\subsection{Near Z pole observables}\label{zpolesection}

In the SMEFT, at tree level the decay width of $Z$ boson to fermions can be given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
 \overline{\Gamma} \left(Z \rightarrow f \overline{f} \right) &=& \frac{ \, \sqrt{2} \, \hat{G}_F \hat{m}_Z^3 \, N_c}{3 \pi} \left( |\overline{g}^{f}_V|^2 + |\overline{g}^{f}_A|^2 \right), \\
 \overline{\Gamma} \left(Z \rightarrow {\rm Had} \right) &=& 2 \, \overline{\Gamma} \left(Z \rightarrow u \overline{u} \right)+ 3  \, \overline{\Gamma} \left(Z \rightarrow d \overline{d} \right).
 \end{eqnarray}
With our chosen normalization of $\overline{g}_{V}^x = T_3/2 - Q^x \, \overline{s}_\theta^2, \overline{g}_A = T_3/2$ where $T_3 = 1/2$ for $u_i,\nu_i$ and $T_3 = -1/2$ for $d_i,\ell_i$
and $Q^x = \{-1,2/3,-1/3 \}$ for $x = \{\ell,u,d\}$.
The modification of the decay widths in the SMEFT compared to the situation in the SM introduces corrections of the form~\cite{Falkowski:2015krw, Falkowski:2014tna,Berthier:2015gja, Berthier:2015oma,Brivio:2017vri}
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow \ell \overline{\ell}}&=& \frac{\sqrt{2} \, \hat{G}_F \hat{m}_Z^3}{6 \pi} \, \left[ -\delta g^{\ell}_A + \left(-1 + 4 s_W^2 \right) \delta g^{\ell}_V \right]
, \\
\delta \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow \nu \overline{\nu}}&=& \frac{\sqrt{2} \, \hat{G}_F \hat{m}_Z^3}{6 \pi} \, \left[ \delta g^{\nu}_A +  \delta g^{\nu}_V \right]
, \\
\delta \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow Had}&=& 2 \, \delta \Gamma_{Z \overline{u} u} + 3 \, \delta \Gamma_{Z \overline{d} d}, \\ &=& \frac{ \, \sqrt{2} \, \hat{G}_F \hat{m}_Z^3}{\pi} \left[ \delta g^{u}_A - \frac{1}{3} \left(- 3 + 8 s_W^2 \right) \delta g^{u}_V - \frac{3}{2} \delta g ^{d}_A + \frac{1}{2}\left(- 3 + 4 s_W^2 \right) \delta g^{d}_V  \right], \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \Gamma_{Z} &=& 3\delta \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow \ell \overline{\ell}} + 3 \delta \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow \nu \overline{\nu}} +\delta \Gamma_{had}, \\&=&  \frac{ \, \sqrt{2} \, \hat{G}_F \hat{m}_Z^3}{  2\, \pi} \left[ \delta g^{\nu}_A +  \delta g^{\nu}_V -\delta g^{\ell}_A + \left(-1 + 4 s_W^2 \right) \delta g^{\ell}_V, \right. \nonumber \\ &\, & \hspace{2.2cm} \left. + 2 \delta g^{u}_A - \frac{2}{3} \left(- 3 + 8 s_W^2 \right) \delta g^{u}_V - 3 \delta g ^{d}_A + \left(- 3 + 4 s_W^2 \right) \delta g^{d}_V \right], \nonumber \\
.
\end{eqnarray}
So that: $ \overline{\Gamma} \left(Z \rightarrow f \overline{f} \right)= \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow f \overline{f}} + \delta \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow f \overline{f}}$ for all $f$ and the same kind of relation holds for  $\overline{\Gamma}_{Z}$.

When considering partial widths extracted from LEP data in the SM {\it at}  the $Z$ pole,
 $\sigma_{e^+e^- \rightarrow had}$ has the theoretical expression
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline \sigma_h^0 =  12 \pi \, \frac{\overline \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow e \overline{e}} \overline \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow Had}}{|\overline \omega(M_Z^2)|^2},
\end{eqnarray}
 with $\overline \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow e \overline{e}}$, $\overline \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow Had}$ being the decay widths in SM.
 With the choice $\overline \omega(M_Z^2) = \overline{M}_Z \, \overline{\Gamma}_Z$,  and the partial width taking on SM values, this expression simplifies to the well known SM result. The contribution from SMEFT is relegated in the appendix~\ref{sec:appendix}.

The shift of the ratios of decay rates defined in the SM as $R^0_{f}=\frac{\Gamma_{had}}{\Gamma_{Z \rightarrow \overline{f} f}}$ where $f$ can be a charged lepton $\ell$ or a neutrino
follows from
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta R^0_{f}=\frac{1}{(\Gamma(Z \rightarrow f \overline{f})^2)_{SM}} \left[ \delta \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow Had} (\Gamma(Z \rightarrow f \overline{f}))_{SM} - \delta \Gamma_{Z \rightarrow f \overline{f}}  (\Gamma \left(Z \rightarrow {\rm Had})_{SM} \right)\right],
\end{eqnarray}
and we can then write that $\overline{R}^0_{f}= R^0_{f} + \delta R^0_{f}$. For an identified quark the inverse ratio is used.
The forward backward asymmetry for 2-2 scattering is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{FB} = \frac{\sigma_F - \sigma_B}{\sigma_F + \sigma_B}.
\end{eqnarray}
If $\theta$ is the angle between incoming lepton $\ell$ and outgoing fermion $f$ then,
$\sigma_F$ is the cross-section defined in the region $\theta \in \left[0,\pi/2\right]$ and $\sigma_B$ is the cross-section defined in the region $\theta \in \left[\pi/2, \pi \right]$. In terms of the left-right asymmetry ($A$) for the incoming lepton and outgoing fermion:
\begin{eqnarray}
\quad A_{e}= 2 \frac{g^{\ell}_V g^{\ell}_A}{ (g^{\ell}_V)^2 + (g^{\ell}_A)^2}, \quad A_{f}= 2 \frac{g^{f}_V g^{f}_A}{ (g^{f}_V)^2 + (g^{f}_A)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
we can express the forward backward asymmetry as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\quad A_{FB}^{0, f}= \frac{3}{4} A_{e} A_{f},
\end{eqnarray}
Once we include the SMEFT operators, the $Z$ couplings receive corrections which in turn brings corrections to these observables. The expressions for these corrections have been shown in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix} in detail.

