Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Dark photon in parity-violating electron scatterings

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that parity-violating electron scattering can expose a dark photon through 5–10% shifts in the Standard Model's weak couplings.

desk verdict Sensitivity numbers from prior work are useful, but the claimed dark-photon preference is statistically unsupported (Δχ²=1.34, p≈0.5). read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07279 v1 pith:4WR7XHOT submitted 2025-05-12 hep-ph hep-ex

A. W. Thomas , X. G. Wang , A. G. Williams This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords darkphotonparity-violatingelectronscatteringkineticmixingweakneutral-currentcouplingsdeepinelasticWbosonmassbeyondStandardModel
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 argues that parity-violating electron scattering (PVES) is a sensitive probe of the hypothetical dark photon, even though the dark photon has so far escaped direct detection. It shows that dark-photon exchange modifies the effective Standard Model couplings $C_{1q}$, $C_{2q}$, and $C_{3q}$ extracted from PVES: corrections up to 5% at low momentum transfer, and up to 10% for $C_{2q}$ at $Q^2=10^3$ GeV$^2$. Fitting existing parity-violation measurements and the CDF $W$-boson mass, the paper finds that the dark photon improves the fit and prefers a mass above the $Z$ boson. If correct, PVES experiments planned at P2, SoLID, EIC, and MOLLER could either discover the dark photon or sharply constrain its parameter space.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective-coupling identity in Eq. (14): $C_{iq}=C^Z_{iq}+(Q^2+M_Z^2)/(Q^2+M_{A_D}^2)\,C^{A_D}_{iq}$, which packages the whole dark-photon effect as a $Q^2$-dependent rescaling of the three SM weak couplings. The underlying mechanism is kinetic mixing between the dark photon and hypercharge, parametrized by $\epsilon$, followed by diagonalisation of the mass matrix that mixes the dark photon with the SM $Z$ boson; the dark photon inherits both vector and axial couplings, so it contributes to parity-violating asymmetries. The correction factors $R_{1q}$, $R_{2q}$, and $R_{3q}$ carry the numerical content of the argument, with the eigenmass-repulsion region governing the largest shifts.

What would settle it

Measure the PVES asymmetry at $Q^2=0.0045$ GeV$^2$ (as planned for P2) at sub-2% precision: if the extracted $C_{1q}$ matches the Standard Model prediction to better than 5%, the proposed large-$R_{1q}$ region of the dark photon parameter space is excluded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a compact formula for the total effect of physical $Z$ and dark-photon exchange on PVES observables: the Standard Model couplings are replaced by effective couplings $C_{iq}=C^Z_{iq}+(Q^2+M_Z^2)/(Q^2+M_{A_D}^2)\,C^{A_D}_{iq}$, with correction factors $R_{iq}$ relative to the SM. These factors depend on the kinetic-mixing parameter $\epsilon$, the dark-photon mass $m_{A_D}$, and the momentum transfer $Q^2$. At $Q^2=0.0045$ GeV$^2$, the $R_{1q}$ corrections can reach 5%; at $Q^2=10^3$ GeV$^2$, the $R_{2q}$ corrections are negative and can reach 10%, which would imply sizable uncertainties in valence quark distribution extraction; at $Q^2=5$ GeV$^2$, the $C_{3q}$ corrections can also reach 5%. A $\chi^2$ fit to Qweak, PREX-II, PVDIS, atomic parity violation, and the CDF $W$ mass improves from 3.517 to 2.179 and favours $m_{A_D} > m_Z$.

