Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Implications of Recent Experimental & Theoretical Results on Electroweak Precision Tests

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Standard Model remains fully consistent with electroweak precision data once first-order radiative corrections are included, if the CDF W-mass anomaly is set aside and a recent lattice QCD value resolves the muon g-2 tension.

desk verdict A transparent, useful proceedings review of the EW precision status; the only genuinely new number is an updated M_Z average, and the central claim of SM consistency is conditional on excluding CDF's W mass. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03457 v1 pith:W4QZ2FU7 submitted 2025-05-06 hep-ph

Jens Erler This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords electroweakprecisiontestsStandardModelglobalfitweakmixingangleWbosonmassmuong-2hadronicvacuumpolarizationlatticeQCDCDFanomaly
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

After half a century of electroweak precision tests, this paper argues that the Standard Model is correct to leading order and fully consistent with all relevant experimental observations once first-order radiative corrections are included. The argument is carried by a global electroweak fit that combines Z-pole observables, W boson mass and width, top and Higgs masses, low-energy parity-violating scattering, and the scale dependence of the electromagnetic and weak couplings. The two anomalies that once suggested new physics are neutralized: the CDF W-boson mass result, about 7 sigma above the world average, is excluded from the fit, and a recent lattice QCD calculation of hadronic vacuum polarization lowers the muon g-2 discrepancy to 2.4 sigma. If the fit is right, there is still no conclusive evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the global electroweak fit built on the tree-level relation $\sin^2\theta_W = 1 - M_W^2/M_Z^2 = \pi\alpha/(\sqrt{2}G_F M_W^2)$, corrected by radiative parameters $\Delta\hat{\rho}$, $\Delta\hat{r}$, and $\Delta\hat{k}$; the paper calls this relation the heart of any electroweak fit. The fit over-constrains the Standard Model by combining four categories of data: Z-pole lineshape and asymmetry observables, high-energy W and top quark measurements, intermediate-energy inputs such as quark masses and the strong coupling, and low-energy parity-violating electron scattering. Hadronic vacuum polarization enters the same machinery through the running of the electromagnetic coupling, the running of the weak mixing angle, and the muon g-2, creating correlations among otherwise independent observables; replacing data-driven inputs with a theory-driven lattice QCD evaluation shifts the Standard Model predictions for $M_W$ by 2.7 MeV and $M_H$ by 7.0 GeV. This correlated machinery is what allows the review to absorb the remaining tensions as known measurement or calculation issues.

What would settle it

A future W-boson mass measurement with few-MeV precision that reproduces the high CDF central value, or a data-driven reevaluation of hadronic vacuum polarization that pushes the muon g-2 discrepancy back above 5 sigma, would show that the claimed full Standard Model consistency is not correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Standard Model is correct to leading order and fully consistent with all relevant electroweak observations when first-order radiative corrections are taken into account. The global electroweak fit has very good quality, with $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom of $49.5/47$, corresponding to a 37% probability for a larger $\chi^2$. The previously prominent tensions in the W boson mass and the muon anomalous magnetic moment are attributed to an incompatible CDF measurement and to improved hadronic vacuum polarization input from lattice QCD, respectively. The paper concludes that there is still no conclusive evidence for beyond-Standard-Model physics from electroweak precision tests.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the CDF W-boson mass measurement, about 7 sigma above the fit, is wrong and can be excluded from the world average, together with acceptance of the new lattice QCD hadronic vacuum polarization value that reduces the muon g-2 discrepancy to 2.4 sigma.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the global electroweak fit is correct, new physics must either couple very weakly or appear only at energy scales beyond current reach; no Z' boson, dark Z, or four-fermion contact interaction is required to explain present data.
  • The CDF W-boson mass measurement, about 7 sigma above the world average excluding it, should not be used as a constraint in Standard Model tests; future W-mass measurements from other processes or colliders must decide whether the anomaly is real.
  • The Standard Model prediction for the muon g-2, updated with the new lattice QCD hadronic vacuum polarization, agrees with experiment at the 2.4 sigma level, so the muon g-2 is not currently conclusive evidence for new physics.
  • Low-energy parity-violating electron scattering measurements of the weak mixing angle become one of the sharpest routes to new physics, since beyond-Standard-Model four-fermion amplitudes are suppressed at the Z pole but can appear at low momentum transfer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the paper's conclusion is conditional on a measurement-selection judgment. If the CDF W-mass result is actually correct, the Standard Model would fail the global fit by roughly 7 sigma; a future independent W-mass measurement with few-MeV precision would settle this directly.
  • Editorial inference: the reliance on the new lattice QCD hadronic vacuum polarization result means the claimed consistency with the muon g-2 depends on that calculation surviving scrutiny; a data-driven reevaluation that rules out the lattice value would restore a larger g-2 discrepancy.
  • Editorial inference: because hadronic vacuum polarization correlates the running of alpha, the low-energy weak mixing angle, and the muon g-2, a future high-precision low-energy weak mixing angle measurement would indirectly sharpen the W-mass and g-2 predictions, effectively making future ultra-precise parity-violating electron scattering experiments low-energy probes of the same new physics para
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This proceedings article reviews the current status of electroweak precision tests. It summarizes the landscape of weak mixing angle determinations from Z-pole, Tevatron, LHC, and fixed-target experiments; reports new world averages for MZ and MW that exclude the CDF MW result; presents global electroweak fit results for mt, MH, S, and T; and discusses hadronic vacuum polarization effects on the running of the electromagnetic coupling, the running of the weak mixing angle, and the muon anomalous magnetic moment, including recent BMW and Mainz lattice results. The central claim, stated in Section 1 and reiterated in Section 4, is that the Standard Model is correct at tree level and fully consistent with all relevant experimental observations once first-order corrections are taken into account, with no conclusive evidence for beyond-Standard-Model physics.

