arxiv: 2605.00819 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

W-boson helicity fractions in top decay as probes of dimension-6 and dimension-8 SMEFT operators

Afsaneh Kianfar, Gholamhossein Haghighat, Mojtaba Mohammadi Najafabadi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph

keywords SMEFTdimension-8 operatorstop quark decayW-boson helicity fractionseffective field theorybeyond standard modelchi-squared fits

0 comments

The pith

Including dimension-8 SMEFT operators alters the allowed parameter space for dimension-6 coefficients in fits to top-quark decay data.

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

This paper calculates the effects of both dimension-6 and a representative set of dimension-8 operators in the SM Effective Field Theory on the W-boson helicity fractions observed in top-quark decays. It performs one- and two-parameter chi-squared fits to combined ATLAS and CMS measurements at a reference scale of 1 TeV. The results show that dimension-8 terms introduce correlations and degeneracies that change the constraints on several dimension-6 coefficients. A sympathetic reader would care because these higher-order contributions enter at the same order in the expansion as the squared dimension-6 terms already kept in the analysis, so omitting them risks inconsistent interpretations as experimental precision improves.

Core claim

The central claim is that the inclusion of dimension-8 contributions affects the allowed parameter space of several dimension-6 coefficients through non-trivial correlations and degeneracies, since the leading dimension-8 contributions enter at the same order O(Λ^{-4}) as the squared dimension-6 terms retained in the analysis.

What carries the argument

W-boson helicity fractions in top-quark decays, which receive leading-order contributions from both dimension-6 and selected dimension-8 SMEFT operators.

If this is right

The allowed ranges for several dimension-6 coefficients shift or shrink once dimension-8 operators are added to the fit.
Non-trivial degeneracies appear between dimension-6 and dimension-8 parameters in the two-parameter fits.
Consistent ordering in the EFT expansion is required to avoid misinterpreting the data as pure dimension-6 effects.
Future top-decay measurements at higher luminosity will need to account for these higher-order terms to extract reliable new-physics bounds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Global SMEFT fits to multiple observables may inherit similar degeneracies, so systematic inclusion of dimension-8 operators could relax some current dimension-6 limits.
Analogous correlations are likely to appear in other top-quark observables such as angular distributions or differential cross sections.
Experimental analyses could exploit the reported correlations to design fits that simultaneously constrain both operator classes rather than treating them separately.

Load-bearing premise

The selected representative subset of dimension-8 operators is sufficient to capture the leading higher-order effects, and these enter at the same perturbative order as the squared dimension-6 terms.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the W-boson helicity fractions that lies outside the predicted ranges from combined dimension-6 plus dimension-8 fits but inside the dimension-6-only ranges would directly test the claimed correlations.

read the original abstract

Precision measurements of top-quark decays provide powerful probes of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). While the impact of dimension-6 operators in the SM Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) has been extensively studied, the role of dimension-8 contributions remains largely unexplored, despite their potential importance as experimental precision improves. In this work, we present a combined analysis of dimension-6 and a representative subset of dimension-8 SMEFT effects using the W-boson helicity fractions in top-quark decays. We compute the leading-order contributions of these operators to the top-quark decay width and helicity fractions, and perform one-parameter and selected two-parameter $\chi^{2}$ fits to the combined ATLAS and CMS measurements at a reference scale $\Lambda=1$~TeV. From the fit results, we find that the inclusion of dimension-8 contributions affects the allowed parameter space of several dimension-6 coefficients through non-trivial correlations and degeneracies. Since the leading dimension-8 contributions enter at the same order $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda^{-4})$ as the squared dimension-6 terms retained in our analysis, this highlights the importance of a consistent treatment of the EFT expansion when interpreting SMEFT constraints.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Dim-8 operators shift dim-6 bounds via correlations in top helicity fractions, but the representative subset may miss key contributions at the same order.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper computes leading-order SMEFT effects from both dimension-6 and a chosen subset of dimension-8 operators on the W-boson helicity fractions in top decay, then shows through chi-squared fits that the dim-8 terms create non-trivial correlations and change the allowed ranges for several dim-6 coefficients when matched to combined ATLAS and CMS data at Lambda=1 TeV. They emphasize that dim-8 pieces enter at the same O(Lambda^{-4}) as squared dim-6 terms, so keeping one without the other can be inconsistent as precision grows. The calculations cover the decay width and the three helicity fractions, with one-parameter fits plus a few two-parameter combinations. This is new relative to earlier work that stopped at dim-6 only. The fits are straightforward and use published measurements, which keeps the results grounded in data. The reminder about power counting is useful for anyone doing global SMEFT fits in the top sector. The clearest limitation is the post-hoc choice of a representative dim-8 subset. If other dim-8 operators contribute at the same order to these observables, they could alter or remove the reported degeneracies, and the paper does not quantify that possibility or show a full operator scan. Everything is leading order, with no discussion of QCD corrections or scale uncertainties beyond the fixed reference value. This is a targeted study rather than a broad survey. It is worth sending for peer review so referees can check the operator selection and fit stability in detail. Readers working on precision top physics or SMEFT interpretations would find the correlations worth seeing, even if the bounds themselves are not final.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper performs a combined analysis of dimension-6 and a representative subset of dimension-8 SMEFT operators in the context of W-boson helicity fractions in top-quark decays. It calculates the leading-order contributions to the decay width and helicity fractions, then conducts one- and two-parameter chi-squared fits to combined ATLAS and CMS measurements at a reference scale of Lambda = 1 TeV. The main result is that including dimension-8 operators leads to non-trivial correlations and degeneracies that affect the allowed parameter space for several dimension-6 coefficients, underscoring the need for consistent treatment of the EFT expansion up to O(Lambda^{-4}).

