Z pole, it tests the Standard Model prediction for the running of sin²θW and is sensitive to new physics that alters that running.
  • The projected precision motivates a dedicated full NNLO calculation of Bhabha scattering; without it, theory uncertainty would limit interpretation of the measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial note: the abstract text for this version reports a 2.3% difference between the two calculations, while the full-text analysis and conclusions compute and quote a 0.3% relative difference (4.4×10⁻⁷); the projections in the body are built on the 0.3% value.
  • The same comparison strategy could be applied to the muon and tau forward-backward asymmetries at 10.58 GeV; if ReneSANCe reproduces those independent NLO calculations at the 0.3% level, the ±0.00019 combined-lepton projection would rest on a validated generator for all three channels.
  • The residual NLO difference could be localized by scanning ALRΣ over angular acceptance bins; because the t channel dominates at small angles and the s channel at large angles, such a scan would show whether the discrepancy is concentrated where virtual corrections are largest.
  • The single global efficiency assumption could be tested by passing ReneSANCe events through a fast detector simulation of Chiral Belle; if efficiency varies with cos θ under the polarized ALR selection, the optimal acceptance, the quoted ±0.00028 and ±0.00032 numbers, and the combined uncertainty would need to be recomputed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper compares left-right asymmetries (ALR and ALRΣ) in e+e− → e+e−(γ) Bhabha scattering at 10.58 GeV, as calculated by the ReneSANCe Monte Carlo generator, with an independent NLO calculation by Aleksejevs et al. (Ref. [7]). The authors find an average difference of 4.4×10^-7 (relative 0.3%) and attribute it to virtual/internal NLO contributions. They then estimate the scale of missing NNLO effects, and use ReneSANCe with a Belle II Bhabha efficiency to project the statistical and systematic uncertainty on sin^2θ_W for a 40 ab^-1 polarized SuperKEKB dataset, obtaining ±0.00032 or better from Bhabha alone and ±0.00019 when combined with muon and tau asymmetries under lepton universality.

Significance. If the comparison is valid, the paper provides a useful validation of ReneSANCe against an independent NLO calculation at the 0.3% level, which is relevant for the proposed Chiral Belle program. The projected sin^2θ_W sensitivity, comparable to SLD and MOLLER, would make a compelling physics case for the polarized-SuperKEKB upgrade. Strengths include the use of an independent calculation, the publication of the generated data (Ref. [25]), and a concrete projection framework. However, the central validation claim is weakened by an apparent phase-space mismatch in the comparison and by the digitization-based assignment of uncertainties; the projection also relies on an unvalidated efficiency assumption. These issues are fixable but need to be addressed before the paper's main conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [§II and §III] The ReneSANCe settings listed in §II do not include any restriction on the positron scattering angle, whereas §I states that the ALR and ALRΣ curves of Ref. [7] are plotted while constraining the positron to |cos θ_e+| ≤ cos 20°. Because Bhabha scattering at 10.58 GeV is dominated by t-channel exchange, the electron-angle asymmetry depends on the positron acceptance, so a comparison with unmatched phase space cannot validate the two calculations against each other. Please state explicitly whether the same positron angular cut was imposed in ReneSANCe, and if not, repeat the comparison with matched cuts or quantify the sensitivity of ALR to this cut.
  2. [Abstract and §III/§VI] The abstract supplied with the manuscript states that a 2.3% difference between the calculations is found, while the abstract reproduced in the full text, §III, and §VI state a 0.3% relative difference (4.4×10^-7 in absolute terms). This is not a cosmetic discrepancy: the abstract's central numerical claim differs by almost an order of magnitude from the body's. The inconsistency must be reconciled, and the abstract must match the value actually obtained and discussed in the paper.
  3. [§III] The comparison uses points extracted graphically from Ref. [7] with an assigned 0.2% uncertainty, but the claimed average difference is 0.3%, i.e. only slightly larger than the assigned extraction uncertainty. The statement that the difference 'exceeds any uncertainties associated with extracting the points from the plots in [7] and MC statistics' is not supported by any quantitative error propagation or statistical test. Please provide a table of the digitized values with uncertainties, specify how the 0.2% was derived from Table 4 of Ref. [7], and give a chi-square or equivalent measure of agreement.
  4. [§III] The difference between ReneSANCe and Ref. [7] is attributed to 'the calculation of the virtual/internal NLO contributions' without a demonstration that other sources (e.g., the phase-space cut discussed above, input-parameter choices, or treatment of hard bremsstrahlung) have been excluded. Since both calculations agree with WHIZARD only for Born-level and radiative quantities, the attribution to virtual/internal NLO is an unsupported assumption. Please either substantiate this attribution with a direct test or reframe the conclusion as an observed numerical difference whose origin is not identified.
  5. [§V] The projection of σsin^2θ_W uses the Belle II Bhabha efficiency of 0.3593 reported in Ref. [18] for the luminosity measurement with |cos θ| < 0.819, and applies this single global efficiency both per cos θ bin and to the |cos θ| < 0.90 acceptance that yields the best sensitivity. If the ALR-specific selection, the polarization-dependent acceptance, or the per-bin efficiency differs from the luminosity-measurement value, the event counts and the quoted uncertainty would change. Please justify this assumption quantitatively, e.g., by showing the efficiency is flat, or provide a sensitivity scan over plausible efficiency variations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V] In the sentence 'Assuming Chiral Belle achieves it's goal', 'it's' should be 'its'.
  2. [§V] The text refers to a 'systemic uncertainty' from the BABAR tau-polarimetry technique; the intended term is 'systematic uncertainty'.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'The horizontal error bars represent the bin width of cos θ = 0.10', but the upper panel plots ALR versus θ_e (in degrees); clarify how the bin width in cos θ translates to the horizontal error bars in that panel.
  4. [§IV] The estimate of the NNLO scale uses tau-pair and MOLLER results, but the text itself notes the tau-pair calculation lacks the t-channel and MOLLER has no s-channel. The resulting 'expected to be significant' statement is thus quite uncertain; consider presenting this as a range of possible NNLO contributions rather than a single implied scale.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity in the Bhabha comparison or electron-only projection; only a minor self-cited combined sensitivity is imported without derivation.