The partial $W$ width in SMEFT is given by~\cite{Berthier:2016tkq,Brivio:2017vri}:
\begin{align}
\overline{\Gamma}_{W \rightarrow \overline f_i f_j} =& \Gamma_{W \rightarrow \overline f_i f_j}^{SM} + \delta \Gamma_{W \rightarrow \overline f_i f_j},\\
\Gamma_{W \rightarrow \overline f_i f_j}^{SM} =& \frac{N_C \, |V^f_{ij}|^2 \sqrt{2} \hat{G}_F \, \hat{m}_W^3}{12 \pi},\\
\delta\Gamma_{W \rightarrow \overline f_i f_j} =& \frac{N_C \, |V^f_{ij}|^2 \sqrt{2} \hat{G}_F \, \hat{m}_W^3}{12 \pi} \left( 4 \delta g_{V/A}^{W_\pm, f} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{\delta m_W^2}{\hat{m}_W^2}\right).
\end{align}
Here, $N_C$ is 3 for quarks and 1 for leptons. $V^f_{ij}$ is CKM or PMNS mixing matrix elememts. Summing over all the modes we can compute the contribution to the total decay width from SMEFT.
\subsection{LEP-II data}
One issue with using just the LEP-I data for the EWPO is that they can only constrain 8 linear combination of the WCs out of a total of 10 WCs which affect the EWPO at tree-level, resulting in two blind directions. The origin of this can be traced to the fact that there is a reparamatrisation invariance in the LEP-I data where the fields and the couplings have the property: $\mathcal{F}, g \rightarrow \mathcal{F}'(1+\epsilon)g'(1-\epsilon)$ \cite{Han:2004az,Berthier:2016tkq,Brivio:2017bnu} for the $2 \rightarrow 2$ scattering processes. In order to break this invariance, one has to go to $2 \rightarrow 4$ scattering processes, which can be realised in LEP-II due to the possibility of having resonant production of $W^+$ and $W^-$. Pair produced $W$'s can then further can decay leptonically to ($\ell, \nu_\ell$) or hadronically to ($j, j$). In addition to breaking the invariance, measurement of these four fermions final states also provide additional observables for the electroweak precision study. Recently the contributions from the SMEFT to these processes have been done assuming both resonant and non-resonant precesses. Deatils of these observables and their chi-squared analysis has also been studied in detail in \cite{Ellis:2018gqa}.

\subsection{Muon Decay}
At low energies, the Lagrangian density that leads to the process $\mu \to e \overline{\nu}_e \nu_\mu$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\mu} = L^{V,LL}_{\nu e} (\overline{\nu}_{L\mu} \gamma^\mu \nu_{L e})(\overline{e}_{L}\gamma_\mu \mu_L) + L^{V,LR}_{\nu e} (\overline{\nu}_{L\mu} \gamma^\mu \nu_{L e})(\overline{e}_R \gamma_\mu \mu_R) \ ,
\end{equation}
where, all the WCs are measured at the muon mass scale $\mu = m_{\mu}$.

At tree-level, the matching of the LEFT Lagrangian with the SMEFT one gives,
\begin{eqnarray}
L^{V,LL}_{\nu e \ tree} &=& \displaystyle -\frac{2}{v^2} + \Big(C_{ll (1,2,2,1)}+C_{ll (2,1,1,2)}) -2 (C_{Hl_3 (2,2)} + C_{Hl_3 (1,1)})\Big) U_{(1,1)}U^{\dagger}_{(2,2)} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
At 1-loop level, the matching of LEFT Lagrangian with the SMEFT Lagrangian given,
\begin{eqnarray}
L^{V,LL}_{\nu e \ 1-loop} &=& \displaystyle -1.48946 \log \left( \mu_W^2\right)-6.8206 \log \left( \mu_W^2\right) \Big(0.024 (C_{Hl_3 (1,1)}+ C_{Hl_3 (2,2)}) \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle 0.252418 C_{Hq_3 (1,1)}-0.0029 (C_{ll (1,1,2,2)}+C_{ll (2,2,1,1)}) \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle 0.001 (C_{ll (1,2,2,1)}+ C_{ll (2,1,1,2)})+0.463 C_{HD}+0.0449 C_{HWB} \overline{g} \Big) \nonumber \\
&-& \displaystyle 0.0025 (C_{Hl_1 (1,1)}+ C_{Hl_1 (2,2)})+0.0473 (C_{Hl_3 (1,1)}+C_{Hl_3 (2,2)})+1.0119 C_{Hq_3 (1,1)}\nonumber \\
&-& \displaystyle 0.0206 (C_{ll (1,1,2,2)}+ C_{ll (2,2,1,1)})+0.0067 (C_{ll (1,2,2,1)}+C_{ll (2,1,1,2)}) \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle 2.0729 C_{HD}+0.3125 C_{HWB} \overline{g}
\end{eqnarray}

Note that Standard Model only has the left handed currents, and hence the $L^{V,LR}$ are generated by new physics beyond the cut-off scale $\Lambda$. Thus all square terms of this WCs are $\frac{v^4}{\Lambda^4}$ suppressed in comparison with its interference term with $L^{V,LL}$. Moreover, since the electron in $L^{V,LL}$ and $L^{V,LR}$ have opposite hierarchies, the interference term will be helicity suppressed. Moreover, since the tree and 1-loop matching of $L^{V,LR}_{\nu e}$ operator with SMEFT Lagrangian consists of only $C_{le (2,1,1,2)}$ operator, electro-weak precision study will not play any role in constraining them. Hence we assume that this SMEFT operator vanishes and neglect the corresponding LEFT operator in further analysis.

This means that,
\begin{equation}
L^{V,LL}_{\nu e} = L^{V,LL}_{\nu e \ tree} + L^{V,LL}_{\nu e \ 1-loop} = -\frac{4 G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \ ,
\label{eq:muondecayGF}
\end{equation}
evaluated at $\mu_W = M_Z$ and is fixed by muon decay measurement.

\subsection{Beta Decay}

The low-energy effective Lagrangian for the process $d \to u e^- \overline{\nu}_e$ is given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_n &=& \displaystyle L^{V,LL}_{\nu e d u} (\overline{\nu}_L \gamma^\mu e_L)(\overline{u}_L \gamma_\mu d_L) + L^{V,LR}_{\nu e d u} (\overline{\nu}_L \gamma^\mu e_L)(\overline{u}_R \gamma_\mu d_R) + L^{S,RR}_{\nu e d u} (\overline{\nu}_L  e_R)(\overline{u}_L d_R) \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle L^{S,RL}_{\nu e d u} (\overline{\nu}_L e_R)(\overline{u}_L \gamma_\mu d_R) + L^{T,RR}_{\nu e d u} (\overline{\nu}_L \sigma^{\mu \nu} e_R)(\overline{u}_L \sigma^{\mu \nu} d_R)
\end{eqnarray}
where $L^{V,LL}_{\nu e d u}, L^{V,LR}_{\nu e d u}, L^{S,RR}_{\nu e d u}, L^{S,RL}_{\nu e d u}, L^{T,RR}_{\nu e d u}$ are the LEFT WCs.