Significance. If correct, the paper's conclusion consolidates the Standard Model as the valid low-energy electroweak theory and interprets the CDF W-mass result as a measurement problem. The review is valuable as a compact and current compendium of the weak mixing angle landscape, and it is transparent in reporting the CDF exclusion and the spread in hadronic vacuum polarization evaluations. A genuinely new element is the theory-driven running of the weak mixing angle from lattice QCD, which is presented as a first. The main significance is conditional: the 'no conclusive BSM evidence' verdict depends on two data-selection choices, namely excluding the CDF MW determination and adopting the BMW lattice evaluation for hadronic vacuum polarization, both of which are community choices rather than results internally derived in this paper.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (4)-(5); Sections 1 and 4] The central conclusion that the SM is 'fully consistent' and that there is 'no conclusive evidence for BSM physics' is load-bearing on the exclusion of the CDF MW determination. Equation (5) adopts MW = 80.360 ± 0.012 GeV excluding CDF [43], while CDF quotes MW = 80.4335 ± 0.0094 GeV, about 7σ above the global fit in Eq. (4). As written, the conclusion does not distinguish a SM-consistent universe from a data-selection rule. The manuscript should either quantify the alternative fit that includes CDF (for example, by reporting the resulting χ2 degradation and fitted MW) or explicitly state in the abstract and conclusion that the verdict is conditional on the LHC-TeV MW Working Group recommendation to exclude CDF. Without one of these additions, the strength of the claim exceeds what the presented analysis supports.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 7; Section 4] The statement in Section 3 that the BMW update [61] 'indicates good agreement between the SM prediction and the measurement' and the characterization of the g-2 discrepancy as a 'moderate 2.4σ' in Section 4 understate the spread among data-driven evaluations. As Figure 7 itself shows, the KLOE/BaBar data-driven HVP evaluations imply a ~3.2σ discrepancy, and the BMW lattice result is still under community scrutiny. Since the 'no conclusive BSM evidence' verdict partly rests on adopting the 2.4σ value, the text should present the data-driven and lattice-driven determinations symmetrically and state explicitly which evaluation is used in the final conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, paragraph after Fig. 3] The phrase 'Our combination [7] of these two channels' is ambiguous because Ref. [7] is the PDG review, not this paper's own analysis. Please rephrase to 'the combination in Ref. [7]' or identify clearly which combination the author performed.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The notation sin^2θ^ell_W / (1 + Δk-hat) is unclear: it should be specified whether (1 + Δk-hat) multiplies the left-hand side or stands in the denominator, and the relation of this effective leptonic angle to the MS-bar angle used in Figure 2 should be stated.
  3. [Eq. (14)] The lower bound (2 GeV)^2 is surprisingly small and no sign convention for Δm_i^2 is given. Please specify how the sum over doublets is defined, including the extra factor of 2 for vector-like fermion doublets, and state whether the bound applies to the absolute value of the mass-squared splitting.
  4. [Section 2, new MZ world average] The new world average MZ = 91.1880 ± 0.0020 GeV is presented without stating the correlation treatment between the CDF di-muon and di-electron channels and between CDF and the LEP combination; please cite the combination method or provide the correlation matrix.
  5. [Figure 7 caption] The horizontal axis label '109 a_mu - 1165900' should read '10^9 a_mu - 1165900'; the superscript formatting has been lost.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review is transparent about its data choices and its central SM-consistency claim rests on independent datasets and external calculations.