Load-bearing premise

The fits treat the Standard Model predictions for Qweak, PREX-II, PVDIS, and APV as exact central values with negligible theory uncertainty, so that all discrepancy is attributed to a single dark photon.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-$Q^2$ DIS analyses at HERA or the EIC that extract valence quark distributions must fold in possible dark-photon contributions to $C_{2q}$, since the claimed 10% corrections would otherwise appear as PDF shifts.
  • Planned low-energy PVES measurements (P2, MOLLER, SoLID) can directly test the 5% corrections to $C_{1q}$ and $C_{3q}$ with percent-level precision.
  • If the preferred heavy dark photon exists, it would partially explain the tensions between current parity-violation measurements and Standard Model predictions.
  • Combining low-$Q^2$ and high-$Q^2$ PVES data constrains both $\epsilon$ and $m_{A_D}$, because the correction size and sign depend on $Q^2$ relative to $m_{A_D}$.
  • A dark photon with $m_{A_D} > m_Z$ evades many direct searches, so PVES provides a complementary discovery channel in that region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the correction factor $(Q^2+M_Z^2)/(Q^2+M_{A_D}^2)$ is monotonic in $Q^2$, a single experiment at one scale cannot cleanly separate $\epsilon$ from $m_{A_D}$; combining data across $Q^2$ regions is necessary, and the paper's preferred heavy mass could be checked with mid-scale measurements around $Q^2 \sim M_{A_D}^2$.
  • A decisive testable extension would be to repeat the fit with a full treatment of hadronic and nuclear theory uncertainties; the quoted $\chi^2$ improvement of 3.517 to 2.179 would then reveal how much of the preference for a heavy dark photon is driven by nuclear structure assumptions.
  • The same effective-coupling formalism could be applied to neutrino-nucleus scattering, where the axial couplings enter differently, giving an independent cross-check of the dark-photon interpretation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This proceedings contribution (QCHSC24, arXiv:2505.07279) proposes parity-violating electron scattering (PVES) as a probe of the dark photon. Starting from a kinetic-mixing model, the paper expresses the effect of Z-A' mixing as corrections R_1q, R_2q, and R_3q to the effective PV couplings C_1q, C_2q, and C_3q (Eq. 14). It presents sensitivity estimates at low Q^2 (P2: up to 5% for C_1q and C_3q) and at high Q^2 (HERA/EIC: up to 10% for C_2q). It then fits the existing PVES and APV data in Table 1 together with the CDF W mass, reporting a best-fit improvement from chi^2=3.517 to chi^2=2.179 and claiming a preference for a heavy dark photon with mass above the Z boson.

Significance. If the sensitivity estimates are correct, PVES would provide a complementary, flavor- and Q^2-dependent window on heavy dark photons, and the correction factors R_iq are genuine model predictions that could be falsified by P2, SoLID, and EIC. The paper usefully collects the relevant formulas and presents the eigenmass-repulsion structure of the parameter space. However, the statistical case for a dark-photon preference is the weakest part of the paper: the reported Delta chi^2 is too small to support the abstract's central claim, and the fits treat SM predictions as exact. The sensitivity projections are the more defensible contribution, but they also need to be qualified by the existing exclusion limits shown in Fig. 4.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Table 1, Abstract] The central claim that the parity-violation data and the CDF W mass 'prefer a heavy dark photon with mass above the Z-boson mass' is not supported by the numbers reported in the manuscript. The SM fit gives chi^2_total=3.517 and the dark-photon fit gives chi^2_total=2.179, i.e. Delta chi^2=1.338 for the two new parameters (epsilon and m_AD). For a chi-square with two additional degrees of freedom the 68% CL threshold is 2.30 and the 95% threshold is 5.99, so Delta chi^2=1.338 corresponds to p about 0.51; the SM point (epsilon=0) lies inside the 68% confidence region of the dark-photon fit. The observation that m_AD < m_Z always worsens chi^2 only fixes the sign of the preferred correction; it does not establish a preference for m_AD > m_Z. The abstract and conclusions should be reworded to state that the data are consistent with the SM and place only weak constraints on the heavy-dark-photon parameter space.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 5] The fits in Section 5 treat the SM predictions in Table 1 as exact central values with zero theory uncertainty. This assumption is load-bearing because the quoted experimental errors are small and some of the listed observables carry significant hadronic or nuclear theory uncertainties: the PREX-II weak charge of 208Pb depends on nuclear structure and neutron-skin modelling (see Ref. [37]), and the APV result for 133Cs has an atomic theory component that is not shown. If these theory uncertainties are comparable to the quoted experimental errors, the extracted epsilon values and the reported Delta chi^2 are not robust. The manuscript should either propagate the relevant theory uncertainties or explicitly justify that they are negligible for each observable.
  3. [Section 4 and Figs. 1-3] The headline sensitivity numbers (5% for C_1q and C_3q, 10% for C_2q) are reached when the dark-photon parameters approach the 'eigenmass repulsion' region. The paper defines the region of interest as epsilon <= 0.2 and states that this region is 'not fully excluded', but Fig. 4 shows that the CMS 95% CL exclusion and the EWPO/DIS limits cut into this region. The 5-10% corrections require epsilon near the upper boundary of the ROI, where the external constraints are strongest, so the sensitivity claim should be accompanied by a statement of which part of the (epsilon, m_AD) plane actually produces the large corrections and whether that part survives the constraints shown in Fig. 4. As written, the abstract's 'could be as large as' claims risk overstating the reach.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Reference [11]] The title of Ref. [11] omits the collision energy ('sqrt(s)= TeV'); it should read 'sqrt(s)=13 TeV'.
  2. [Table 1] The 'SM + dark photon' column should state which (epsilon, m_AD) point is used; since Fig. 4 scans m_AD with the best-fit epsilon for each mass, a single set of predictions is ambiguous.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (4)] The notation A^{e^-_R - e^-_L}_d and A^{e^+ - e^-}_d is not defined explicitly; please define the helicity and charge combinations in the text.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The manuscript uses 'we proposed' and 'we calculated' for results that are presented in detail in Refs. [25,26]; for a proceedings contribution this is acceptable, but the text should clarify which results are new here and which are being summarized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the R_iq corrections are genuine model outputs and the Section 5 fits are explicitly labelled as fits (score reflects only the normal reliance on the authors' prior papers, not circularity).