Significance. If the central claim holds, this work provides a timely reminder that higher-dimensional operators in SMEFT must be considered consistently when deriving constraints from precision top-quark measurements, as dimension-8 terms enter at the same perturbative order as the square of dimension-6 contributions. The focus on helicity fractions is well-motivated given their sensitivity to chiral structures in the decay. The explicit leading-order calculations and fits to real data offer a concrete illustration of potential biases in dim-6 only analyses.

major comments (1)

The conclusion that dimension-8 contributions affect the dim-6 parameter space relies on the representativeness of the selected dim-8 operator subset. However, the abstract provides no details on the selection criteria or evidence that this subset captures all operators contributing at O(Λ^{-4}) to the W-helicity fractions; omitted operators could potentially alter or eliminate the reported correlations and degeneracies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our work and for the constructive comment. We address the major point below and agree that additional clarity on operator selection will strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The conclusion that dimension-8 contributions affect the dim-6 parameter space relies on the representativeness of the selected dim-8 operator subset. However, the abstract provides no details on the selection criteria or evidence that this subset captures all operators contributing at O(Λ^{-4}) to the W-helicity fractions; omitted operators could potentially alter or eliminate the reported correlations and degeneracies.

Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for transparency on this point. The abstract does not detail the selection criteria, and we agree this should be addressed. In Section II of the manuscript we explicitly state that the subset consists of those dimension-8 operators (in the Warsaw basis) that yield non-vanishing tree-level contributions to the top-quark decay width and W-helicity fractions at O(Λ^{-4}), identified through direct calculation of the relevant Feynman rules and amplitudes. Operators without such contributions to this specific observable are omitted by construction. While a exhaustive scan of the entire dimension-8 basis is beyond the scope of this work, our results illustrate that even this representative subset induces non-trivial correlations and degeneracies with dimension-6 coefficients. To improve clarity we will revise the abstract to include a concise statement of the selection criteria and the fact that the chosen operators are those with direct, calculable impact on the helicity fractions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are chi-squared fits to external ATLAS/CMS data

full rationale

The paper computes explicit leading-order SMEFT contributions to top decay width and W-helicity fractions, then performs one- and two-parameter chi-squared fits to published experimental measurements. No derivation step reduces an output observable or coefficient bound to a quantity defined by the input data or by a self-citation chain; the reference scale Lambda=1 TeV is an external choice, not a fitted parameter. The claim that dim-8 operators induce correlations in dim-6 bounds is a direct numerical output of the external-data fits rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the SMEFT power-counting assumption that dim-8 operators contribute at the same order as squared dim-6 terms, the choice of a representative subset of dim-8 operators, and standard leading-order decay calculations; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)

Wilson coefficients of selected dim-8 operators
Representative subset chosen for the analysis; their values are fitted to data.

axioms (2)

domain assumption SMEFT operators are organized by dimension and suppressed by powers of 1/Λ
Invoked throughout the abstract when stating that dim-8 enters at O(Λ^{-4}).
domain assumption Leading-order matrix elements suffice for the helicity fractions
Stated as the computational approach in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5538 in / 1490 out tokens · 25632 ms · 2026-05-09T18:32:28.816194+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

