AG-2026.10-1209·hep-ph·cross-listed: nucl-ex
Bosonic Contribution to Parity-Violating Møller Scattering at NNLO
Authors
- Lisong Chen
- Jens Erler
- Ayres Freitas
- Juhun Kwak
Abstract
We calculate the dominant bosonic two-loop virtual electroweak corrections to parity-violating Møller scattering at low energies. The electron effective weak charge is extracted from the polarization asymmetry, retaining all contributions that are enhanced by $(1-4\sin^2θ_W)^{-1}$ or $\ln^2(M_{W,Z}^2/Q^2)$ relative to the tree-level contribution. Analytical results are obtained using the expansion by regions method in the low-energy limit $Q^2\ll M_{W,Z}^2$. Within this approximation, the dominant two-loop bosonic corrections shift the electron effective weak charge (or equivalently the polarization asymmetry) by $0.3\%$. We examine the origin of the leading contributions to this result and assess the remaining theoretical uncertainty from purely bosonic contributions for the MOLLER experiment to about 0.1%.
Submitted
8 October 20261 week ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2610.12287
Summary
Physicists calculated subtle two-loop quantum corrections to an electron scattering experiment that tests parity violation, finding a 0.3% shift in a key measured quantity and reducing theoretical uncertainty for the upcoming MOLLER experiment.
- The calculation goes beyond leading-order predictions by including complex two-loop virtual corrections from electroweak bosons (the particles that mediate the weak and electromagnetic forces).
- The result shrinks theoretical uncertainty from bosonic contributions down to 0.1%, which matters because MOLLER aims to measure the electron's effective weak charge with unprecedented precision to test physics beyond the Standard Model.
- The team used the 'expansion by regions' method to handle the mismatch between the experiment's low energy scale and the heavy W and Z boson masses, making the calculation tractable.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.