At tree level, the matching of the above Lagrangian with SMEFT Lagrangian gives,
\begin{eqnarray}
L^{V,LL}_{\nu e d u \  tree} &=& \displaystyle \Big(-\frac{2}{v^2}   -2 (C_{Hl_3 (1,1)} +  C_{Hq_3 (1,1)} ) \Big)U^{\dagger}_{(1,1)} V^{\dagger}_{(1,1)}
\end{eqnarray}

Matching this Lagrangian with the SMEFT Lagrangian, at 1-loop, level we get,
\begin{eqnarray}
L^{V,LL}_{\nu e d u \ 1-loop} &=& \displaystyle U^{\dagger}_{11} V^{\dagger}_{11} \Big((0.0241 \log \left(\mu_W^2\right) + 0.0595)C_{Hl_3 (1,1)} \nonumber \\
&-& \displaystyle (0.0139 \log \left(\mu_W^2\right) +0.0712) C_{Hq_1(1,1)}+ (0.1007 \log \left(\mu_W^2\right)+0.3931) C_{Hq_3 (1,1)} \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle (0.1338 \log \left(\mu_W^2\right)+0.592) C_{HD}- (0.0115\log \left(\mu_W^2\right) +0.0715) C_{HWB} \overline{g_1} \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle 0.0007 C_{Hl_1(1,1)} \Big)
\end{eqnarray}

The contribution from $ L^{V,LR}_{\nu e d u}, L^{S,RR}_{\nu e d u}$ and $L^{T,RR}_{\nu e d u}$ do not contain any SMEFT coefficients that contribute to the EWPO. Then, up to 1-loop order,
\begin{eqnarray}
L^{V,LL}_{\nu e d u} = L^{V,LL}_{\nu e d u \ tree} + L^{V,LL}_{\nu e d u \ 1-loop} = \frac{4 G_F}{\sqrt{2}} V_{ud}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}

Using Eq.\ref{eq:muondecayGF}, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{ud} = \frac{L^{V,LL}_{\nu e d u}}{L^{V,LL}_{\nu e}} &=& \displaystyle  \frac{L^{V,LL}_{\nu e d u \ tree} + L^{V,LL}_{\nu e d u \ 1-loop}}{L^{V,LL}_{\nu e \ tree} + L^{V,LL}_{\nu e \ 1-loop}} \nonumber \\
&=& \displaystyle V_{11} (1+\delta_{SMEFT \ tree} + \delta_{SMEFT \ 1-loop}) \ .
\label{ckm-eqn}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{CKM}=\delta_{SMEFT \ tree} + \delta_{SMEFT \ 1-loop}
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{SMEFT \ tree} &=& \displaystyle 2 (C_{Hl_3(1,1)}+C_{Hq_3(1,1)}) \nonumber \\
&+& (-2 C_{Hl_3(2,2)}+C_{ll(1,2,2,1)}+C_{ll(2,1,1,2)}-2 C_{Hl_3(1,1)}) \nonumber \\
\delta_{SMEFT \ 1-loop} &=& \displaystyle -0.0029 C_{Hl_1(1,1)}- \displaystyle (0.0026\log \left(\mu_W^2\right) +0.0172) C_{Hl_3(1,1)} \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle (0.0139\log \left(\mu_W^2\right) +0.0711)  C_{Hq_1(1,1)} \nonumber \\
&-& \displaystyle (0.0255\log \left(\mu_W^2\right) + 0.0917)  C_{Hq_3(1,1)} \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle (0.004 \log \left(\mu_W^2\right) +0.0252 ) C_{HD} \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle ( 0.0249 \log \left(\mu_W^2\right) +0.1645 )C_{HWB} \overline{g_1}
\end{eqnarray}

Assuming flavor universal scenarios and so removing indices the contributions to SMEFT can be written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{SMEFT \ tree} &=& \displaystyle 2 (C_{Hl_3}+C_{Hq_3}) \nonumber \\
&+& (-2 C_{Hl_3}+C_{ll}+C_{ll}-2 C_{Hl_3}) \nonumber \\
&=& (2 C_{ll}-2 C_{Hl_3}+2 C_{Hq_3})\nonumber \\
\delta_{SMEFT \ 1-loop} &=& \displaystyle -0.0029 C_{Hl_1}- \displaystyle (0.0026\log \left(\mu_W^2\right) +0.0172) C_{Hl_3} \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle (0.0139\log \left(\mu_W^2\right) +0.0711)  C_{Hq_1} \nonumber \\
&-& \displaystyle (0.0255\log \left(\mu_W^2\right) + 0.0917)  C_{Hq_3} \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle (0.004 \log \left(\mu_W^2\right) +0.0252 ) C_{HD} \nonumber \\
&+& \displaystyle ( 0.0249 \log \left(\mu_W^2\right) +0.1645 )C_{HWB} \overline{g_1}
\end{eqnarray}

Note that $V_{ud}  =  V_{11}$ in the limit where all the SMEFT coefficients vanish and the tree-level result matches with~\cite{Cirigliano:2009wk}.

\subsection{LEP-I+ LEP-II 10 parameter fit}
\small
As discussed in the previous subsection, EWPO can only constrain eight of 10 WCs with Z pole LEP-I data. This can be overcomed by including LEP-II data. In second run of LEP, energy reached more than the need for production of pair of on-shell $W$ bosons. This provides an opportunity to test four-fermionic final states at the collider. Precise measurements of cross-sections and angular distributions at various energy enhance the list of precision observables. Ref.~\cite{Han:2004az,Berthier:2016tkq,Ellis:2018gqa}, explored this in the context of SMEFT and showed that it lifts up the flat directions which were there in the case of LEP-I. Charged current productions of a pair of $W$'s are sensitive to triple gauge coupling (TGC) and that break the redundency and provide the possibility to constrain all 10 WCs of EWPO. In addition to the 10 WC, introduction of LEP-II data brings the anomalous triple gauge operator $\mathcal{O_W}$ in the set of operators contributing at tree-level. As this is not part of EWPO or $\Delta_{CKM}$ we set $C_W=0$ for our analyses.

Including the LEP-II data, increases the $\chi^2$ to 121 due to the increase in number of observables. The results of the fit without including $\Delta_{CKM}$ are shown in the Table~\ref{tab:EWPO:10WC}. The minimum value of $\chi^2$ now decreases to $83.8$. But, the best fit values of $C_{HD}$, $C_{HWB}$ and $C_{He}$ are slightly on the larger side. The correlations among the WCs change drastically due to the presence of the new LEP-II observables. Correlation between $C_{Hl_3}$ and $C_{ll}$ become almost negligible while many pairs of WCs become highly correlated. To show the strength of correlation we also plot color density matrix plot in Figure~\ref{fig:cor10wc}(a). Color coding decreases from blue to green showing decrease in strength of the correlation. It can be easily observed that many of them are dark blue with correlation $\sim 0.9$. The correlation of all WCs with Cll is small $\sim 0.3$ and almost no correlation with $C_{Hl_3}$ and $C_{Hq_3}$. The correlation of $C_{Hl_3}$ and $C_{Hq_3}$ is almost 1 whereas both of them are less correlated with others. The posterior results of the fit for the precision observables are shown in  Table~\ref{tab:10WC-post}. The discrepancy in all of these observables are within $1\sigma$ with the exception of $\Delta_{CKM}$ where the pull for is -2.7$\sigma$.