Buchmuller, D

W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, “Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,” Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(86)90262-2

work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(86)90262-2 1986
[2]

Grzadkowski, M

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-Six Terms in the Stan- dard Model Lagrangian,” JHEP10, 085 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2010)085 [arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2010)085 2010
[3]

Brivio and M

I. Brivio and M. Trott, “The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory,” Phys. Rept.793, 1-98 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.11.002 [arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.11.002 2019
[4]

Dimension-8 SMEFT matching conditions for the low-energy effective field theory,

S. Hamoudou, J. Kumar and D. London, “Dimension-8 SMEFT matching conditions for the low-energy effective field theory,” JHEP03, 157 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)157 [arXiv:2207.08856 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2023)157 2023
[5]

Top quark physics,

M. Beneke, I. Efthymiopoulos, M. L. Mangano, J. Womersley, A. Ahmadov, G. Azuelos, U. Baur, A. Belyaev, E. L. Berger and W. Bernreutheret al., “Top quark physics,” CERN- 2000-004, 419 (2000) doi:10.5170/CERN-2000-004.419 [arXiv:hep-ph/0003033 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.5170/cern-2000-004.419 2000
[6]

Top quark physics at the LHC,

W. Bernreuther, “Top quark physics at the LHC,” J. Phys. G35, 083001 (2008) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/35/8/083001 [arXiv:0805.1333 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/35/8/083001 2008
[7]

Measurement of theWboson helicity fractions in the decays of top quark pairs to lepton+jets final states produced in pp collisions at √s= 8 TeV,

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of theWboson helicity fractions in the decays of top quark pairs to lepton+jets final states produced in pp collisions at √s= 8 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 762, 512-534 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.007 [arXiv:1605.09047 [hep-ex]] 16

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.007 2016
[8]

Combination of the W boson polarization measurements in top quark decays using ATLAS and CMS data at √s= 8 TeV,

ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Combination of the W boson polarization measurements in top quark decays using ATLAS and CMS data at √s= 8 TeV,” JHEP08, 051 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2020)051 [arXiv:2005.03799 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2020)051 2020
[9]

Measurement of the polarisation ofWbosons produced in top-quark decays using dilepton events at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the polarisation ofWbosons produced in top-quark decays using dilepton events at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment,” Phys. Lett. B843, 137829 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137829 [arXiv:2209.14903 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137829 2023
[10]

The effects of stan- dard model extensions on W-boson helicity ratios in top quark decay,

S. M. Etesami, M. Khatiri Yanehsari and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, “The effects of stan- dard model extensions on W-boson helicity ratios in top quark decay,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.51, 3694-3700 (2012) doi:10.1007/s10773-012-1279-3

work page doi:10.1007/s10773-012-1279-3 2012
[11]

Noncommutative Standard Model in Top Quark Sector,

M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, “Noncommutative Standard Model in Top Quark Sector,” Phys. Rev. D77, 116011 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.116011 [arXiv:0803.2340 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.116011 2008
[12]

Zhang and S

C. Zhang and S. Willenbrock, “Effective-Field-Theory Approach to Top-Quark Production and Decay,” Phys. Rev. D83, 034006 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.034006 [arXiv:1008.3869 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.034006 2011
[13]

Top quark decay at next-to- leading order in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,

R. Boughezal, C.-Y. Chen, F. Petriello and D. Wiegand, “Top quark decay at next-to- leading order in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,” Phys. Rev. D100, 056023 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.056023 [arXiv:1907.00997 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.056023 2019
[14]

Zhang, Effective field theory approach to top-quark decay at next-to-leading order in qcd, Physical Review D 90, 10.1103/physrevd.90.014008 (2014)

C. Zhang, “Effective field theory approach to top-quark decay at next-to-leading or- der in QCD,” Phys. Rev. D90, no.1, 014008 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.014008 [arXiv:1404.1264 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.014008 2014
[15]

Global fit of top quark effective theory to data,

A. Buckley, C. Englert, J. Ferrando, D. J. Miller, L. Moore, M. Russell and C. D. White, “Global fit of top quark effective theory to data,” Phys. Rev. D92, no.9, 091501 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.091501 [arXiv:1506.08845 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.091501 2015
[16]

A Monte Carlo global analysis of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory: the top quark sector,