full rationale

The paper's central equations are not inputs in disguise. Eq. (13) is the full electroweak-plus-dark-photon cross section, and Eq. (14) is obtained by collecting the Z and A_D interference terms: 'By calculating the relevant PVES asymmetries and the lepton charge asymmetry, we found that the total effect of the physical Z and A_D exchanges is given by the effective couplings'. The correction factors R_iq are therefore derived functions of (epsilon, m_AD, Q^2), not fitted constants. The Section 4 sensitivity curves are evaluated over an assumed ROI (epsilon <= 0.2) and are not fitted to the P2, SoLID, or EIC data they are used to project; the Section 5 numbers are explicitly fit results ('We then perform a chi^2 fit by including the dark photon [26]'), with Table 1 showing separate 'SM' and 'SM + dark photon' columns. The heavy-dark-photon preference follows from applying the mass-diagonalisation relation, Eq. (8), to the CDF W-mass constraint, rather than being assumed. The paper does cite the authors' own Refs. [25,26] for the derivation and the fit, but those are prior published calculations against external data; self-citation alone is not a circular reduction. The marginal Delta(chi^2)=1.338 for two new parameters is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model parameters epsilon and m_AD are the only free parameters; the SM inputs (m_H, m_t, G_F, alpha) are taken from prior literature. The central approximations are Eq. (14) and the neglect of theory uncertainties in the fit.

free parameters (2)
  • epsilon (kinetic mixing parameter) = best-fit values shown in Fig. 4 for each m_AD
    Central dark photon parameter; scanned in Figs. 1-3 and fitted in Sec. 5.
  • m_AD (dark photon mass) = favoured above m_Z, values in Fig. 4
    Scanned/fitted parameter; the mass determines the Q2 dependence of the corrections and the fit region.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dark photon is a U(1) gauge boson with kinetic mixing with hypercharge (Eq. 7).
    Adopted from Refs. [1-4]; the entire analysis depends on this model.
  • standard math The physical Z and dark photon masses and couplings follow from diagonalizing the mass matrix (Eqs. 8-12).
    Taken from Ref. [15]; used to define the shifted couplings.
  • domain assumption The PVES asymmetry formulas in Eqs. (2)-(4) and the effective coupling relations in Eq. (14) from Ref. [25] are correct and applicable.
    The paper does not re-derive these; the claims of 5-10% corrections rest on them.
  • ad hoc to paper The SM predictions in Table 1 are treated as exact with negligible theory uncertainties.
    The chi2 fit attributes all discrepancies to the dark photon; no theory error bars are included.
invented entities (1)
  • Dark photon (A'_mu, physical A_D)
    purpose: Modify PVES asymmetries via kinetic mixing and explain parity data / W mass
    Not new to this paper, but the analysis assumes its existence; no direct detection exists, and the model parameters are constrained elsewhere.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark photon in parity-violating electron scatterings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4WR7XHOT

