REVIEW 6 minor 55 references
General form of effective operators from hidden sectors
T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Integrating out a heavy hidden sector through the Higgs, neutrino, or hypercharge portal generates a fixed set of dimension-six operators whose forms—and, in a definite range of scaling dimensions, signs—are independent of the…
desk verdict A clean, model-independent derivation of portal-generated dimension-six operators, with sign constraints that hold under explicit UV conditions; the fit is competent and the limitations are honestly stated. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the time-ordered two-point function of the hidden-sector operator that couples to the portal, expressed through the Källén-Lehmann spectral representation. Inserting a complete set of hidden-sector energy-momentum eigenstates gives a spectral density $\rho(k^2)$ whose positivity follows from unitarity and whose Lorentz structure is fixed by covariance; the representation itself is a dispersive form dictated by causality. Expanding the resulting propagator in powers of $p^2/M^2$ produces the local dimension-six operators, while the positivity of the spectral density (or of the combination $\rho_0-M^2\rho_1$ for the hypercharge tensor) fixes the sign of the leading coefficient. The scaling-dimension conditions $\Delta_S\le3$, $\Delta_F\le5/2$, and $\Delta_T\le3$ mark the range in which the relevant integral is finite or only logarithmically divergent, so that the sign prediction survives regulation.
What would settle it
Construct an explicit unitary, causal hidden-sector model with all states above the weak scale and a scalar portal operator of scaling dimension $\Delta_S\le3$, and compute its low-energy $O_{H\square}$ coefficient; a positive coefficient would refute $C_{H\square}\le0$. Equivalently, a measurement of the oblique $Y$ parameter with sign opposite to the predicted positive $C_{2B}$ contribution would contradict the hypercharge-portal prediction.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is that the leading dimension-six terms generated by integrating out a hidden sector are fixed by the portal alone, not by the hidden-sector dynamics. For the Higgs portal the generated operators are $O_H=(H^\dagger H)^3$ and $O_{H\square}=(H^\dagger H)\square(H^\dagger H)$, and for hidden operators of scaling dimension $\Delta_S\le 3$ causality and unitarity force the coefficient of $O_{H\square}$ to be non-positive. For the neutrino portal, assuming a single SM generation and lepton-number conservation, the unique operator is $O_{\ell H}=(\ell H)^\dagger i\bar\sigma^\mu\partial_\mu(\ell H)=\frac14(O_{H\ell}^{(1)}-O_{H\ell}^{(3)})$, with positive coefficient for $\Delta_F\le 5/2$. For the hypercharge portal the unique operator is $O_{2B}=-\frac12(\partial_\rho B_{\mu\nu})(\partial^\rho B^{\mu\nu})$, with positive coefficient for $\Delta_T\le 3$; it maps to a specific Warsaw-basis combination whose leading physical effect is a contribution to the $Y$ parameter. The paper further shows that a global fit of these operators to electroweak precision, Higgs, and diboson data leaves the Standard Model as the preferred description.
Load-bearing premise
The hidden sector must be a local, causal, unitary quantum field theory whose operators have a positive Källén-Lehmann spectral density and whose states all sit above the weak scale; for the neutrino portal it must also conserve lepton number.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- For any hidden sector coupled through the Higgs portal, the LHC constraints on $O_H$ and $O_{H\square}$ apply without knowing whether the sector is weakly or strongly coupled.
- The sign restriction $C_{H\square}\le0$ for $\Delta_S\le3$ excludes half of the Higgs-portal coefficient plane, so a future positive measurement in that region would rule out unitary causal hidden sectors with heavy states.
- The neutrino portal fixes $C_{H\ell}^{(1)}=-C_{H\ell}^{(3)}=C_{\ell H}/4$, so electroweak and $Z$-pole data constrain the whole portal with one parameter.
- The hypercharge-portal operator maps onto a definite combination including $O_{HD}$, $O_{H\square}$, fermion-current operators, and four-fermion operators, with a positive coefficient implying a positive $Y$ parameter in universal theories.