full rationale

This is a review of a global electroweak fit rather than an original derivation, and I find no step in which a claimed prediction reduces by construction to its own input. The central statement that the SM is consistent is supported by many independent experimental datasets (LEP, SLC, Tevatron, LHC, E158, Qweak) and by external global-fit machinery (PDG [7] and the LHC-TeV MW Working Group [49]). The treatment of the CDF W-mass result is the only significant judgment call, but the paper is explicit about it: it quotes the world average 'excluding the CDF constraint (which is recommended by the LHC-TeV MW Working Group [49])' and labels the global-fit value as 'obtained when excluding the CDF result [43]'. This is a transparent data-selection decision delegated to an external working group, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction or a result forced by definition. If CDF were included the fit would change, but that is a robustness or data-selection concern, not circularity. The muon g-2 discussion likewise relies on external lattice QCD calculations (BMW and Mainz) that are independent of the measured anomaly; adopting those inputs changes the SM prediction, but the paper is explicit that the shift is driven by those new theoretical results. The author's self-citations (e.g., [34] for the theory-driven running of the weak mixing angle) are used to report context and figures, but the SM-consistency verdict does not rest on them. Eq. (2) is the standard SM relation with radiative corrections, and the indirect determinations of m_t, M_H, S, and T are ordinary fit outputs from data that exclude those very quantities, which is the opposite of circular. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and its limitations are openly stated.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review does not introduce new physical entities. Its judgments rest on the Standard Model framework, on the community recommendation to exclude the CDF W mass measurement, and on the validity of competing (lattice and dispersion-relation) hadronic vacuum polarization evaluations. The fitted outputs of the global fits are standard SM parameters, not ad hoc adjustments.

free parameters (4)
  • Top quark mass (indirect) = 175.2 ± 1.8 GeV
    Output of a global EW fit excluding direct top mass measurements (Eq. 8); this value feeds into the MW prediction and supports the SM consistency claim.
  • Higgs mass (indirect) = 97 +18 -16 GeV
    Output of a global EW fit excluding direct Higgs measurements (Eq. 10); it is 1.6 sigma below the LHC value, which the paper interprets as statistical.
  • Oblique parameter S = -0.05 ± 0.07
    From a fit allowing S and T (Eq. 12); consistency with zero is used as evidence against new physics.
  • Oblique parameter T = 0.00 ± 0.06
    From the same fit (Eq. 13); strongly correlated with S, used to constrain new physics mass splittings.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model is the correct framework, including tree-level relations (Eq. 1) and radiative corrections (Eq. 2).
    Invoked throughout; if the SM were incomplete, the interpretation of the weak mixing angle, W mass, and global fit would change.
  • domain assumption The CDF MW measurement is excluded from world averages and global fits, following the LHC-TeV MW Working Group recommendation.
    Load-bearing for the conclusion that the SM is fully consistent; if CDF were included, the fit would be poor (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Lattice QCD evaluations of hadronic vacuum polarization (BMW, Mainz) are valid and can be combined with data-driven evaluations.
    The reduction of the muon g-2 discrepancy to 2.4 sigma relies on the BMW update (Ref [61]), which is not universally accepted.
  • domain assumption The dispersion-relation (data-driven) approach for hadronic vacuum polarization is valid when used for comparison.
    The paper contrasts data-driven and lattice results; both rely on standard QCD assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Implications of Recent Experimental & Theoretical Results on Electroweak Precision Tests." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4QZ2FU7