N. P. Hartlandet al., “A Monte Carlo global analysis of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory: the top quark sector,” JHEP04, 100 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)100 [arXiv:1901.05965 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2019)100 2019
[17]

Top Quark Decay at Next-to-Next-to Leading Order in QCD,

J. Gao, C. S. Li, H. X. Zhu, “Top Quark Decay at Next-to-Next-to Leading Order in QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110, no.4, 042001 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.042001 [arXiv:1210.2808 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.042001 2013
[18]

Secondary particles spectra in decay of polarized top quark with anomalous tWb coupling,

M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, “Secondary particles spectra in decay of polarized top quark with anomalous tWb coupling,” J. Phys. G34, 39-46 (2007) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/34/1/003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0601155 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/34/1/003 2007
[19]

Symbolic expressions for fully differential single top quark pro- duction cross section and decay width of polarized top quark in the presence of anomalous Wtb couplings,

E. Boos and V. Bunichev, “Symbolic expressions for fully differential single top quark pro- duction cross section and decay width of polarized top quark in the presence of anomalous Wtb couplings,” Phys. Rev. D101, no.5, 055012 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.055012 [arXiv:1910.00710 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.055012 2020
[20]

E. E. Abasov, E. E. Boos, V. E. Bunichev, L. V. Dudko, D. E. Gorin, A. A. Markina, M. A. Perfilov, O. S. Vasilevskii, P. V. Volkov and G. A. Vorotnikovet al., “Separation of Left- Handed and Anomalous Right-Handed Vector Operators Contributions into the Wtb Vertex for Single and Double Resonant Top Quark Production Processes Using a Neural Network,” 17 Ph...

work page doi:10.1134/s1063779624701776 2025
[21]

New limits on anomalous contributions to theW tbvertex,

J. L. Birman, F. D´ eliot, M. C. N. Fiolhais, A. Onofre and C. M. Pease, “New limits on anomalous contributions to theW tbvertex,” Phys. Rev. D93, no.11, 113021 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.113021 [arXiv:1605.02679 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.113021 2016
[22]

W polarisation beyond helicity fractions in top quark decays,

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. Bernabeu, “W polarisation beyond helicity fractions in top quark decays,” Nucl. Phys. B840, 349-378 (2010) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.07.012 [arXiv:1005.5382 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.07.012 2010
[23]

ATLAS sensitivity to top quark andWboson polarization int ¯tevents,

F. Hubaut, E. Monnier, P. Pralavorio, K. Smolek and V. Simak, “ATLAS sensitivity to top quark andWboson polarization int ¯tevents,” Eur. Phys. J. C44S2, 13-33 (2005) doi:10.1140/epjcd/s2005-02-009-9 [arXiv:hep-ex/0508061 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1140/epjcd/s2005-02-009-9 2005
[24]

Probing of Wtb Anomalous Couplings via the tW Chan- nel of Single Top Production,

M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, “Probing of Wtb Anomalous Couplings via the tW Chan- nel of Single Top Production,” JHEP03, 024 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/024 [arXiv:0801.1939 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/024 2008
[25]

Ge, C.-F

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, J. Carvalho, N. F. Castro, F. Veloso and A. Onofre, “Probing anoma- lous Wtb couplings in top pair decays,” Eur. Phys. J. C50, 519 (2007) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 007-0289-4 [arXiv:hep-ph/0605190]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 2007
[26]

ATLAS sen- sitivity to Wtb anomalous couplings in top pair decays,

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, J. Carvalho, N. F. Castro, A. Onofre and F. Veloso, “ATLAS sen- sitivity to Wtb anomalous couplings in top pair decays,” Eur. Phys. J. C53, 689 (2008) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0519-9 [arXiv:0705.3041 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0519-9 2008
[27]

Constraining anomalous Wtb and related SMEFT couplings using low-energy and electroweak precision observables,

S. Kala, L. Kolay, L. Mukherjee and S. Nandi, “Constraining anomalous Wtb and related SMEFT couplings using low-energy and electroweak precision observables,” JHEP11, 071 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2025)071 [arXiv:2505.07926 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2025)071 2025
[28]

Resolving the tensor structure of the Higgs coupling to Z-bosons via Higgs-strahlung,

S. Banerjee, R. Gupta, J. Reiness and M. Spannowsky, “Resolving the tensor structure of the Higgs coupling to Z-bosons via Higgs-strahlung,” Phys. Rev. D100, no.11, 115004 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.115004 [arXiv:1905.02728 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.115004 2019
[29]