  1. other [Section V.A (Weak mixing angle), final paragraph; also Abstract and Section VI.]
    "Combined with the electron measurements discussed here, these different measurements will yield precision neutral-current universality tests, as well as an uncertainty on sin2θW assuming universality of ±0.00019 taking into account the common uncertainty on ⟨P⟩."

    The combined ±0.00019 uncertainty is not derived in this paper; it is imported from Ref. [24], whose authors overlap with the present authors (Miller and Roney). No propagation of the new electron-channel measurement with the muon and tau projections is shown, so for this headline number the paper relies on a self-citation rather than a self-contained calculation. This is a minor caveat, not a construction-level circularity, because the electron-only ±0.00032 projection and the ReneSANCe/Ref. [7] comparison are independently computed and do not depend on Ref. [24].

full rationale

The central comparison between ReneSANCe and the independent NLO calculation of Ref. [7] is a direct comparison of two independent calculation chains; no data are fitted and no parameter is tuned to make the 4.4e-7 agreement. The sin2θW sensitivity study varies mW in ReneSANCe and propagates the resulting ΔALR, while the event-count statistics use the published Belle II efficiency, so the electron-channel projection is not circular. The only self-citation issue is the combined muon/tau/electron ±0.00019 number, which is a projected sensitivity borrowed from prior self-authored work rather than demonstrated here; it is peripheral to the main validation. The potential phase-space mismatch involving the positron acceptance cut in Ref. [7] is a correctness or validity concern about matching the comparison, not a circularity in the derivation chain.

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

The central projection pulls its experimental inputs (polarization, luminosity, efficiency, backgrounds) from Belle II/BABAR publications and its theoretical framework from ReneSANCe and Ref. [7]. No parameters are fitted to data in this paper; the sensitivity is a projection. The main unproven inputs are the correctness of the generator and the mapping from mW to sin²θW.