@misc{pith2026250503457,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Implications of Recent Experimental & Theoretical Results on Electroweak Precision Tests},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4QZ2FU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03457}
}
read the original abstract

I review the results of a recent global fit to electroweak precision data. Particular attention is devoted to the landscape of determinations of the weak mixing angle, recent results on basic properties of the electroweak gauge bosons, and the implications of vacuum polarization on the scale dependences of the electromagnetic coupling and the weak mixing angle, as well as the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03457 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Determinations of the weak mixing angle sin2 𝜃 ℓ 𝑊 (assuming leptin universality) from the 𝑍 boson factories LEP and SLC [4] (in blue), from CDF and DØ at the 𝑝𝑝¯ collider Tevatron [15] (in black), from ATLAS [16, 17], CMS [18, 19] and LHCb [20] at the proton collider LHC (in gray), as well as from fixed target experiments in parity-violating electron scattering from E158 [21] at SLAC and Qweak [22] at Jefferson Lab… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Determinations of the weak mixing angle sin2 𝜃ˆ𝑊 (𝜇) in the MS scheme as a function of the renormalization scale 𝜇, compared to the SM prediction [32, 33]. The collider results are all taken close to the 𝑍 peak but have been displaced for clarity, so they should be shifted horizontally back to 𝜇 = 𝑀𝑍, as indicated. Very recently, the first purely theoretical evaluation of the running [34], i.e., without experimental… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Determinations of 𝑀𝑍 [GeV]. Shown are the measurements by the four individual experimental groups (general purpose detectors) at LEP (in blue), and the result obtained by CDF (in black). The combination and the result of the global EW fit are also shown (in red). types of new physics [26], such as a heavy 𝑍 ′ boson [39]. Thus, the comparison of on- vs. off 𝑍-pole determinations could uncover such four-fermion amplit… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Determinations of 𝑀𝑊 [GeV]. The LEP 2 result [44] is the combination of the 𝑊∗𝑊− threshold scan with the dominant kinematic reconstruction measurements (in blue). The entries labeled CDF [43], DØ [45], ATLAS [46], and LHCb [47], show the original results (see Ref. [48]…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Determinations of Γ𝑊 [GeV]. The entries [51] labeled CDF and DØ show the original results. Since these have been obtained relative to fixed and outdated values of 𝑀𝑊, we have also computed adjusted values using 𝑀𝑊 from ATLAS [50] instead. The first (second) of the comb…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Current 1 𝜎 constraints in 𝑀𝑊 vs. 𝑚𝑡 . The purple ellipse is obtained by fixing Γ𝑊 to the SM prediction and excluding the CDF result [43], while the open ellipse is for Γ𝑊 free. The green contour corresponds to the indirect SM prediction by all other constraints. The f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Predictions (in red) and measurements (in blue) of the muon anomalous magnetic moment 𝑎𝜇. As can be seen, the experimental results from CERN [62], BNL [63], and FNAL [36] have been remarkably stable over time, while the SM predictions varied well outside their nominal …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: contours for Δ𝜒 2 = 1 (dashed) and Δ𝜒 2 = 4 (solid) in the Δ𝛼 (5) (𝑀𝑍) vs. sin2 𝜃ˆ𝑊 (0) plane, using 𝑅-ratio data (cherry red, lower left) and lattice results from BMW (blue, center) and Mainz [65] (green, upper right) as inputs. The yellow vertical band represen…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    Aaltonenet al.[CDF], High-precision measurement of the𝑊 boson mass with the CDF II detector,Science 376 (2022), 170

    T. Aaltonenet al.[CDF], High-precision measurement of the𝑊 boson mass with the CDF II detector,Science 376 (2022), 170. 14 Electroweak Precision Tests Jens Erler

    work page 2022

  2. [61]

    Boccalettiet al., High precision calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contri- bution to the muon anomaly, [arXiv:2407.10913 [hep-lat]]

    A. Boccalettiet al., High precision calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contri- bution to the muon anomaly, [arXiv:2407.10913 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  3. [1]