@misc{pith2026250507279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark photon in parity-violating electron scatterings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4WR7XHOT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07279}
}
abstract

We proposed that parity-violating electron scattering (PVES) offers a powerful tool to probe the hypothetical dark photon. We calculated the dark photon contributions to PVES asymmetries in both elastic and deep-inelastic scattering (DIS). These contributions are characterised by the corrections to the standard model couplings $C_{1q}, \, C_{2q}$, and $C_{3q}$. At low scales, the corrections to $C_{1q}$ and $C_{3q}$ could be as large as $5\%$ were a dark photon to exist. In DIS at very high $Q^2$, of relevance to HERA or the EIC, the dark photon could induce substantial corrections to $C_{2q}$, suggesting as large as $10\%$ uncertainties in the extraction of valence parton distribution functions. We also extracted the favoured regions of the dark photon parameter space by fitting the parity violation data and the CDF $W$ boson mass, which prefer a heavy dark photon with mass above the $Z$-boson mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07279 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 𝑅1𝑢 and 𝑅1𝑑 at 𝑄 2 = 0.0045 GeV2 . The gap is the “eigenmass repulsion” region in which the dark photon parameters are not accessible. At much higher momentum scale, 𝑄 2 = 103 GeV2 , accessible at HERA and EIC, the dark photon effects will lead to large corrections to the couplings 𝐶2𝑞 as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 𝑅2𝑢 and 𝑅2𝑑 at 𝑄 2 = 103 GeV2 . 5. Favoured dark photon parameters The currently available experimental data of PVES and atomic parity violation (APV) are summarised in Tab. 1. The discrepancy between experiments and the SM predictions is characterised by 𝜒 2 total = 3.517. We then perform a 𝜒 2 fit by including the dark photon [26]. The best values of 𝜖 are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 𝑅3𝑢 and 𝑅3𝑑 at 𝑄 2 = 5 GeV2 . given by the green dashed curve in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Favoured dark photon parameters from parity-violation data and the CDF 𝑊 boson mass, together with 68% CL (dark band) and 95% CL (light band) uncertainties [26]. The EWPO limit is taken from Ref. [19]. The DIS-1 and DIS-2 are taken from Ref. [15] and Ref. [16], respect…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Relative enhancement of low-mass vector-boson exchange in higher waves matrix elements: parity non-conservation in hydrogen

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A light Z' boson can mix hydrogen's 3p and 3d states with no Standard Model Z background, offering a potentially clean atomic probe of new physics.

  2. Evidence for and implications of a dark photon

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A global QCD fit to deep-inelastic scattering prefers a dark photon with mass 4 to 6 GeV and mixing 0.06 to 0.12, claimed as a 6.5 sigma hint, though direct searches exclude these parameters unless extra dark matter c...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [37]

    M. A. Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, P. Finelli, and M. Vorabbi,Incorporating the weak mixing angle dependence to reconcile the neutron skin measurement on Pb208 by PREX-II, Phys. Rev. C105 (2022), no. 5 055503, [arXiv:2112.09717]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Fayet,Effects of the Spin 1 Partner of the Goldstino (Gravitino) on Neutral Current Phenomenology, Phys

    P. Fayet,Effects of the Spin 1 Partner of the Goldstino (Gravitino) on Neutral Current Phenomenology, Phys. Lett. B95(1980) 285–289

    1980

  3. [2]

    Fayet,On the Search for a New Spin 1 Boson,Nucl

    P. Fayet,On the Search for a New Spin 1 Boson,Nucl. Phys.B187(1981) 184–204

    1981

  4. [3]

    Holdom,Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,Phys

    B. Holdom,Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,Phys. Lett. B166 (1986) 196–198

    1986

  5. [4]