Incorporation of $\Delta_{CKM}$ as an observable in the fit makes it more constraining as shown in the Table~\ref{tab:EWPO-CKM:10WC}. The absolute best-fit values of the WCs lie well within 1 with $C_{ll}$ becoming very small. There is no significant change found in $1\sigma$ deviations of WCs and the correlations among the pairs of WCs also do not show much change. The density plot for correlation matrix assuming magnitude of elements is also shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cor10wc}(b).

Posteriors results and pull of the EWPO and $\Delta_{CKM}$ are collected in the fourth column and fifth column respectively of Table~\ref{tab:10WC-post}. All the pulls are again within $1\sigma$. As expected, pull for $\Delta_{CKM}$ improves to -0.36$\sigma$. The other observables continue to remain well within 1$\sigma$ making the fit highly competitive with respect to the experimental data.

\begin{table*}[]
\begin{small}
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|rrrrrrrrrr|}
 \hline
 & Result & \multicolumn{10}{c|}{Correlation } \\
 \hline
 & \multicolumn{11}{c|}{\scriptsize{($\chi^2_{\rm Fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=83.82/121.79$)}} \\
 \hline
$C_{Hd}$   & -0.0841$\pm $ 0.3937 & 1.00 & & & & & & & & &  \\
$C_{HD}$   & -2.1541$\pm $ 2.2945 & -0.90 & 1.00 & & & & & & & &\\
$C_{He}$ & 1.0669$\pm $ 1.1474 & 0.90 & -0.99 & 1.00 & & & & & & & \\
$C_{Hl_1}$ & 0.5383$\pm $ 0.5713 & 0.90 & -0.99 & 0.99 & 1.00 & & & & & &\\
$C_{Hl_3}$ & 0.01423$\pm $ 0.4149 & 0.58 & -0.60 & 0.60 & 0.61 & 1.00 & & & & &\\
$C_{Hq_1}$ & -0.1717$\pm $ 0.1912 & -0.87 & 0.98 & -0.98 & -0.98 & -0.60 & 1.00 & & & & \\
$C_{Hq_3}$   & -0.0346$\pm $ 0.41 & 0.57 & -0.58 & 0.58 & 0.58 & 0.99 & -0.58 & 1.00 & & & \\
$C_{Hu}$   & -0.6179$\pm $ 0.7532 & -0.90 & 0.99 & -0.99 & -0.99 & -0.61 & 0.98 & -0.59 & 1.00 & & \\
$C_{HWB}$   & 1.0071$\pm $ 0.9923 & 0.88 & -0.98 & 0.98 & 0.98 & 0.46 & -0.97 & 0.43 & -0.97 & 1.00 & \\
$C_{ll}$   & -0.0295$\pm $ 0.0273 & 0.27 & -0.29 & 0.29 & 0.27 & 0.005 & -0.30 & -0.028 & -0.30 & 0.32 & 1.00\\
\hline

\end{tabular}
    \caption{Best fit with $1\sigma$ deviation of WCs after fitting using EWPO observables. Correlation matrix of coefficients are also shown in the third column.}
    \label{tab:EWPO:10WC}
\end{small}
\end{table*}

\begin{table*}[]
\begin{small}
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|rrrrrrrrrr|}
 \hline
 & Result & \multicolumn{10}{c|}{Correlation } \\
 \hline
 & \multicolumn{11}{c|}{\scriptsize{($\chi^2_{\rm Fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=90.93/126.37$)}} \\
 \hline
$C_{Hd}$   & -0.1266$\pm $ 0.3934 & 1.00 & & &  &  &  &  &  &  &   \\
$C_{HD}$   & -0.5455$\pm$ 2.2138 & -0.93 & 1.00 &  &  &  &  &  &  &  & \\
$C_{He}$ & 0.2564$\pm $ 1.1066 & 0.93 & -0.99 & 1.00 &  &  &  &  &  &  &  \\
$C_{Hl_1}$ & 0.125$\pm $ 0.5498 & 0.93 & -0.99 & 0.99 & 1.00 & & & & & & \\
$C_{Hl_3}$ & -0.3029$\pm $ 0.3974 & 0.59 & -0.57 & 0.57 & 0.58 & 1.00 & & & & & \\
$C_{Hq_1}$ & -0.07295$\pm $ 0.1876 & -0.88 & 0.98 & -0.99 & -0.99 & -0.58 & 1.00 &  & & & \\
$C_{Hq_3}$   & -0.2994$\pm $ 0.403 & 0.57 & -0.55 & 0.55 & 0.56 & 0.99 & -0.56 & 1.00 & & &\\
$C_{Hu}$   & -0.2947$\pm $ 0.7434 & -0.90 & 0.99 & -0.99 & -0.99 & -0.60 & 0.98 & -0.58 & 1.00 & &\\
$C_{HWB}$   & 0.4054$\pm $ 0.9663 & 0.90 & -0.98 & 0.98 & 0.98 & 0.42 & -0.97 & 0.39 & -0.97 & 1.00 & \\
$C_{ll}$   & -0.00004$\pm $ 0.0249 & 0.31 & -0.44 & 0.44 & 0.43 & 0.14 & -0.42 & 0.08 & -0.41 & 0.47 & 1.00\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
    \caption{Best fit with $1\sigma$ deviation of WCs after fitting using EWPO observables and $\Delta_{CKM}$. Correlation matrix of coefficients are also shown in the third column.}
    \label{tab:EWPO-CKM:10WC}
\end{small}
\end{table*}

\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Figure_V1/10paramfit/observabletab10param.png}
\caption{Observable's posterior values for the all-parameter fit with 10 WCs }
\label{tab:10WC-post}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Figure_V1/10paramfit/ewpocorlep2.png}~
\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Figure_V1/10paramfit/ewpodelckmcorlep2.png}
\\
(a) \hspace{7cm} (b)
\caption{Density plot of correlation matrix: (a) LEP-I+LEP-II (b) LEP-I+LEP-II+$\Delta_{CKM}$ fitting.}
\label{fig:cor10wc}
\end{figure}