    S. L. Glashow,Partial symmetries of weak interactions, Nucl. Phys.22 (1961), 579

    work page 1961

  4. [2]

    Weinberg,A model of leptons,Phys

    S. Weinberg,A model of leptons,Phys. Rev. Lett.19 (1967), 1264

    work page 1967

  5. [3]

    Gorchtein and C

    M. Gorchtein and C. Y. Seng,Superallowed nuclear beta decays and precision tests of the StandardModel,Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 74(2024),23 [arXiv:2311.00044 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [4]

    Schaelet al.[ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD ElectroweakGroupandSLDHeavyFlavourGroup], Precisionelectroweakmeasurementson the𝑍 resonance,Phys

    S. Schaelet al.[ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD ElectroweakGroupandSLDHeavyFlavourGroup], Precisionelectroweakmeasurementson the𝑍 resonance,Phys. Rept.427(2006), 257[arXiv:hep-ex/0509008]

    arXiv 2006

  7. [5]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass from the H→𝛾𝛾 and H→ZZ*→4ℓ decay channels with the ATLAS detector using√𝑠 = 7, 8, and 13 TeV𝑝𝑝 collision data,Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass from the H→𝛾𝛾 and H→ZZ*→4ℓ decay channels with the ATLAS detector using√𝑠 = 7, 8, and 13 TeV𝑝𝑝 collision data,Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023), 251802[arXiv:2308.04775 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four leptons final state, CMS PAS HIG-21-019

    work page

Show all 71 references
  1. [7]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group],Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group],Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024), 030001

    2024

  2. [8]

    K. S. Kumar, S. Mantry, W. J. Marciano and P. A. Souder,Low energy measurements of the weak mixing angle, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63 (2013), 237 [arXiv:1302.6263 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [9]

    C. N. Yang and R. L. Mills,Conservation of isotopic spin and isotopic gauge invariance, Phys. Rev.96(1954), 191

    1954

  4. [10]

    Fermi,Attempt of a theory of beta radiation

    E. Fermi,Attempt of a theory of beta radiation. I.,Z. Phys.88(1934), 161

    1934

  5. [11]

    W. F.L. Hollik,Radiative correctionsin the Standard Modeland their role forprecision tests of the electroweak theory,Fortsch. Phys.38(1990), 165

    1990

  6. [12]

    Gambino and A

    P. Gambino and A. Sirlin,Relation betweensin2 ˆ𝜃𝑊(𝑚𝑍) and sin2𝜃lept eff , Phys. Rev. D49(1994), 1160[arXiv:hep-ph/9309326]. 12 Electroweak Precision Tests Jens Erler

    1994 arXiv

  7. [13]

    M. J. G. Veltman,Limit on mass differences in the Weinberg model, Nucl. Phys. B123(1977), 89

    1977

  8. [14]

    Sirlin,Role ofsin2𝜃𝑊(𝑚𝑍) at the𝑍0 peak,Phys

    A. Sirlin,Role ofsin2𝜃𝑊(𝑚𝑍) at the𝑍0 peak,Phys. Lett. B232 (1989), 123

    1989

  9. [15]

    [CDFandDØ], TevatronRunIIcombinationoftheeffectiveleptonicelec- troweak mixing angle,Phys

    T.A.Aaltonen etal. [CDFandDØ], TevatronRunIIcombinationoftheeffectiveleptonicelec- troweak mixing angle,Phys. Rev. D97(2018), 112007[arXiv:1801.06283 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [16]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Measurement of the forward-backward asymmetry of electron and muon pair-production in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 7 TeVwith the ATLAS detector, JHEP 09 (2015), 049[arXiv:1503.03709 [hep-ex]] and references thereto

    2015 arXiv

  11. [17]

    ATLASCollaboration, Measurementoftheeffectiveleptonicweakmixingangleusingelectron and muon pairs from𝑍-boson decay in the ATLAS experiment at√𝑠= 8 TeV, ATLAS-CONF-2018-037

    2018

  12. [18]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al. [CMS], Measurement of the weak mixing angle using the forward- backward asymmetry of Drell-Yan events in pp collisions at 8TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018), 701[arXiv:1806.00863 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [19]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Measurement of the Drell–Yan forward-backward asymmetry and of the effective leptonic weak mixing angle in proton-proton collisions at√𝑠 = 13 TeV, [arXiv:2408.07622 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  14. [20]