    L. B. Okun,LIMITS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS: PARAPHOTONS?, Sov. Phys. JETP56 (1982) 502

    work page 1982

  6. [5]

    Fayet,Extra U(1)’s and New Forces, Nucl

    P. Fayet,Extra U(1)’s and New Forces, Nucl. Phys.B347(1990) 743–768

    work page 1990

  7. [6]

    Leike,The Phenomenology of extra neutral gauge bosons, Phys

    A. Leike,The Phenomenology of extra neutral gauge bosons, Phys. Rep.317(1999) 143–250, [hep-ph/9805494]

    arXiv 1999

  8. [7]

    Y. M. Andreev et al.,Search for a New B-L Z’ Gauge Boson with the NA64 Experiment at CERN,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022), no. 16 161801, [arXiv:2207.09979]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    J. P. Lees et al.,Search for a Dark Photon in𝑒+𝑒− Collisions at BaBar, Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014), no. 20 201801, [arXiv:1406.2980]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [9]

    J. P. Lees et al.,Search for Invisible Decays of a Dark Photon Produced in𝑒+𝑒− Collisions at BaBar, Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017), no. 13 131804, [arXiv:1702.03327]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Aaij et al.,Search for𝐴′→𝜇+𝜇− Decays, Phys

    R. Aaij et al.,Search for𝐴′→𝜇+𝜇− Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.124 (2020), no. 4 041801, [arXiv:1910.06926]

    2020

  4. [11]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al.,Search for a Narrow Resonance Lighter than 200 GeV Decaying to a Pair of Muons in Proton-Proton Collisions at√𝑠= TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.124 (2020), no. 13 131802, [arXiv:1912.04776]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    A. M. Abdullahi, M. Hostert, D. Massaro, and S. Pascoli,Semi-Visible Dark Photon Phenomenology at the GeV Scale,Phys. Rev. D108 (2023), no. 1 015032, [arXiv:2302.05410]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Pospelov,Secluded U(1) below the weak scale, Phys

    M. Pospelov,Secluded U(1) below the weak scale, Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 095002, [arXiv:0811.1030]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Davoudiasl, H.-S

    H. Davoudiasl, H.-S. Lee, and W. J. Marciano,Muon Anomaly and Dark Parity Violation, Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (2012) 031802

    2012

  8. [15]

    G. D. Kribs, D. McKeen, and N. Raj,Breaking up the Proton: An Affair with Dark Forces, Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021), no. 1 011801, [arXiv:2007.15655]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    A. W. Thomas, X. G. Wang, and A. G. Williams,Constraints on the dark photon from deep inelastic scattering,Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 3 L031901, [arXiv:2111.05664]. 9 Dark photon in parity-violating electron scatterings X. G. Wang

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    N. T. Hunt-Smith, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, A. W. Thomas, X. G. Wang, and M. J. White, Global QCD analysis and dark photons, JHEP09(2023) 096, [arXiv:2302.11126]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    A. Hook, E. Izaguirre, and J. G. Wacker,Model Independent Bounds on Kinetic Mixing,Adv. High Energy Phys.2011(2011) 859762, [arXiv:1006.0973]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Curtin, R

    D. Curtin, R. Essig, S. Gori, and J. Shelton,Illuminating Dark Photons with High-Energy Colliders, JHEP02(2015) 157, [arXiv:1412.0018]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [20]

    B. M. Loizos, X. G. Wang, A. W. Thomas, M. J. White, and A. G. Williams,Constraints on the dark sector from electroweak precision observables,J. Phys. G51(2024), no. 7 075002, [arXiv:2306.13408]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Davoudiasl, H.-S

    H. Davoudiasl, H.-S. Lee, and W. J. Marciano,’Dark’ Z implications for Parity Violation, Rare Meson Decays, and Higgs Physics,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 115019, [arXiv:1203.2947]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Datta, A

    A. Datta, A. Hammad, D. Marfatia, L. Mukherjee, and A. Rashed,Dark photon and dark Z mediated B meson decays, JHEP03(2023) 108, [arXiv:2210.15662]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Wang and A