- With matching scales between 250 GeV and 10 TeV, the fitted limits on $C/\Lambda^2$ change very little, and the fits show no preference for any portal over the Standard Model.
Reading between the lines
- The same positivity logic should extend to higher orders: the next generation of portal-generated operators (dimension-eight, or dimension-six at higher loop order) may inherit further sign or alignment restrictions that the paper does not work out.
- Because the sign restrictions rely on all hidden states being heavy, a deviation with the opposite sign in $O_{H\square}$, $O_{\ell H}$, or $O_{2B}$ would be a diagnostic for light states in the hidden sector rather than for exotic strong dynamics.
- For non-universal neutrino-portal couplings the coefficient matrix is expected to be positive definite, which would correlate shifts of neutrino kinetic terms with charged-lepton flavor violation; the paper leaves this as future work.
- The scaling-dimension thresholds suggest a concrete check in strongly coupled hidden sectors: as the operator dimension crosses $\Delta_S=3$ or $\Delta_F=5/2$, the coefficient should lose its sign rigidity, a prediction that could be tested in lattice or holographic constructions.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper considers a general hidden sector coupled to the Standard Model through one of three portals—Higgs, neutrino, or hypercharge—with the portal coupling treated perturbatively and all hidden-sector states assumed to lie above the weak scale. Using Källén-Lehmann spectral representations and the positivity of the spectral density that follows from unitarity, the authors show that the leading dimension-six SMEFT operators generated after integrating out the hidden sector have portal-dependent fixed forms: only O_H and O_H□ for the Higgs portal, with C_H□ ≤ 0 for Δ_S ≤ 3; only O_ℓH = (ℓH)^† iσ̄^μ ∂_μ(ℓH) = 1/4(O_Hℓ^(1) − O_Hℓ^(3)) for a single-generation lepton-number-conserving neutrino portal, with C_ℓH ≥ 0 for Δ_F ≤ 5/2; and only O_2B = −1/2(∂_ρ B_μν)(∂^ρ B^μν) for the hypercharge portal, with C_2B ≥ 0 for Δ_T ≤ 3. The paper then performs global fits to electroweak precision observables, Higgs, and diboson data using HEPfit with one-loop RGE running, and finds no significant preference for a portal-coupled hidden sector over the Standard Model.
Significance. The central claim is a genuinely model-independent statement: the leading operator content is fixed by the portal quantum numbers, and the sign restrictions follow from causality and unitarity rather than from details of the hidden-sector dynamics. The derivations are internally consistent and do not rely on any fitted input; the positivity argument is the key ingredient. The paper is explicit about its limitations, including the single-generation and lepton-number-conservation assumptions for the neutrino portal, the perturbative-portal assumption, and the ultraviolet sensitivity at the endpoint scaling dimensions. The global fit is standard and is cross-checked with a second independent package, though the lack of released code is a reproducibility drawback. Overall, if the derivations hold, this is a useful and publishable result for the SMEFT and hidden-sector model-building community.
minor comments (6)
- [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.1)] The interaction in Eq. (2.1) implicitly assumes that O_S is a Hermitian operator; please state this explicitly, since the positivity of the spectral density in Eq. (2.4) relies on it.
- [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.15)] Please state explicitly that O_F is a left-chiral Weyl operator and that the lepton-number-conservation assumption is what forbids additional operators such as (ℓH)^2; this assumption is mentioned but could be made more prominent, for instance in the introduction.
- [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.30)] The endpoint cases Δ_F = 5/2 (and similarly Δ_S = 3 and Δ_T = 3) are only logarithmically enhanced, and the paper says the sign is 'expected' rather than proven; please state this status explicitly in the abstract or conclusions to avoid any appearance of overclaiming.
- [Sec. 3 and Figs. 4–7] The gray-shaded regions in the figures are described as forbidden only 'for some range of scaling dimensions'; please specify the ranges (Δ_S ≤ 3, Δ_F ≤ 5/2, Δ_T ≤ 3) in the captions or in the text near the figures.