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Measurement of the forward-backward asymmetry in𝑍/𝛾∗→ 𝜇+𝜇− decays and determination of the effective weak mixing angle, JHEP 11 (2015), 190[arXiv:1509.07645 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [21]

    [SLACE158], PrecisionmeasurementoftheweakmixingangleinMoller scattering,Phys

    P.L.Anthony etal. [SLACE158], PrecisionmeasurementoftheweakmixingangleinMoller scattering,Phys. Rev. Lett.95(2005), 081601[arXiv:hep-ex/0504049]

    2005 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Androićet al.[Qweak],Precision measurement of the weak charge of the proton, Nature 557 (2018), 207[arXiv:1905.08283 [nucl-ex]]

    D. Androićet al.[Qweak],Precision measurement of the weak charge of the proton, Nature 557 (2018), 207[arXiv:1905.08283 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Z.S.Demiroglu[MOLLER], TheMOLLERexperiment: anultra-precisemeasurementofthe weak mixing angle using Møller scattering, PoS SPIN2023(2024), 141

    2024

  18. [24]

    Beckeret al.[P2],The P2 experiment, Eur

    D. Beckeret al.[P2],The P2 experiment, Eur. Phys. J. A54(2018), 208[arXiv:1802.04759 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [25]

    W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin,Radiative corrections to atomic parity violation, Phys. Rev. D27(1983), 552

    1983

  20. [26]

    Erler, A

    J. Erler, A. Kurylov and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf,Weak charge of the proton and new physics, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003), 016006[arXiv:hep-ph/0302149]

    2003 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Gorchtein and C

    M. Gorchtein and C. J. Horowitz,Dispersion gamma Z-box correction to the weak charge of the proton, Phys. Rev. Lett.102 (2009), 091806[arXiv:0811.0614 [hep-ph]] . 13 Electroweak Precision Tests Jens Erler

    2009 arXiv

  22. [28]

    C. Y. Prescottet al.[SLAC E122],Parity nonconservation in inelastic electron scattering, Phys. Lett. B77(1978), 347

    1978

  23. [29]

    Wanget al.[PVDIS], Measurement of parity violation in electron–quark scattering, Nature 506 (2014), 67

    D. Wanget al.[PVDIS], Measurement of parity violation in electron–quark scattering, Nature 506 (2014), 67

    2014

  24. [30]

    Tian [SoLID],Parity violation in DIS region with SoLID at JLab 12 GeV, PoS SPIN2023(2024), 137

    Y. Tian [SoLID],Parity violation in DIS region with SoLID at JLab 12 GeV, PoS SPIN2023(2024), 137

    2024

  25. [31]

    Erler, C

    J. Erler, C. J. Horowitz, S. Mantry and P. A. Souder,Weak polarized electron scattering, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.64(2014), 269[arXiv:1401.6199 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Erler and M

    J. Erler and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf,Weak mixing angle at low energies, Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 073003[arXiv:hep-ph/0409169]

    2005 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Erler and R

    J. Erler and R. Ferro-Hernández,Weak mixing angle in the Thomson limit, JHEP 03 (2018), 196[arXiv:1712.09146 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Erler, R

    J. Erler, R. Ferro-Hernández and S. Kuberski,Theory-driven evolution of the weak mixing angle, Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (2024), 171801[arXiv:2406.16691 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Davieret al., Hadronic vacuum polarization: comparing lattice QCD and data-driven results in systematically improvable ways, Phys

    M. Davieret al., Hadronic vacuum polarization: comparing lattice QCD and data-driven results in systematically improvable ways, Phys. Rev. D109(2024), 076019[arXiv:2308.04221 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [36]

    D. P. Aguillardet al.[Muon g-2],Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic momentto0.20ppm ,Phys.Rev.Lett. 131(2023),161802 [arXiv:2308.06230 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  31. [37]

    Aoyamaet al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model, Phys

    T. Aoyamaet al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model, Phys. Rept.887 (2020), 1[arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Czarnecki and W