\subsection{S, T, V fitting}
The effects of new heavy particles(with mass $M_{new}$) on the gauge boson self-energies can be described by three  parameters $S$, T, and U. The U parameter is not very sensitive to heavy New Physics because of the presence of an extra factor of $M_Z/M_{new}$ and hence can be neglected. This S and T parametrisation can be mapped to the SMEFT WCs $C_{HD}$ and $C_{HWB}$ and has been studied in literature~\cite{Akhundov:2013ons,Ciuchini:2013pca,Ciuchini:2016sjh,deBlas:2016ojx}. Along with them, we append the V parameter which parametrise the change in $G_F$. This parameter is crucial if we are to make the quarks and leptons interact with BSM resonances. As shown in
Eq.~\ref{eq:gdef}, this shift in $G_F$ can be mapped to combination $2 C_{Hl_3} - C_{ll}$. The expressions for the Electroweak Observables in terms of this S, T and V paramatrisation is given in Table~\ref{table:stvobsexp}. For the $\Delta_{CKM}$, we infer the result by considering only the tree-level matching, where the dependence on V comes from the muon decay parameters sitting in the denominator of Eq~\ref{ckm-eqn}.  As can be seen from Table~\ref{table:stvobsexp}, this V parameter is highly crucial for both $M_W$ as it has the highest sensitivity to this parameter, which can be inferred from its largish coefficient of V compared to other observables.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Figure_V1/STVfig/stvformobs.png}
\caption{Expressions for observables in terms of $\Delta S$, $\Delta T$ and $\Delta V$.}
\label{table:stvobsexp}
\end{center}
\end{table}

In Figure~\ref{fig:STV}, we have plotted the change in S, T and V parameters with EWPO data and EWPO $+$ $\Delta_{CKM}$ data in a 2-D plane by marginalising over the third parameter. Note that, inclusion of $\Delta_{CKM}$ constraints the Peskin-Takeuchi parameters better in comparison with just the EWPO data. The results of the fit are presented in Table~\ref{tab:STV}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.15]{Figure_V1/STVfig/st.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.15]{Figure_V1/STVfig/sv.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.143]{Figure_V1/STVfig/tv.png}
\captionof{figure}{S, T and V parameters with EWPO and EWPO $+$ $\Delta_{CKM}$ data}
\label{fig:STV}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{small}
    \centering
   { \begin{tabular}{|c|c|rrr|c|rrr|}
 \hline
 WC & B.F(\scriptsize{EWPO}) & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Correlation} & B.F(\scriptsize{EWPO+CKM}) & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Correlation} \\\hline
 & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\small{($\chi^2_{\rm fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=11.41/40.08$)}} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\small{($\chi^2_{\rm fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=11.68/44.67$)}} \\
 \hline
$\Delta {S}$ & $-0.0032 \pm 0.1077 $ & $1.00$ & & & $-0.0292 \pm 0.0965 $ & $1.00$ & &\\
$\Delta {T}$ & $ 0.1646\pm 0.0649 $ & $0.79$ & $1.00$ & &$ 0.1631\pm 0.06484 $ & $0.86$ & $1.00$ &  \\
$\Delta {V}$ & $-0.001\pm 0.0007$ & $-0.59$ & $-0.07$ & $1.00$&  $0.0013\pm 0.0005$ & $-0.44$ & $-0.04$ & $1.00$ \\ \hline
    \end{tabular}}
    \caption{Global fit of (S,T,V) paramatrisation tree-level to EWPO and $\Delta_{CKM}$.}
\label{tab:STV}
\end{small}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{Figure_V1/STVfig/post_STV.png}
\caption{Observables posteriors using STV fit. }
\label{table:posterior-stv}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The posterior values of the observables after the (S,T,V) can be read off from  Table~\ref{table:posterior-stv}. Even without including the $\Delta_{CKM}$ constraint, we can see that this paramatrisation has very good agreement with the experimental results of $M_W$ and $\Delta_{CKM}$ simultaneously. The discrepancy in $A_l^{SLD}$ and $A_b^{FB}$ also moves below 2$\sigma$, thereby making this a paramatrisation worth considering to look for BSM physics. Inclusion of $\Delta_{CKM}$ in the fit improves it's agreement with the measured value, while slightly deteriorating $A_l^{SLD}$ and $A_b^{FB}$.

\subsection{Tree level study: $C_{Hl_3}$ and $C_{ll}$}
As already seen from the expression of the recent anomalies in terms of SMEFT WCs, all tree-level $C_{Hl_3}$ and $C_{ll}$ are the ones which are common both in $m_W$ and $\Delta_{CKM}$. Incidentally, these WCs are also the ones which affects the weak coupling constant $G_F$. However, this goes beyond just $\delta G_F$ because of the additional dependences on $C_{Hl_3}$ in the shift in couplings for the observables as shown in Table~\ref{tab:coupling-shifts}. Similar to the (S,T,V) fit, we present two distinct cases, where first we have shown the fit to the EWPO provided by LEP-I. We then augment the number of observables by including $\Delta_{CKM}$ and then present the corresponding pulls of the observables after each step.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.15]{Figure_V1/CHl3_Cll_1}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Marginalised 2-D plot for WCs common to $W$-mass and $\Delta_{CKM}$ at tree-level.}
\label{fig:common_WC}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!htb]
\begin{small}
    \centering
   { \begin{tabular}{|c|c|rr|c|rr|}
 \hline
 WC & B.F(\scriptsize{LEP-I}) & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Correlation} & B.F(\scriptsize{LEP-I+CKM}) & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Correlation} \\\hline
 & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\scriptsize{($\chi^2_{\rm fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=24.27/40.08$)}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\scriptsize{($\chi^2_{\rm fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=105.36/126.37$)}} \\
 \hline
$C_{Hl_3}$ & -$0.0138\pm 0.0065$  & $1.00 $ &  & -$ 0.0152 \pm 0.0058 $ & $1.00$ &  \\
$C_{ll}$ & -$0.0008\pm 0.0114$  & $0.86$ & $1.00$ & -$0.0034\pm 0.0084$ & $0.88$ &  $1.00$ \\ \hline
    \end{tabular}}
    \caption{Global fit of the WCs common to $W$-mass and $\Delta_{CKM}$ at tree-level.}
    \label{tab:common-WC}
\end{small}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{Figure_V1/CHl3_Cll_posterior.png}
\caption{Posterior results and Pull for WCs common to $M_W$ and $\Delta_{CKM}$, once just with EWPO observables and once including the $\Delta_{CKM}$ constraint.}
\label{table:common-WCs-post}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{table}
As seen from Figure~\ref{fig:common_WC}, the inclusion of $\Delta_{CKM}$ has a more constraining effect on the two WCs. Table~\ref{tab:common-WC} presents the result of the fit and correlation among the WCs. The posterior results for the observables are given in Table~\ref{table:common-WCs-post}. For the first case with only the EWPO observables in the fit, the discrepancy in $M_W$ comes down to 2.85$\sigma$. The discrepancy in $A_b^{FB}$ however deteriorates to -2.9$\sigma$. Discrepancy in $\Delta_{CKM}$ however comes down to a mere 0.14$\sigma$. Inclusion of the $\Delta_{CKM}$ constraint in the fit does not significant constrain it. Thus one can argue that any New Physics effect coming through these two parameters (or $\delta G_F$) cannot fully satisfy the EWPO data. This also strengthens the case for the (S,T,V) paramatrisation, where presence of extra parameters S and T (or equivalently $C_{HD}$ and $C_{HWB}$) makes helps us to explain all the observables within 2$\sigma$ discrepancy.