- [References] There are typographical errors in the reference list, e.g., 'OP AL' in Ref. [41] and 'A TLAS' in several entries; these should be corrected.
- [Sec. 3] The numerical code and input data for the global fit are not released; providing them would improve reproducibility, although the cross-check with the Fitmaker-based package is reassuring.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the operator forms and sign restrictions are derived from the Källén-Lehmann spectral representation and unitarity, with the global fit applied after the fact.
full rationale
The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. In Section 2 the leading dimension-six operators are obtained by expanding the portal two-point function in powers of p^2/M^2: the Higgs portal gives alpha ∂_mu(H†H)∂^mu(H†H) from Eq. (2.11), which is then integrated by parts to OH□; the neutrino portal gives alpha (ℓH)† i σ̄^μ ∂_μ(ℓH) from Eq. (2.29); and the hypercharge portal gives alpha O2B from Eq. (2.44). In each case the operator form is fixed by the Lorentz and gauge quantum numbers of the portal, not by any fitted parameter. The sign restrictions follow from the positivity of the spectral densities ρ(k^2), ρ0, and ρ1, which the paper derives from the unitarity of the hidden sector (Eqs. (2.28) and (2.42)), combined with the causal form of the Källén-Lehmann representation. These are standard, externally grounded QFT facts, and the paper explicitly flags the endpoint cases ΔS = 3, ΔF = 5/2, and ΔT = 3 as only logarithmically enhanced expectations rather than rigorous proofs. The global fit in Section 3 is performed after the operator forms and signs are derived, and it merely constrains the previously defined Wilson coefficients; there is no fitted input that is later renamed as a prediction. The self-citations in Refs. [1] and [21] appear only as motivational examples of hidden sectors, and the external citations [22] and [29] are used for dictionary/basis translation rather than for the central claims. Overall, no circular step is present.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption The hidden sector is a local, unitary, causal QFT whose operator two-point functions admit a Källén-Lehmann spectral representation with positive spectral density.
- domain assumption All hidden-sector states have masses above the weak scale, so they can be integrated out and the p^2/M^2 expansion is valid.
- domain assumption Portal couplings λ, y, ε are small enough for perturbative treatment, so leading order (λ^2, y^2, ε^2) dominates.
- domain assumption For the neutrino portal, the hidden sector does not violate lepton number and the SM fermions are treated with a single generation (or flavor-universal couplings for the fit).
- standard math The SMEFT one-loop anomalous dimension matrix from Refs. [38-40] is correct.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of General form of effective operators from hidden sectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LITMFT5A
@misc{pith2026241215067,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: General form of effective operators from hidden sectors},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LITMFT5A}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15067}
}
read the original abstract
We perform a model-independent analysis of the dimension-six terms that are generated in the low energy effective theory when a hidden sector that communicates with the Standard Model (SM) through a specific portal operator is integrated out. We work within the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) framework and consider the Higgs, neutrino and hypercharge portals. We find that, for each portal, the forms of the leading dimension-six terms in the low-energy effective theory are fixed and independent of the dynamics in the hidden sector. For the Higgs portal, we find that two independent dimension-six terms are generated, one of which has a sign that, under certain conditions, is fixed by the requirement that the dynamics in the hidden sector be causal and unitary. In the case of the neutrino portal, for a single generation of SM fermions and assuming that the hidden sector does not violate lepton number, a unique dimension-six term is generated, which corresponds to a specific linear combination of operators in the Warsaw basis. For the hypercharge portal, a unique dimension-six term is generated, which again corresponds to a specific linear combination of operators in the Warsaw basis. For both the neutrino and hypercharge portals, under certain conditions, the signs of these terms are fixed by the requirement that the hidden sector be causal and unitary. We perform a global fit of these dimension-six terms to electroweak precision observables, Higgs measurements and diboson production data and determine the current bounds on their coefficients.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry,
Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, “The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (2006) 231802, [hep-ph/0506256]
arXiv 2006
-
[2]
Mirror world at the large hadron collider,
R. Barbieri, T. Gregoire, and L. J. Hall, “Mirror world at the large hadron collider,” hep-ph/0509242
-
[3]
Naturalness in the Dark at the LHC,
N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler, and R. Sundrum, “Naturalness in the Dark at the LHC,” JHEP 07 (2015) 105, [arXiv:1501.05310]
arXiv 2015
-
[4]
T. Cohen, N. Craig, G. F. Giudice, and M. Mccullough, “The Hyperbolic Higgs,”JHEP 05 (2018) 091, [arXiv:1803.03647]
arXiv 2018
-
[5]
Singlet Scalar Top Partners from Accidental Supersymmetry,
H.-C. Cheng, L. Li, E. Salvioni, and C. B. Verhaaren, “Singlet Scalar Top Partners from Accidental Supersymmetry,”JHEP 05 (2018) 057, [arXiv:1803.03651]
arXiv 2018
-
[6]
µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of109 Muon Decays?,
P. Minkowski, “µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of109 Muon Decays?,”Phys. Lett. B67 (1977) 421–428. – 23/26 –
work page 1977
-
[7]
Proceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theories,
T. Yanagida, “Proceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theories,”KEK Report79-18 (1979) 95
work page 1979
-
[8]
Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,
M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, “Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,”Conf. Proc. C790927 (1979) 315–321, [arXiv:1306.4669]
arXiv 1979
Show all 55 references
-
[9]
1979 Cargese Institute on Quarks and Leptons,
S. L. Glashow, “1979 Cargese Institute on Quarks and Leptons,”New York:Plenum(1980) 687
1980
-
[10]
Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,
R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.44 (1980) 912
1980
-
[11]
SCALAR PHANTOMS,
V. Silveira and A. Zee, “SCALAR PHANTOMS,”Phys. Lett. B161 (1985) 136–140
1985
-
[12]
Gauge singlet scalars as cold dark matter,
J. McDonald, “Gauge singlet scalars as cold dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 3637–3649, [hep-ph/0702143]
1994 arXiv
-
[13]
The Minimal model of nonbaryonic dark matter: A Singlet scalar,
C. P. Burgess, M. Pospelov, and T. ter Veldhuis, “The Minimal model of nonbaryonic dark matter: A Singlet scalar,”Nucl. Phys. B619 (2001) 709–728, [hep-ph/0011335]
2001 arXiv
-
[14]
Sterile-neutrinos as dark matter,
S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, “Sterile-neutrinos as dark matter,”Phys. Rev. Lett.72 (1994) 17–20, [hep-ph/9303287]
1994 arXiv
-
[15]
Secluded WIMP Dark Matter,
M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, “Secluded WIMP Dark Matter,”Phys. Lett. B 662 (2008) 53–61, [arXiv:0711.4866]
2008 arXiv
-
[16]
Thermal Relics in Hidden Sectors,
J. L. Feng, H. Tu, and H.-B. Yu, “Thermal Relics in Hidden Sectors,”JCAP 10 (2008) 043, [arXiv:0808.2318]
2008 arXiv
-
[17]
Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,
M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, “Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,”Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 45–47
1986
-
[18]
Baryogenesis via leptogenesis,
M. A. Luty, “Baryogenesis via leptogenesis,”Phys. Rev. D45 (1992) 455–465
1992
-
[19]
Twin mechanism for baryon and dark matter asymmetries,
M. Farina, A. Monteux, and C. S. Shin, “Twin mechanism for baryon and dark matter asymmetries,” Phys. Rev. D94 no. 3, (2016) 035017, [arXiv:1604.08211]
2016 arXiv
-
[20]
Twin cogenesis,
W.-Z. Feng and J.-H. Yu, “Twin cogenesis,”Commun. Theor. Phys.75 no. 4, (2023) 045201, [arXiv:2005.06471]
2023 arXiv
-
[21]
Twin quark dark matter from cogenesis,
C. Kilic, C. B. Verhaaren, and T. Youn, “Twin quark dark matter from cogenesis,”Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 11, (2021) 116018, [arXiv:2109.03248]
2021 arXiv
-
[22]
Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary,
J. de Blas, J. C. Criado, M. Perez-Victoria, and J. Santiago, “Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary,”JHEP 03 (2018) 109, [arXiv:1711.10391]
2018 arXiv
-
[23]
