Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Higgs Factory options for CERN: A comparative study

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FCC-ee would reach a given Higgs-coupling precision in eight years; CLIC and ILC@CERN would need about half a century for the same precision, with higher electricity, cost, and carbon footprint.

desk verdict A transparent, policy-facing arithmetic comparison whose qualitative conclusion (FCC-ee dominates on time-to-precision) likely survives scrutiny, but whose 'half a century' headline overstates what the tables actually compute. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13130 v1 pith:HNMKAMHV submitted 2024-12-17 hep-ph hep-ex

Alain Blondel , Christophe Grojean , Patrick Janot , Guy Wilkinson This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords HiggsfactoryFCC-eeCLICILCcouplingsSMEFTfitsustainabilityluminosityscaling
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

This note compares three proposed electron-positron Higgs factories—FCC-ee, CLIC, and ILC operated at CERN—on equal footing by fixing the target: the same precision on the Higgs couplings to b, c, tau, Z, and W bosons. It claims that FCC-ee reaches this precision in about eight years, while CLIC and ILC@CERN would need roughly half a century to accumulate the integrated luminosity required for the same precision, and would consume three to four times more electricity, cost more, and emit more carbon for that outcome. The reason is FCC-ee's much larger luminosity and its four interaction points, which outweigh the longitudinal beam polarisation advantage of linear colliders. If right, this changes the sustainability debate: the meaningful quantity is resources per physics outcome, not per facility.

What carries the argument

The comparison is built on a precision-for-precision metric. Higgs coupling uncertainties from a SMEFT global fit (Ref. [11]) are taken as the scientific outcome; for each coupling, the integrated luminosity needed to reach FCC-ee's precision is obtained by scaling the linear collider luminosity by the square of the ratio of precisions (so that the required luminosity grows as $1/\sigma^2$), and the extra running time is inferred from the design yearly luminosity of each machine. This carries the whole argument: it translates coupling precision directly into operation time, electricity, cost, and carbon, and it is why the paper's conclusions are expressed in years and TWh rather than in percentages.

What would settle it

Take the first years of data from a linear collider (CLIC 380 or ILC 250 at CERN) and measure the uncertainties on the $b$, $c$, $\tau$, $Z$, and $W$ Higgs couplings from a SMEFT fit; if those uncertainties do not shrink as $1/\sqrt{L}$ with increasing integrated luminosity, the 50-year durations calculated here would be wrong. A single measurement of the $H \to b\bar{b}$ coupling uncertainty at two different integrated luminosities at ILC250 would show whether the $1/\sqrt{L}$ scaling holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the often-repeated statement 'all e+e- Higgs factories have similar reach' is misleading once time and resources are fixed. Using the most recent SMEFT global-fit projections, the authors show that for the five Higgs couplings already dominated by e+e- data—Z, W, b, c, tau—FCC-ee in its planned 240 and 365 GeV runs achieves a precision that CLIC (380+1500 GeV) and ILC@CERN (250+500 GeV) would only match after about 48 and 46 years of running respectively, more than half a century when shutdowns are counted. They further argue that FCC-ee is the only place to attempt the electron Yukawa coupling, that FCC-ee plus FCC-hh is orders of magnitude better for couplings needing billions of Higgs bosons, and that the full FCC programme is out of reach of linear colliders; hence FCC-ee is 'vastly superior' as the first step towards a 100 TeV hadron collider.