\subsection{Tree level study: $C_{HD}$, $C_{HWB}$, $C_{Hl_3}$ and $C_{ll}$}
With the result from CDF impacting the world-average of W-mass, the discrepancy now stands at around 5.3 $\sigma$ from the SM value. Taking it as a sign of BSM physics, we look at a fit with just the SMEFT operators contributing to W-mass at tree-level. The shift in W mass in SMEFT can be written as:
\begin{equation}
	\frac{\delta m_W^2}{m_W^2} =
	v^2 \ \frac{s_W c_W}{s_W^2 - c_W^2}
	\left[ 2 \, C_{HWB} + \frac{c_W}{2 s_W} \, C_{HD} +
	\frac{s_W}{c_W} \left( 2 \, C_{Hl}^{(3)} - C_{ll} \right) \right] \,,
\label{eq:mW}
\end{equation}
This can also be thought of as augmenting the previous fit by including two more parameters $C_{HD}$ and $C_{HWB}$. The results of the fit and the 2-D marginalised plots are shown in Table~\ref{tab:tree-W} and Figure~\ref{fig:4common_WC:W}. The plot here shows that inclusion of $\Delta_{CKM}$ constraint has significant impact in the results of the fit with $C_{HWB}$ and $C_{ll}$ having noticeable shifts in their best fit points and their 2$\sigma$ reaches. The correlations among the WCs also show significant changes, with $C_{ll}$-$C_{HWB}$ and $C_{ll}$-$C_{Hl_3}$ showing the highest change.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.13]{Figure_V1/CHD-CHWB_CHl3-Cll/CHD_CHWB.png}~
\includegraphics[scale=0.13]{Figure_V1/CHD-CHWB_CHl3-Cll/CHD_CHl3.png}~
\includegraphics[scale=0.13]{Figure_V1/CHD-CHWB_CHl3-Cll/CHD_Cll.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.13]{Figure_V1/CHD-CHWB_CHl3-Cll/CHl3_CHWB.png}~
\includegraphics[scale=0.13]{Figure_V1/CHD-CHWB_CHl3-Cll/CHWB_Cll.png}~
\includegraphics[scale=0.13]{Figure_V1/CHD-CHWB_CHl3-Cll/CHl3_Cll.png}
\end{center}
\caption{2-D marginalised global fit of the four WCs affecting $M_W$ at tree level.}
\label{fig:4common_WC:W}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!htb]
\begin{small}
    \centering
   { \begin{tabular}{|c|c|rrrr|c|rrrr|}
 \hline
 WC & B.F(\scriptsize{EWPO}) & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Correlation} & B.F(\scriptsize{EWPO+CKM}) & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Correlation} \\\hline
 & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\scriptsize{($\chi^2_{\rm fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=11.07/40.08$)}} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\scriptsize{($\chi^2_{\rm fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=14.96/44.67$)}} \\
 \hline
$C_{HD}$ & $-0.0376 \pm 0.0159 $ & $1.00$ & & & & $-0.0392 \pm 0.0159 $ & $1.00$ & & &\\
$C_{HWB}$ & $ -0.00007\pm 0.0079 $ & $-0.76$ & $1.00$ & & &$ 0.0085\pm 0.0066 $ & $-0.87$ & $1.00$ & & \\
$C_{Hl_3}$ & $-0.0042\pm 0.0072$ & $-0.21$ & $-0.04$ & $1.00$&  & $-0.0048\pm 0.0072$ & $-0.21$ & $-0.01$ & $1.00$ &\\
$C_{ll}$ & $-0.0198\pm 0.0146$ & $-0.15$ & $0.51$ & $0.47$& $1.00$ & $0.0028\pm 0.0091$ & $-0.19$ & $0.16$ & $0.81$& $1.00$\\ \hline
    \end{tabular}}
    \caption{Global fit of the WCs affecting the W-boson mass at tree-level}
    \label{tab:tree-W}
\end{small}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{Figure_V1/CHD-CHWB_CHl3-Cll/posterior_4Wparams.png}
\caption{Posterior results and Pull for WCs effecting $M_W$, once just with EWPO observables and once including the $\Delta_{CKM}$ constraint.}
\label{table:4W_params_post}
\end{center}
\end{table}

The posterior values for the observables are given in Table~\ref{table:4W_params_post}. For the fit with EWPO, the dicrepancy in $M_W$, as expected, is drastically reduced. $A_l^{SLD}$ also comes down under 2$\sigma$. However   $A_b^{FB}$ and $\Delta_{CKM}$ shows the highest discrepancy with a deviation of -2.09$\sigma$ and -1.97$\sigma$ respectively. Inclusion of the $\Delta_{CKM}$ constraint along with EWPO reduces it's dicrepancy significantly to -0.59$\sigma$ at the expense of worsening $A_b^{FB}$ to -2.24$\sigma$. The agreement of $\Gamma_Z$ also suffers with it's discrepancy increasing from -0.03$\sigma$ to -1.49$\sigma$. This study thus indicates that we need to go beyond these four WCs in order to satisfy the precesion data.