    X.-G. Wang and A. W. Thomas,Dark photon effect on the rare kaon decay, J. Phys. G50 (2023), no. 8 085001, [arXiv:2301.08367]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    X. G. Wang, N. T. Hunt-Smith, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, and A. W. Thomas,Constraints on the𝑈(1)𝐵−𝐿 model from global QCD analysis, arXiv:2410.01205

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    A. W. Thomas, X. G. Wang, and A. G. Williams,Sensitivity of Parity-Violating Electron Scattering to a Dark Photon, Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022), no. 1 011807, [arXiv:2201.06760]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    A. W. Thomas and X. G. Wang,Constraints on the dark photon from parity violation and the W mass,Phys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 5 056017, [arXiv:2205.01911]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    C. J. Horowitz, S. J. Pollock, P. A. Souder, and R. Michaels,Parity violating measurements of neutron densities,Phys. Rev. C63(2001) 025501, [nucl-th/9912038]

    2001 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Zheng, J

    X. Zheng, J. Erler, Q. Liu, and H. Spiesberger,Accessing weak neutral-current coupling𝑔𝑒𝑞 𝐴𝐴 using positron and electron beams at Jefferson Lab, Eur. Phys. J. A57(2021), no. 5 173, [arXiv:2103.12555]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [29]

    X. G. Wang and A. W. Thomas,Challenges in the extraction of physics beyond the Standard Model from electron scattering,J. Phys. G52(2025) 015006, [arXiv:2403.07327]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Anselmino, P

    M. Anselmino, P. Gambino, and J. Kalinowski,Polarized deep inelastic scattering at high-energies and parity violating structure functions,Z. Phys. C64(1994) 267–274, [hep-ph/9401264]

    1994 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Becker et al.,The P2 experiment, Eur

    D. Becker et al.,The P2 experiment, Eur. Phys. J. A54(2018), no. 11 208, [arXiv:1802.04759]. 10 Dark photon in parity-violating electron scatterings X. G. Wang

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    JeffersonLabSoLID Collaboration,J.Arringtonetal., Thesolenoidallargeintensitydevice (SoLID) for JLab 12 GeV, J. Phys. G50 (2023), no. 11 110501, [arXiv:2209.13357]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Aaltonen et al.,High-precision measurement of the𝑊 boson mass with the CDF II detector,Science 376 (2022), no

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

    2022

  27. [34]

    Awramik, M

    M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas, and G. Weiglein,Precise prediction for the W boson mass in the standard model, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 053006, [hep-ph/0311148]

    2004 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Androić et al.,Precision measurement of the weak charge of the proton, Nature557 (2018), no

    QweakCollaboration, D. Androić et al.,Precision measurement of the weak charge of the proton, Nature557 (2018), no. 7704 207–211, [arXiv:1905.08283]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Adhikari et al.,Accurate Determination of the Neutron Skin Thickness of208Pb through Parity-Violation in Electron Scattering,Phys

    PREX Collaboration, D. Adhikari et al.,Accurate Determination of the Neutron Skin Thickness of208Pb through Parity-Violation in Electron Scattering,Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021), no. 17 172502, [arXiv:2102.10767]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Wang et al.,Measurement of parity violation in electron–quark scattering,Nature506 (2014), no

    PVDIS Collaboration, D. Wang et al.,Measurement of parity violation in electron–quark scattering,Nature506 (2014), no. 7486 67–70

    2014

  31. [39]

    8 083C01

    ParticleDataGroup Collaboration, P.A.Zylaetal., ReviewofParticlePhysics ,PTEP2020 (2020), no. 8 083C01

    2020

  32. [40]

    Abdul Khalek et al.,Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al.,Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,Nucl. Phys. A1026(2022) 122447, [arXiv:2103.05419]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Benesch et al.,The MOLLER Experiment: An Ultra-Precise Measurement of the Weak Mixing Angle Using M\oller Scattering, arXiv:1411.4088

    MOLLERCollaboration, J. Benesch et al.,The MOLLER Experiment: An Ultra-Precise Measurement of the Weak Mixing Angle Using M\oller Scattering, arXiv:1411.4088. 11

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.