free parameters (5)
  • electron beam polarization ⟨P⟩ = 0.70
    Assumed operating polarization for Chiral Belle; ALR and its uncertainty scale linearly with it. Section V.
  • integrated luminosity = 40 ab^-1
    Assumed dataset size for the projection; statistical uncertainty scales as inverse square root. Section V.
  • Bhabha selection efficiency = 0.3593
    Taken from Belle II luminosity measurement and applied to each cosθ bin and to the sin²θW projections. Section V.
  • background fraction in selection = 0.07%
    Taken from Belle II [18]; used to project 1% systematic from dbar-d background asymmetry. Section V.
  • dbar-d background asymmetry = -0.020
    Assumed conservatively for background systematic. Section V.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ReneSANCe correctly implements NLO electroweak radiative corrections for polarized e+e- -> e+e-(γ), including the new asymmetric polarization feature.
    The comparison in Section III is the only validation used; generator internals are not described.
  • domain assumption Ref. [7] is an independent, correct NLO calculation.
    The paper trusts the graphical points from Ref. [7] as truth for the comparison.
  • domain assumption The relation sin²θW = 1 - mW²/mZ², and varying mW in ReneSANCe maps to sin²θW variations.
    Used in Section V to convert mW variations to the response ratio Δsin²θW/ΔALR = 230; the generator-level mapping is recommended by ReneSANCe authors [20].
  • domain assumption Lepton universality, used to combine electron, muon, and tau ALR measurements.
    Invoked in Section V and abstract for the combined ±0.00019 uncertainty.
  • ad hoc to paper NNLO effects in Bhabha ALR can be estimated from tau-pair and MOLLER NNLO calculations.
    Section IV extrapolates NNLO size from processes without the same s+t channel mix; the paper itself says a dedicated NNLO calculation is needed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Left-right asymmetry calculation comparisons and projected sensitivity to the weak mixing angle in polarized Bhabha scattering at 10.58 GeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FHIQWGOQ

@misc{pith2026241116592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Left-right asymmetry calculation comparisons and projected sensitivity to the weak mixing angle in polarized Bhabha scattering at 10.58 GeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FHIQWGOQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16592}
}
abstract

Consideration is being given to upgrading the SuperKEKB electron-positron collider with the introduction of electron-beam polarization. This would enable a unique precision electroweak physics program that opens new ways to search for physics beyond the Standard Model. The upgrade would enable Belle II to make a number of high precision measurements, one of which is the left-right cross-section asymmetry in the $e^+e^-\rightarrow e^+e^-$ Bhabha scattering process. The expected level of precision in such a measurement will require the theoretical values of the asymmetry to be calculated at least to the next-to-leading order (NLO) level, and the implementation of simulation event generators with a similar level of precision. In this study, we compare the calculations of the ReneSANCe Monte Carlo generator with those of an independent NLO calculation to determine the level of agreement in this process. A 2.3% difference between the calculations is found and attributed to some higher-order effects being accounted for in the ReneSANCe generator. Using the published Belle II efficiency for selecting Bhabha events and assuming a 40 ab$^{-1}$ dataset having 70% polarization, the projected uncertainty on the weak mixing angle, sin$^2\theta_W$ , is calculated using ReneSANCe to be $\pm$0.00032 or better. Combining this with left-right asymmetry measurements from muons and taus under the assumption of lepton universality yields a projected overall uncertainty of $\pm$0.00019 on sin$^2\theta_W$ with SuperKEKB upgraded to have polarized electron beams.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16592 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of the calculations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of the calculations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. New Physics contamination to precision luminosity measurements at future $e^+e^-$ colliders

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Heavy new physics four-fermion operators can bias small-angle Bhabha luminosity calibration at future e+e- colliders at the level of the design precision, and luminosity-independent Bhabha asymmetries can constrain th...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [7]

    A.G.Aleksejevs, S.G.Barkanova, Y.M.Bystritskiy,and V. A. Zykunov, Electroweak Corrections with Allowance forHardBremsstrahlunginPolarizedBhabhaScattering, Physics of Atomic Nuclei83, 463 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [25]

    Miller, ReneSANCe 10.58 GeV study, 10.5281/zen- odo.15616559 (2025)

    C. Miller, ReneSANCe 10.58 GeV study, 10.5281/zen- odo.15616559 (2025)

    doi:10.5281/zen- 2025

  3. [18]

    Abudinén et al

    F. Abudinén et al. (Belle II), Measurement of the in- tegrated luminosity of the Phase 2 data of the Belle II experiment, Chinese Physics C44, 021001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [1]

    Accardi et al

    A. Accardi et al. (US Belle II Group, Belle II/SuperKEKB e- Polarization Upgrade Working Group), Snowmass 2021 White Paper on Upgrading SuperKEKB with a Polarized Electron Beam: Discov- ery Potential and Proposed Implementation, in 2022 Snowmass Summer Study (2022) arXiv:2205.12847 [physics.acc-ph]. 6

    arXiv 2022

  5. [2]

    Benesch et al

    J. Benesch et al. (MOLLER), The MOLLER Ex- periment: An Ultra-Precise Measurement of the Weak Mixing Angle Using Møller Scattering, (2014), arXiv:1411.4088 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [3]

    Z. S. Demiroglu (MOLLER), The MOLLER Experiment: An Ultra-Precise Measurement of the Weak Mixing An- gle Using Moller Scattering, PoSSPIN2023, 141 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [4]