\subsection{VLL inspired study}
Inspired by various see-saw like scenarios along with possibility to solve other shortcomings of the SM like muon $(g-2)$, neutrino mass etc., we take a closer look at various Vectorlike leptons multiplets by identifying the leading dimension-6 operators which gets affected. The list of leptons along with their corresponding yukawa coupling $\lambda_l$ (where $l$ represents the corresponding vectorlike lepton) and the masses of the heavy states $M_l$  are shown in Table~\ref{tab:listf}. As seen from the table, the tree-level imprints of the model parameters on the SMEFT WCs are restricted to $C_{He}$, $C_{Hl}^{(1)}$  and $C_{Hl}^{(3)}$.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{small}
$$\begin{array}{|cccccc|}\hline
\rowcolor[gray]{0.8}
\hbox{VLF} & (SU(2)_L , Y)& Interaction  & C_{He} & C_{Hl}^{(1)} & C_{Hl}^{(3)}   \cr
\hline\hline
 \rowcolor{celeste}N^a  & (3,0)& N^a (H\epsilon \tau^a L) & 0 &+\lambda_N^2/4M_N^2 & -\lambda_N^2/4M_N^2  \cr \hline
 \rowcolor{celeste} N'  & (1,0)& N' LH & 0 & +3\lambda_N^2/4M_N^2 & +\lambda_N^2/4M_N^2 \cr
  \hline
\rowcolor{verdino} L' & (2,-1/2)& EL'H^* &-\lambda_L^2/2M_L^2 & 0 &0  \cr \hline
\rowcolor{verdino}L_{3/2} & (\overline{2},-3/2) & E(L_{3/2}\epsilon H)   &+\lambda_L^2/2M_L^2 & 0 &0 \cr \hline
\rowcolor{rosa} E'  & (1,1) & E'LH^* & 0 & -\lambda_E^2/4M_E^2 & -\lambda_E^2/4M_E^2 \cr  \hline
\rowcolor{rosa} E^a   & (3,1)&E^a(H^* \tau^a L) & 0 & -3\lambda_E^2/4M_E^2 & +\lambda_E^2/4M_E^2  \cr \hline
\hline\end{array}$$
\caption{\label{tab:listf} List of new leptons that can couple to the SM lepton doublet
$L = (\nu_\mu,l_L)$ or singlet $E=l_R$
(with the same gauge quantum numbers as $L'$ and $E'$) and to the Higgs doublet $H=(0,v+h/\sqrt{2}) $ (an SU(2) doublet with $Y=1/2$).
}
\end{small}
\end{table}

Figure~\ref{plot-vll} and Table~\ref{tab:VLF-fit} represents the result of the fit once for the LEP observables alone   and second for the case including $\Delta_{CKM}$ alongwith LEP observables. The posterior values of the observables for these two cases can be read off from Table~\ref{table:VLL-post}. We can see that even without including the $\Delta_{CKM}$ constraint, we can satisfy both $M_W$ and $\Delta_{CKM}$ with 2$\sigma$. $A_l^{SLD}$ improves to 1.56 $\sigma$ while $A_B^{FB}$ deteriorates to -2.18$\sigma$. Inclusion of the $\Delta_{CKM}$ constraint improves the posterior value of $\Delta_{CKM}$ only marginally, while pushing the $M_W$ beyond 2$\sigma$.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.135]{Figure_V1/che-chl1-chl3/CHe_CHl1_VLF.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.135]{Figure_V1/che-chl1-chl3/CHe_CHl3_VLF.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.135]{Figure_V1/che-chl1-chl3/CHl1_CHl3_VLF.png}
\end{center}
\caption{2-D Marginalised plot for the WCs impacting the VLLs}
\label{plot-vll}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htb]
    \centering
\begin{small}
   { \begin{tabular}{|c|c|rrr|c|rrr|}
 \hline
 WC & B.F(\scriptsize{EWPO}) & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Correlation} & B.F(\scriptsize{EWPO+CKM}) & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Correlation} \\\hline
 & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\small{($\chi^2_{\rm fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=20.53/40.08$)}} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\small{($\chi^2_{\rm fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=21.32/44.67$)}} \\
 \hline
$C_{He}$ & $-0.0148 \pm 0.0075 $ & $1.00$ & & & $-0.0125 \pm 0.0073 $ & $1.00$ & &\\
$C_{Hl_1}$ & $ -0.0037\pm 0.0043 $ & $0.57$ & $1.00$ & &$ -0.0027\pm 0.0045 $ & $0.56$ & $1.00$ &  \\
$C_{Hl_3}$ & $-0.0184\pm 0.0039$ & $0.55$ & $0.21$ & $1.00$&  $-0.0158\pm 0.0027$ & $0.47$ & $0.17$ & $1.00$ \\ \hline
    \end{tabular}}
    \caption{Global fit of the WCs affecting VLLs at tree-level to EWPO and $\Delta_{CKM}$.}
    \label{tab:VLF-fit}
\end{small}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{Figure_V1/che-chl1-chl3/posterior_VLL.png}
\caption{Posterior results and Pull for the VLL inspired study, once just with EWPO observables and once including the $\Delta_{CKM}$ constraint.}
\label{table:VLL-post}
\end{center}
\end{table}
We can put limits on the ratio of the coupling and mass for these scenarios. For eg. if we only consider only $N'$, we get a limit of ${v \lambda_N}/{M_N} < 0.074$, $v$ is the vev. Similarly for $E'$, we get a limit of ${v \lambda_E}/{M_E} < 0.05$.
If we look at $L' \oplus E'$, the bounds come out to be ${v \lambda_L}/{M_L} < 0.045$ and ${v \lambda_E}/{M_E} < 0.066$.

\subsection{LEP-I 8 parameter fit}
\small
Though at leading order LEP-I observables (EWPO) depend on ten SMEFT operators, only eight among them can be constrained using LEP-I electroweak data.  Some of the earlier literatures~\cite{deBlas:2022hdk,Falkowski:2014tna} redefined the combinations of the corresponding WCs by rotating away the two purely bosonic contributions ($C_{HD}$ and $C_{HWB}$) to get eight independent parameters which are finally constrained. When analyzed in that fashion, we showed that our results are in well agreement with those in the literature. We also found out that similar constraints can also be achieved by setting those two purely bosonic WCs just to zero. Phenomenologically, there can be frameworks where these bosonic operators are highly suppressed and so this procedure can direct provide limits for such kind of scenarios.

The results of this analyses is presented in the Table~\ref{tab:EWPO:8WC}. The second column of the table shows the best fit and deviation for the WCs given in the first column. Deviations are computed using marginalization procedure discussed in the section~\ref{sec:ewf}.
We also tabulated the correlations between the coefficients in the last column. As shifts in the gauge couplings due to SMEFT depends on $\delta G_f$ which is a combination of $C_{Hl_3}$ and $C_{ll}$  these two are expected to be highly correlated with a value of $0.94$. In a similar manner, leptonic WCs have higher correlation among each other such as correlation coefficients for $C_{Hl_1}$ and $C_{ll}$ is $0.81$ but negative and for $C_{Hl_1}$ and $C_{Hl_3}$ it is $-0.67$. From the shifts in the gauge coupling shown in Table~\ref{tab:coupling-shifts},  one can expect very small correlations among quark WCs and leptonic one $\sim \mathcal{O}(0.01)$. The value of SMEFT $\chi^2$ after the fit comes out to be $3.24$ compared the SM $\chi^2$ of $40.08$, implying a very good quality of the fit. The 2-D marginalized distributions of the WCs are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:8pplot} in purple colour.