Theoretical developments in the SMEFT at dimension-8 and beyond,

S. Alioliet al., “Theoretical developments in the SMEFT at dimension-8 and beyond,” arXiv:2203.06771 [hep-ph] [arXiv:2203.06771 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[30]

Dimension-8 operators inW +W − production via gluon fusion,

D. Gillies, A. Banfi, A. Martin and M. A. Lim, “Dimension-8 operators inW +W − production via gluon fusion,” JHEP06(2025) 111 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2025)111 [arXiv:2412.16020 [hep- ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2025)111 2025
[31]

Higgs decays to four leptons toO(1/Λ 4) in SMEFT,

M. Flores-Hernandez and A. Martin, “Higgs decays to four leptons toO(1/Λ 4) in SMEFT,” [arXiv:2602.12326 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[32]

Diboson production in the SMEFT at dimension-8,

H. El Faham, G. Ventura and E. Vryonidou, “Diboson production in the SMEFT at dimension-8,” [arXiv:2511.04338 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[33]

Probing EFT breakdown in the tails ofW +W − observ- ables,

D. Gillies, A. Banfi and A. Martin, “Probing EFT breakdown in the tails ofW +W − observ- ables,” [arXiv:2601.19495 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[34]

SMEFT effects on spin correlations and entanglement at NLO QCD in di-boson production at hadron colliders,

G. Pelliccioli and E. Re, “SMEFT effects on spin correlations and entanglement at NLO QCD in di-boson production at hadron colliders,” [arXiv:2601.09540 [hep-ph]] 18

work page arXiv
[35]

Dimension-eight operator basis for universal standard model effective field theory,

T. Corbett, J. Desai, O. J. P. Eboli and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, “Dimension-eight operator basis for universal standard model effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 033003 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.033003 [arXiv:2404.03720 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.033003 2024
[36]

Impact of dimension-eight SMEFT operators in the electroweak precision observables and triple gauge couplings analysis in universal SMEFT,

T. Corbett, J. Desai, O. J. P. ´Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Martines and P. Reimitz, “Impact of dimension-eight SMEFT operators in the electroweak precision observables and triple gauge couplings analysis in universal SMEFT,” Phys. Rev. D107, no.11, 115013 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.115013 [arXiv:2304.03305 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.115013 2023
[37]

Renormalization-group running of dimension- 8 four-fermion operators in the SMEFT,

R. Boughezal, Y. Huang and F. Petriello, “Renormalization-group running of dimension- 8 four-fermion operators in the SMEFT,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.11, 116015 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.116015 [arXiv:2408.15378 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.116015 2024
[38]

Constructing dimension-8 SMEFT from conserved currents,

L. P. G. De Assis, “Constructing dimension-8 SMEFT from conserved currents,” Phys. Rev. D113, no.5, 056004 (2026) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.113.056004 [arXiv:2602.09334 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.113.056004 2026
[39]

Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,

C. W. Murphy, “Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,” JHEP 10, 174 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2020)174 [arXiv:2005.00059 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2020)174 2020
[40]

A Minimal set of top anomalous couplings,

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “A Minimal set of top anomalous couplings,” Nucl. Phys. B812, 181-204 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.12.012 [arXiv:0811.3842 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.12.012 2009
[41]

Complete Set of Dimension-8 Operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,

H. L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M. L. Xiao, J. H. Yu and Y. H. Zheng, “Complete Set of Dimension-8 Operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,” Phys. Rev. D104, 015026 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.015026 [arXiv:2005.00008 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.015026 2021
[42]

Helicity fractions ofWbosons from top quark decays at NNLO in QCD,

A. Czarnecki, J. G. Korner and J. H. Piclum, “Helicity fractions ofWbosons from top quark decays at NNLO in QCD,” Phys. Rev. D81, 111503 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.111503 [arXiv:1005.2625 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.111503 2010
[43]

Navas et al

Particle Data Group (S. Navaset al.), “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024
[44]

Complete angular analysis of po- larized top decay atO(α s),

M. Fischer, S. Groote, J. G. K¨ orner and M. C. Mauser, “Complete angular analysis of po- larized top decay atO(α s),” Phys. Rev. D65, 054036 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.054036 [arXiv:hep-ph/0101322] A Total Decay Width In this appendix, we provide the detailed derivation of the top-quark decay width and the helicity fractions of theWboson correspondin...

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.65.054036 2002