    Davoudiasl, H.-S

    H. Davoudiasl, H.-S. Lee, and W. J. Marciano, LowQ2 weak mixing angle measurements and rare higgs decays, Phys. Rev. D92, 055005 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [5]

    Accardiet al., Electron-Ion Collider: The next QCD frontier, Eur

    A. Accardiet al., Electron-Ion Collider: The next QCD frontier, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 268 (2016), arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 25 references
  1. [6]

    Sadykov and V

    R. Sadykov and V. Yermolchyk, Polarized NLO EW e+e- cross section calculations with ReneSANCe-v1.0.0, Com- puter Physics Communications256, 107445 (2020)

    2020

  2. [8]

    SuperB Collaboration, SuperB Technical Design Report, (2013), arXiv:1306.5655

    2013 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Charlet, T

    D. Charlet, T. Ishibashi, A. Martens, M. Masuzawa, F. Mawas, Y. Peinaud, D. Zhou, and F. Zomer, Concep- tual study of a Compton polarimeter for the upgrade of the SuperKEKB collider with a polarized electron beam, JINST 18 (10), P10014

  4. [10]

    J. P. Leeset al. (BABAR Collaboration), Precision e− beam polarimetry at an e+e− B factory using tau-pair events, Phys. Rev. D108, 092001 (2023)

    2023

  5. [11]

    Kollatzsch and Y

    S. Kollatzsch and Y. Ulrich, Lepton pair production at NNLO in QED with EW effects, SciPost Phys.15, 104 (2023), arXiv:2210.17172 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Aleksejevs, Private communication

    A. Aleksejevs, Private communication

  7. [13]

    Aleksejevs, S

    A. Aleksejevs, S. Barkanova, Y. Kolomensky, E. Kuraev, and V. Zykunov, Quadratic electroweak corrections for polarized Moller scattering, Phys. Rev. D 85, 013007 (2012), arXiv:1110.1750 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Aleksejevs, S

    A. Aleksejevs, S. Barkanova, Y. Kolomensky, E. Ku- raev, and V. Zykunov, High precision calculations of elec- troweak radiative corrections for polarized Moller scat- tering at one loop and beyond, Nuovo Cim. C035, 192 (2012), arXiv:1110.6637 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [15]

    A. G. Aleksejevs, S. G. Barkanova, and V. A. Zykunov, Precise calculations of observables of polarized Moller scattering: From JLAB to ILC energies, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 75, 209 (2012)

    2012

  10. [16]

    A. G. Aleksejevs, S. G. Barkanova, Y. M. Bystritskiy, E. A. Kuraev, and V. A. Zykunov, NNLO Electroweak corrections for polarized Møller scattering: One-loop in- sertions to boxes, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett.12, 645 (2015), arXiv:1504.03560 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [17]

    A. G. Aleksejevs, S. G. Barkanova, Y. M. Bystritskiy, E. A. Kuraev, and V. A. Zykunov, Two-loop electroweak vertex corrections for polarized møller scattering, Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters13, 310 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Adachiet al.(Belle II), Measurement of the integrated luminosity of data samples collected during 2019-2022 by the Belle II experiment*, Chinese Physics C49, 013001 (2025)

    I. Adachiet al.(Belle II), Measurement of the integrated luminosity of data samples collected during 2019-2022 by the Belle II experiment*, Chinese Physics C49, 013001 (2025)

    2025

  13. [20]

    Sadykov and V

    R. Sadykov and V. Yermolchyk, Private communication

  14. [21]

    Tanabashi, K

    M. Tanabashi, K. Hagiwara, K. Hikasa, K. Nakamura, Y. Sumino, F. Takahashi, J. Tanaka,et al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D 98, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001 (2018)

    2018 doi

  15. [22]

    S. Schaelet al.(ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group), Precision electroweak mea- surements on the z resonance, Phys. Rept. 427, 257 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0509008

    2006 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A. Khukhunaishvili (CMS), Measurement of the effective leptonicelectroweakmixingangleandDrell-Yanforward- backward asymmetry using pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV, in 58th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interac- tions and Unified Theories(2024) arXiv:2405.11484 [hep- ex]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Aleksejevs, S

    A. Aleksejevs, S. Barkanova, C. Miller, J. M. Roney, and V. Zykunov, NLO radiative corrections for forward- backward and left-right asymmetries at a B-factory, Phys. Rev. D101, 053003 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.