Posterior values of the EWPO observables show very good agreement with the experimental data with all of them within 1 $\sigma$ as shown in Table~\ref{8WC-post}. Notable improvements among them are $M_W$ at -0.2$\sigma$, $A_b^{FB}$ at -0.19$\sigma$ and $A_l^{SLD}$ at 0.84$\sigma$. $\Delta_{CKM}$ however becomes worse as the pull with the EWPO fitted parameters increases its discrepancy to -2.7$\sigma$.

\begin{table}[!htb]
\begin{small}
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|rrrrrrrr|}
 \hline
WC & B.F(\scriptsize{EWPO}) & \multicolumn{8}{c|}{Correlation } \\
 \hline
 & \multicolumn{9}{c|}{\scriptsize{($\chi^2_{\rm fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=3.24/40.08$)}} \\
 \hline
$C_{Hd}$   &-0.4646 $\pm $ 0.1715 &  1.00 &  & & & & & &  \\
$C_{He}$   & -0.0099$\pm $ 0.0085 & -0.36 & 1.00 & & & & &  & \\
$C_{Hl_1}$ & -0.0031$\pm $ 0.011  & -0.12 & 0.42 & 1.00 & & & & &  \\
$C_{Hl_3}$ & -0.0398$\pm  $0.0159 & -0.05 & 0.08 &-0.67 & 1.00 &  &  &  &    \\
$C_{Hq_1}$ & 0.0101$\pm $ 0.0341  &  0.21 &-0.08 & 0.01 &-0.04 & 1.00 & &  &  \\
$C_{Hq_3}$ & -0.0989$\pm $ 0.0310 &  0.59 &-0.17 & 0.03 & 0.06 &-0.42 & 1.00 &  &  \\
$C_{Hu}$   &  0.1162$\pm $ 0.1195 & -0.14 & 0.10 & 0.07 &-0.03 & 0.44 &-0.76 & 1.00&   \\
$C_{ll}$   & -0.0204$\pm $ 0.0284 & -0.06 &-0.10 &-0.81 & 0.94 &-0.04 &-0.03 & -0.01 & 1.00 \\ \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{Global fit to EWPO for the case with 8 WCs.}
    \label{tab:EWPO:8WC}
\end{small}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[!htb]
\begin{small}
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|rrrrrrrr|}
 \hline
WC & B.F(\scriptsize{EWPO+$\Delta_{CKM}$}) & \multicolumn{8}{c|}{Correlation } \\
 \hline
 & \multicolumn{9}{c|}{\scriptsize{($\chi^2_{\rm fit}$/$\chi^2_{\rm SM}=10.88/44.67$)}} \\
 \hline
$C_{Hd}$   & -0.2125$\pm $ 0.1453  & 1.00 & & & & & & &  \\
$C_{He}$   & -0.0166$\pm $ 0.0083  &-0.24 & 1.00 &  &  &  &  &  &  \\
$C_{Hl_1}$ & -0.0136$\pm $ 0.0107  & 0.08 & 0.35 & 1.00 &  &  &  &  &  \\
$C_{Hl_3}$ & -0.0238$\pm $ 0.0148  &-0.31 & 0.19 &-0.63 & 1.00 &  &  &  &  \\
$C_{Hq_1}$ & -0.0291$\pm $ 0.0311  & 0.55 &-0.23 &-0.16 & 0.12 & 1.00 &  &  &\\
$C_{Hq_3}$ & -0.0221$\pm $ 0.0139  & 0.30 & 0.18 & 0.78 &-0.64 &-0.13 & 1.00 & & \\
$C_{Hu}$   & -0.1206$\pm $ 0.0832  & 0.40 &-0.15 &-0.27 & 0.37 & 0.23 &-0.37 & 1.00 &\\
$C_{ll}$   & 0.0076$\pm $ 0.0265 &-0.32 & 0.01 &-0.79 & 0.93 & 0.13 &-0.83 &0.38 &1.00 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
    \caption{Global fit to EWPO and $\Delta_{CKM}$ for the case with 8 WCs.}
    \label{tab:EWPO-CKM:8WC}
\end{small}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Figure_V1/CHDCHWBZERO/post_table_8param.png}
\caption{Posterior Value and Pulls for the EWPO observables with 8 WCs, once without $\Delta_{CKM}$ and once with $\Delta_{CKM}$}
\label{8WC-post}
\end{table}

Inclusion of the CKM anomaly ($\Delta_{CKM}$), along with EWPO, shifts the best-fit values of the WCs, constraining them better. The results of the fit can be read off from Table~\ref{tab:EWPO-CKM:8WC} and the 2-D marginalized distributions of the WCs are given in Figure~\ref{fig:8pplot} in green colour.
$\Delta_{CKM}$ has the largest dependence on $C_{Hl_1}$, $C_{ll}$, $C_{Hl_3}$ and $C_{Hq_3}$ therefore there is significant change in the correlations involving these WCs. $C_{Hq_3}$ and $C_{ll}$ becomes highly correlated with a value of $-0.83$. As $\Delta_{CKM}$ depends only on left chiral operators, the correlation of their WCs to that of the right chiral ones decrease. $\Delta_{CKM}$ also introduce high correlation between the WCs corresponding to leptonic and quark operators, e.g., the correlation factor for $C_{Hq_3}$ with $C_{Hl_1}$ and $C_{Hl_3}$ now stands at 0.78$\sigma$ and -0.64$\sigma$ respectively.

On the other hand, with the inclusion of $\Delta_{CKM}$, observable reduces its discrepancy to a mere -0.32$\sigma$. However, discrepancy in $A_{c}^{FB}$, $A_{b}^{FB}$ and $A_l^{SLD}$ goes beyond 1$\sigma$. The other observables also show good agreement with the experimental observations.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=18cm,height=22cm]{Figure_V1/CHDCHWBZERO/plots_LEPI5.png}
\end{center}
\caption{2-D marginalised plot for the fit with 8 WCs}
\label{fig:8pplot}
\end{figure}

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\input{Sections/sec_intro.tex}
\section{SMEFT contributions to Electwoweak Fit}
\label{sec:basics}
\input{Sections/sec_smeft.tex}
\section{$W$ and $Z$ pole observables of interest}
\label{sec:zpole}
\input{Sections/EWPO_obs.tex}
\section{Going Beyond EWPO: $\Delta_{CKM}$}
\label{sec:LEFT}
\input{Sections/oneloop.tex}

\section{Fitting procedure}
\label{sec:ewf}
\input{Sections/sec_ew.tex}
\input{Sections/sec_8paramfit.tex}
\input{Sections/sec_10paramfit.tex}

\section{Summary and conclusions}
\label{sec:outlook}
\input{Sections/sec_conclusion.tex}

\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank Dr.Nilanjana Kumar for valuable discussions during the initial days of the work. M.T.A. acknowledges the financial support of Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, India (DST) through INSPIRE Faculty grant DST/INSPIRE/04/2019/002507.  K.D. acknowledges Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India for JRF/SRF fellowship with the award letter no. 09/045(1654)/2019-EMR-I. T.S. would like to acknowledge the support from the Dr. D.S. Kothari Postdoctoral fellowship scheme no. F.4-2/2006 (BSR)/PH/20-21/0163.
\section*{Appendix}