    A. Czarnecki and W. J. Marciano,Polarized Møller scattering asymmetries, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15(2000), 2365[arXiv:hep-ph/0003049 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Erler, P

    J. Erler, P. Langacker, S. Munir and E. Rojas,Improved constraints on𝑍′ bosons from electroweak precision data, JHEP 08(2009), 017[arXiv:0906.2435 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Davoudiasl, H

    H. Davoudiasl, H. S. Lee and W. J. Marciano,Muon anomaly and dark parity violation, Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (2012), 031802[arXiv:1205.2709 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [41]

    D. M. Webberet al.[MuLan], Measurement of the positive muon lifetime and determination of the Fermi constant to part-per-million precision, Phys. Rev. Lett.106 (2011), 041803[arXiv:1010.0991 [hep-ex]]

    2011 arXiv

  36. [42]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi,New constraint on a strongly interacting Higgs sector, Phys. Rev. Lett.65(1990), 964

    1990

  37. [44]

    Schaelet al.[ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and LEP Electroweak Working Group],Elec- troweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP, Phys

    S. Schaelet al.[ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and LEP Electroweak Working Group],Elec- troweak Measurements in Electron-Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP, Phys. Rept.532 (2013), 119,[arXiv:1302.3415 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  38. [45]

    V. M. Abazovet al.[DØ], Measurement of the W Boson Mass with the DØ Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.108 (2012), 151804[arXiv:1203.0293 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  39. [46]

    [ATLAS],Measurementofthe 𝑊-bosonmassinppcollisionsat √𝑠= 7TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur

    M.Aaboud etal. [ATLAS],Measurementofthe 𝑊-bosonmassinppcollisionsat √𝑠= 7TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018), 110[arXiv:1701.07240 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Measurement of the W boson mass, JHEP 01 (2022), 036[arXiv:2109.01113 [hep-ex]]

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

    2022

  41. [48]

    T. A. Aaltonenet al.[CDF and DØ],Combination of CDF and DØ𝑊-boson mass measure- ments, Phys. Rev. D88(2013), 052018[arXiv:1307.7627 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [49]

    [LHC-TeVMWWorkingGroup], CompatibilityandcombinationofworldW- bosonmassmeasurements ,Eur.Phys.J.C 84(2024),451 [arXiv:2308.09417 [hep-ex]]

    S.Amoroso etal. [LHC-TeVMWWorkingGroup], CompatibilityandcombinationofworldW- bosonmassmeasurements ,Eur.Phys.J.C 84(2024),451 [arXiv:2308.09417 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  43. [50]

    [ATLAS],MeasurementoftheW-bosonmassandwidthwiththeATLASdetector using proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 7 TeV, Eur

    G.Aad etal. [ATLAS],MeasurementoftheW-bosonmassandwidthwiththeATLASdetector using proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 7 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024), 1309[arXiv:2403.15085 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Tevatron Electroweak Working Group,Combination of CDF and DØ results on the width of the W boson, [arXiv:1003.2826 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  45. [52]

    Bozzi, L

    G. Bozzi, L. Citelli, M. Vesterinen and A. Vicini,Prospects for improving the LHC W boson massmeasurementwithforwardmuons ,Eur.Phys.J.C 75(2015),601 [arXiv:1508.06954 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [53]

    CDF and DØ Collaborations,Combination of CDF and DØ results on the mass of the top quark using up9.7 fb−1 at the Tevatron, [arXiv:1608.01881 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  47. [54]

    Hayrapetyanet al.[ATLAS and CMS],Combination of measurements of the top quark mass from data collected by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at√𝑠= 7 and 8TeV, Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[ATLAS and CMS],Combination of measurements of the top quark mass from data collected by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at√𝑠= 7 and 8TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024), 261902[arXiv:2402.08713 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Marquard, A

    P. Marquard, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser,Quark mass relations to four-loop order in perturbative QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.114 (2015), 142002[arXiv:1502.01030 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [56]

    [KLOE],Measurementof 𝜎(𝑒+𝑒−→𝜋+𝜋−) fromthresholdto0.85 GeV2 using initial state radiation with the KLOE detector, Phys