Top, Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Fit to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,
J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz, and T. You, “Top, Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Fit to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,”JHEP 04 (2021) 279, [arXiv:2012.02779]
2021 arXiv
-
[24]
Putting standard model EFT fits to work,
S. Dawson, S. Homiller, and S. D. Lane, “Putting standard model EFT fits to work,”Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 5, (2020) 055012, [arXiv:2007.01296]
2020 arXiv
-
[25]
Non-universal probes of composite Higgs models: new bounds and prospects for FCC-ee,
B. A. Stefanek, “Non-universal probes of composite Higgs models: new bounds and prospects for FCC-ee,”JHEP 09 (2024) 103, [arXiv:2407.09593]
2024 arXiv
-
[26]
Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,
B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,”JHEP 10 (2010) 085, [arXiv:1008.4884]
2010 arXiv
-
[27]
Two-component spinor techniques and Feynman rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry,
H. K. Dreiner, H. E. Haber, and S. P. Martin, “Two-component spinor techniques and Feynman rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry,”Phys. Rept. 494 (2010) 1–196, [arXiv:0812.1594]
2010 arXiv
-
[28]
Electroweak symmetry breaking after LEP-1 and LEP-2,
R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, and A. Strumia, “Electroweak symmetry breaking after LEP-1 and LEP-2,”Nucl. Phys. B703 (2004) 127–146, [hep-ph/0405040]
2004 arXiv
-
[29]
Effective theories of universal theories,
J. D. Wells and Z. Zhang, “Effective theories of universal theories,”JHEP 01 (2016) 123, [arXiv:1510.08462]
2016 arXiv
-
[30]
The Strongly-Interacting Light – 24/26 – Higgs,
G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol, and R. Rattazzi, “The Strongly-Interacting Light – 24/26 – Higgs,” JHEP 06 (2007) 045, [hep-ph/0703164]
2007 arXiv
-
[31]
Theoretical Constraints on the Higgs Effective Couplings,
I. Low, R. Rattazzi, and A. Vichi, “Theoretical Constraints on the Higgs Effective Couplings,” JHEP 04 (2010) 126, [arXiv:0907.5413]
2010 arXiv
-
[32]
Consistency of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,
G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, “Consistency of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,” JHEP 12 (2019) 032, [arXiv:1908.09845]
2019 arXiv
-
[33]
Convex Geometry Perspective on the (Standard Model) Effective Field Theory Space,
C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, “Convex Geometry Perspective on the (Standard Model) Effective Field Theory Space,”Phys. Rev. Lett.125 no. 20, (2020) 201601, [arXiv:2005.03047]
2020 arXiv
-
[34]
Snowmass White Paper: UV Constraints on IR Physics,
C. de Rham, S. Kundu, M. Reece, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Snowmass White Paper: UV Constraints on IR Physics,” inSnowmass 2021. 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.06805
2021 arXiv
-
[35]
Boundaries of Universal Theories,
M. McCullough, M. Riembau, and L. Ricci, “Boundaries of Universal Theories,” arXiv:2312.03834
-
[36]
A brief Introduction to Dispersion Relations and Analyticity,
R. Zwicky, “A brief Introduction to Dispersion Relations and Analyticity,” inQuantum Field Theory at the Limits: from Strong Fields to Heavy Quarks, pp. 93–120. 2017. arXiv:1610.06090
2017 arXiv
-
[37]
HEPfit: a code for the combination of indirect and direct constraints on high energy physics models,
J. De Blaset al., “HEPfit: a code for the combination of indirect and direct constraints on high energy physics models,”Eur. Phys. J. C80 no. 5, (2020) 456, [arXiv:1910.14012]
2020 arXiv
-
[38]
Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators I: Formalism and lambda Dependence,
E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, “Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators I: Formalism and lambda Dependence,”JHEP 10 (2013) 087, [arXiv:1308.2627]
2013 arXiv
-
[39]
Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence,
E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, “Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence,”JHEP 01 (2014) 035, [arXiv:1310.4838]
2014 arXiv
-
[40]
Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology,
R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, “Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology,” JHEP 04 (2014) 159, [arXiv:1312.2014]
2014 arXiv
-
[41]
Precision electroweak measurements on theZ resonance,
ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OP AL, SLD, LEP Electroweak W orking Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group Collaboration, S. Schaelet al., “Precision electroweak measurements on theZ resonance,” Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257–454, [hep-ex/0509008]
2006 arXiv
-
[42]
Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to80 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,
A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to80 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,”Phys. Rev. D101 no. 1, (2020) 012002, [arXiv:1909.02845]
2020 arXiv
-
[43]
Combined Higgs boson production and decay measurements with up to 137 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV,
CMS Collaboration, “Combined Higgs boson production and decay measurements with up to 137 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV,”CMS-PAS-HIG-19-005 (2020)
2020
-
[44]
Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from single- and double-Higgs production with the ATLAS detector using pp collisions at s=13 TeV,
A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from single- and double-Higgs production with the ATLAS detector using pp collisions at s=13 TeV,”Phys. Lett. B843 (2023) 137745, [arXiv:2211.01216]
2023 arXiv
-
[45]
Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP,
ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OP AL, LEP Electroweak Collaboration, S. Schaelet al., “Electroweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP,” Phys. Rept. 532 (2013) 119–244, [arXiv:1302.3415]
2013 arXiv
-
[46]
Combination of CDF and D0W-Boson Mass Measurements,
CDF, D0 Collaboration, T. A. Aaltonenet al., “Combination of CDF and D0W-Boson Mass Measurements,”Phys. Rev. D88 no. 5, (2013) 052018, [arXiv:1307.7627]
2013 arXiv
-
[47]
Measurement of the W-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV,
A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Measurement of the W-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV,”arXiv:2403.15085
-
[48]
Measurement of the W boson mass in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,
CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the W boson mass in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,”CMS-PAS-SMP-23-002 (2024)
2024
-
[49]
Measurement of theW +W − production cross section in pp collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS – 25/26 – experiment,
A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboudet al., “Measurement of theW +W − production cross section in pp collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS – 25/26 – experiment,” Phys. Lett. B773 (2017) 354–374, [arXiv:1702.04519]
2017 arXiv
-
[50]
Measurements of the pp→ WZ inclusive and differential production cross section and constraints on charged anomalous triple gauge couplings at √s = 13 TeV,
CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyanet al., “Measurements of the pp→ WZ inclusive and differential production cross section and constraints on charged anomalous triple gauge couplings at √s = 13 TeV,”JHEP 04 (2019) 122, [arXiv:1901.03428]
2019 arXiv
-
[51]
Search for anomalous triple gauge couplings in WW and WZ production in lepton + jet events in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,
CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyanet al., “Search for anomalous triple gauge couplings in WW and WZ production in lepton + jet events in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV,” JHEP 12 (2019) 062, [arXiv:1907.08354]
2019 arXiv
-
[52]
Measurement ofW ±Z production cross sections and gauge boson polarisation inpp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboudet al., “Measurement ofW ±Z production cross sections and gauge boson polarisation inpp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C79 no. 6, (2019) 535, [arXiv:1902.05759]
2019 arXiv
-
[53]
High-precision measurement of theW boson mass with the CDF II detector,
CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonenet al., “High-precision measurement of theW boson mass with the CDF II detector,”Science 376 no. 6589, (2022) 170–176
2022
-
[54]
On the W&Y interpretation of high-energy Drell-Yan measurements,
R. Torre, L. Ricci, and A. Wulzer, “On the W&Y interpretation of high-energy Drell-Yan measurements,” JHEP 02 (2021) 144, [arXiv:2008.12978]
2021 arXiv
-
[55]
M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to quantum field theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995. – 26/26 –
1995
Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.