Load-bearing premise

The entire duration comparison rests on the assumption that Higgs coupling precision improves as $1/\sqrt{L}$ (the inverse square root of integrated luminosity), applied to the SMEFT fit projections of Ref. [11]; if the true precision improves more slowly—for example due to systematic floors—the required linear collider durations change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the already demonstrated Higgs decays ($b\bar{b}$, $\tau^+\tau^-$, $gg$, $ZZ$, $WW$) and for $H \to c\bar{c}$, CLIC and ILC@CERN would need roughly half a century to reach the precision FCC-ee achieves in eight years.
  • The electricity consumption for the same physics outcome would be three to four times larger for the linear colliders than for FCC-ee.
  • FCC-ee is claimed to be the only place to attempt the electron Yukawa coupling with sensitivity close to the Standard Model prediction, thanks to running at $\sqrt{s} = m_H$ with a reduced energy spread.
  • The combination of FCC-ee and FCC-hh would provide order-of-magnitude better precision on rare Higgs couplings and a few-percent measurement of the Higgs self-coupling, both out of reach of linear colliders.
  • Even with an aggressive doubling of ILC's instantaneous luminosity at 250 GeV, ILC@CERN would still need about 52 years to match the eight-year FCC-ee precision on Higgs couplings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed $1/\sqrt{L}$ scaling is optimistic because systematic uncertainties floor the precision, the linear collider durations would likely be even longer than half a century, not shorter; the paper itself notes this assumption is favourable to the linear colliders.
  • The comparison could be extended to other Higgs couplings (such as $gg$, $\gamma\gamma$, $Z\gamma$, $\mu^+\mu^-$) with a stand-alone SMEFT fit that does not combine with HL-LHC; the paper excludes them because HL-LHC dominates those channels, but a stand-alone fit might change the relative ranking.
  • The 'half a century' framing implies that a linear collider programme would span an entire professional generation, a sociological and institutional constraint that the paper mentions but does not quantify.
  • The cost estimates for ILC@CERN are acknowledged as a 'guesstimate' from the Snowmass implementation report; updated official estimates could widen the cost gap with FCC-ee.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares three future e+e- Higgs factory options at CERN — FCC-ee, CLIC, and ILC@CERN — by fixing a common physics outcome: the precision on the Higgs couplings to b, c, tau, Z, and W obtained from SMEFT global fits. Using the sensitivity projections of Ref. [11], the authors rescale the integrated luminosities of the linear colliders by the square of the precision ratios, assuming precision scales as L^{-1/2}, and then translate the required luminosities into operation time, electricity consumption, cost, and carbon footprint. The central finding is that CLIC and ILC@CERN would need about 30 years in their first stage and roughly 46-48 years over two stages to match the precision FCC-ee achieves in 3 or 8 years, respectively, with substantially larger resource consumption. The paper concludes that FCC-ee is vastly superior as a Higgs factory and as the first step toward a 100 TeV hadron collider.