    F.Ambrosino etal. [KLOE],Measurementof 𝜎(𝑒+𝑒−→𝜋+𝜋−) fromthresholdto0.85 GeV2 using initial state radiation with the KLOE detector, Phys. Lett. B700 (2011), 102[arXiv:1006.5313 [hep-ex]]

    2011 arXiv

  50. [57]

    [CMD-3],Measurementofthe 𝑒+𝑒−→𝜋+𝜋− crosssectionfromthreshold to 1.2GeVwith the CMD-3 detector, Phys

    F.V.Ignatov etal. [CMD-3],Measurementofthe 𝑒+𝑒−→𝜋+𝜋− crosssectionfromthreshold to 1.2GeVwith the CMD-3 detector, Phys. Rev. D109(2024), 112002[arXiv:2302.08834 [hep-ex]] . 15 Electroweak Precision Tests Jens Erler

    2024

  51. [58]

    [BaBar],Precisemeasurementofthe 𝑒+𝑒−→𝜋+𝜋−(𝛾) crosssectionwiththe initial state radiation method at BABAR, Phys

    B.Aubert etal. [BaBar],Precisemeasurementofthe 𝑒+𝑒−→𝜋+𝜋−(𝛾) crosssectionwiththe initial state radiation method at BABAR, Phys. Rev. Lett.103 (2009), 231801[arXiv:0908.3589 [hep-ex]]

    2009 arXiv

  52. [59]

    M.Davier,A.Hoecker,A.M.Lutz,B.MalaescuandZ.Zhang, Tensionsin 𝑒+𝑒−→𝜋+𝜋−(𝛾) measurements: the new landscape of data-driven hadronic vacuum polarization predictions for the muon𝑔− 2, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024), 721[arXiv:2312.02053 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Borsanyiet al., Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD, Nature 593 (2021), 51[arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat]]

    S. Borsanyiet al., Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD, Nature 593 (2021), 51[arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat]]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Bailey et al

    J. Bailey et al. [CERN-Mainz-Daresbury], Final report on the CERN muon storage ring including the anomalous magnetic moment and the electric dipole moment of the muon, and a direct test of relativistic time dilation, Nucl. Phys. B150 (1979), 1

    1979

  55. [63]

    G. W. Bennettet al.[Muon g-2],Final report of the muon E821 anomalous magnetic mo- ment measurement at BNL, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006), 072003 [arXiv:hep-ex/0602035 [hep-ex]]

    2006 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Erler and G

    J. Erler and G. Toledo Sanchez,Upper bound on the hadronic light-by-light contribution to the muon g-2, Phys. Rev. Lett.97(2006), 161801[arXiv:hep-ph/0605052 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  57. [65]

    M.Cè etal.,Thehadronicrunningoftheelectromagneticcouplingandtheelectroweakmixing angle from lattice QCD, JHEP 08(2022), 220[arXiv:2203.08676 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Abadaet al.[FCC], FCC-ee: The lepton collider: Future Circular Collider — conceptual design report Volume 2, Eur

    A. Abadaet al.[FCC], FCC-ee: The lepton collider: Future Circular Collider — conceptual design report Volume 2, Eur. Phys. J. ST228 (2019), 261

    2019

  59. [67]

    Djukanovicet al., The hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon𝑔− 2 at long distances, [arXiv:2411.07969 [hep-lat]]

    D. Djukanovicet al., The hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon𝑔− 2 at long distances, [arXiv:2411.07969 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    J. Fan, M. Reece and L. T. Wang,Possible futures of electroweak precision: ILC, FCC-ee, and CEPC,JHEP 09 (2015), 196[arXiv:1411.1054 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Djouadiet al.[ILC], International Linear Collider — reference design report Volume 2: Physics at the ILC, [arXiv:0709.1893 [hep-ph]]

    A. Djouadiet al.[ILC], International Linear Collider — reference design report Volume 2: Physics at the ILC, [arXiv:0709.1893 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. B. Guimarães da Costaet al.[CEPC Study Group],CEPC — conceptual design report Volume II: Physics & Detector, [arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Accetturaet al., Towards a muon collider, Eur

    C. Accetturaet al., Towards a muon collider, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023), 864[arXiv:2303.08533 [physics.acc-ph]] . 16

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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