4.7 Article

Oblique lessons from the W-mass measurement at CDF II

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 108, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.055026

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CDF Collaboration has reported a new measurement of the W-boson mass MW, which is significantly higher than the prediction of the Standard Model. The study investigates the tension between this new measurement and the Standard Model, and explores possible beyond the Standard Model phenomena in the electroweak sector. The analysis shows that the large MW value can be accommodated by a large, nonzero value of the oblique parameter U, and that the preferred value for the oblique parameter T is large and positive assuming U = 0.
The CDF Collaboration recently reported a new precise measurement of the W-boson mass MW with a central value significantly larger than the SM prediction. We explore the effects of including this new measurement on a fit of the Standard Model (SM) to electroweak precision data. We characterize the tension of this new measurement with the SM and explore potential beyond the SM phenomena within the electroweak sector in terms of the oblique parameters S, T and U. We show that the large MW value can be accommodated in the fit by a large, nonzero value of U, which is difficult to construct in explicit models. Assuming U = 0, the electroweak fit strongly prefers large, positive values of T. Finally, we study how the preferred values of the oblique parameters may be generated in the context of models affecting the electroweak sector at tree and loop level. In particular, we demonstrate that the preferred values of T and S can be generated with a real SU(2)L triplet scalar, the humble swino, which can be heavy enough to evade current collider constraints, or by (multiple) species of singlet-doublet fermion pairs. We highlight challenges in constructing other simple models for explaining a large MW value and several directions for further study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据