Significance. The question addressed is timely and important for the upcoming European Strategy Update. The paper's arithmetic is transparent: every duration is computed by rescaling published precision projections with a clearly stated scaling law, and the input luminosity scenarios are referenced. The qualitative conclusion — that FCC-ee achieves a given Higgs-coupling precision with much less time and energy than the linear options — is robust and worth stating explicitly. The paper also performs a useful service by including electricity, cost, and carbon estimates for a fixed physics outcome, rather than per facility. However, the quantitative headline is contingent on several assumptions and on a selection of couplings that is narrower than the abstract advertises.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.1] The abstract states that the comparison covers 'already demonstrated Higgs decays (bbar, tau+tau-, gg, ZZ, WW) and H->c cbar', but Section 4.1 explicitly excludes the gluon (and photon) couplings because HL-LHC dominates the combined fit and the L^{-1/2} scaling assumption would be invalid. All quantitative results in Tables 2-7 are therefore for b, c, tau, Z, and W only. The abstract overstates the computed set of couplings and should be corrected, or the gluon coupling must be included via a stand-alone fit as suggested in the text.
  2. [Sections 4.1-4.2 and Tables 4, 7] The 'time needed to reach the same precision as FCC-ee' is computed separately for each coupling and then averaged. To reach the FCC-ee precision on all five couplings simultaneously, the required time is the maximum over the couplings (or the time from a combined fit), not the arithmetic mean. For example, Table 7 shows CLIC durations ranging from 26 to 56 years and ILC durations from 41 to 49 years; the reported averages of 48 and 46 years mask the fact that the W and tau couplings require approximately 54-56 years for CLIC. The text's claim that the duration is 'almost independently of the coupling considered' is inconsistent with the spread in the tables. The averaging procedure should be stated explicitly and justified, or the maximum should be used.
  3. [Sections 4.1 and 6.6] The central rescaling assumes that each coupling precision improves exactly as L^{-1/2}. Section 6.6 acknowledges that the improvement may be slightly slower because of HL-LHC contamination and argues that this is conservative for the linear colliders, but it does not address the opposite direction: in a global SMEFT fit, correlations among observables can break parameter degeneracies faster than L^{-1/2}. Since every duration in Tables 4 and 7 is proportional to the square of the precision ratio, a modest change in the scaling exponent changes the headline durations by tens of percent. The paper should provide a sensitivity scan over the scaling exponent (e.g., sigma ~ L^{-alpha} with alpha = 0.4-0.6) or otherwise bound the robustness of the 'half a century' claim.
  4. [Tables 4 and 7] The treatment of outliers is inconsistent. In Table 4, the CLIC c-coupling duration of 77 years is excluded from the average as 'off, probably because of rounding errors', while in Table 7 the CLIC b-coupling duration of 26 years is described with the same caveat but is 'conservatively included in the average'. Both values appear to suffer from the same rounding instability in the input precisions, yet the two tables handle them differently, shifting the reported averages by several years. The authors should either use a robust estimator (median) or propagate the rounding uncertainty (as done later in Section 6.6) consistently across both tables.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2 and Table 5] The captions refer to the 'free-Gamma_H fit' without defining it; a sentence explaining that this is the SMEFT fit with the Higgs width left free would help readers not familiar with Ref. [11].
  2. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'almost independently of the coupling considered' is an overstatement given the ranges in Table 4 (24 to 36 years for CLIC after excluding the c value, and 28 to 31 years for ILC).
  3. [Figure 1] The left panel has a stray 'Years 250 GeV' label on the x-axis that appears to be a typo; the axis should simply read 'Years'.
  4. [Section 6.6] The systematic bias of +/-10% on the operation times is stated, but the corresponding error bars are not shown in Figures 2 and 5; adding them would make the uncertainty of the headline numbers visible.
  5. [References] Ref. [11] is cited as 'Global SMEFT Fits at Future Colliders (2022)' with arXiv number but no version; the version actually used (v5, July 2024) should be cited explicitly, since the paper states that the July 2024 update is used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the central duration comparison is a transparent rescaling of external SMEFT fit projections, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is the rescaling of integrated luminosities needed for CLIC and ILC@CERN to match FCC-ee Higgs-coupling precisions. The precision values are taken from Ref. [11], a multi-author global SMEFT fit prepared for Snowmass, not fitted in this paper. The operation times in Tables 4 and 7 are obtained by multiplying the default linear-collider luminosities by the square of the precision ratio, under an explicit L^{-1/2} scaling assumption that the paper states and then qualifies in Section 6.6. This is an extrapolation assumption, not a definitional equivalence: the precision ratios are external inputs, and the scaling law is applied, not derived from the desired conclusion. The paper does not fit any parameter to data and then relabel the fit as a prediction. Self-citations appear in several places: Ref. [11] includes one of the present authors but is an independent published Snowmass study; Ref. [12] is a prior paper by two of the authors and is cited only as a historical 'similar conclusion'; Ref. [15] supplies FCC-ee integrated luminosities as a design parameter; and Ref. [36] is a detailed critique of a competing method. None of these citations is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole support for the central derivation, so they do not create circularity. The abstract's inclusion of the gluon coupling in the headline list, although Section 4.1 explicitly excludes gluon and photon couplings from the quantitative comparison, is a mismatch in presentation rather than a circular step. The acknowledged uncertainties in Section 6.6, including the slower-than-L^{-1/2} improvement from HL-LHC combination and rounding biases, are stated as caveats and do not hide a fitted input. Overall, the derivation is self-contained arithmetic applied to external projections, with at most minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central 'half a century' claim is arithmetic built on external precision projections and design luminosities; no parameters are fitted to make the conclusion. The load-bearing inputs are the inverse-square luminosity scaling, the choice of five couplings, and the annual luminosity figures. Cost and carbon estimates additionally depend on chosen prices, carbon intensities, and OPEX fractions; these are stated but not derived.

free parameters (3)
  • Annual integrated luminosity for CLIC and ILC@CERN = CLIC 0.276 (380 GeV) and 0.444 (1500 GeV) ab^-1/yr; ILC 0.324 (250 GeV) and 0.432 (500 GeV) ab^-1/yr
    These design values convert rescaled integrated luminosities into operation years; the half-century conclusion is directly proportional to them. Taken from Refs [6,8], not independently verified in this paper.
  • Future electricity carbon intensity = 20 kg CO2e per MWh
    Chosen from a projected renewable and nuclear mix (range 15 to 25); scales the entire operation carbon footprint comparison in Section 5.2.
  • Electricity price for operations = 80 euros per MWh
    Used in Section 5.1 to estimate operation cost; acknowledged as uncertain over a 20-year horizon.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Higgs coupling precision improves as the inverse square root of e+e- integrated luminosity.
    Invoked in Section 4 to rescale all run durations; the paper admits in Section 6.6 that the actual scaling is slightly slower once combined with HL-LHC, and argues this caveat favors the linear colliders.
  • domain assumption The SMEFT global fit projections of Ref [11] are valid for all three colliders.
    All precision numbers in Tables 2 and 5 are taken from Ref [11] and rescaled; the paper does not recompute the fits. One author (Grojean) is a co-author of Ref [11], so the input is not fully independent.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the five couplings to Z, W, b, c, and tau define the common physics outcome.
    This choice excludes couplings like H to gamma gamma, H to mu mu, and the Higgs self-coupling from the main metric; the authors state that other couplings are either HL-LHC-dominated or require FCC-hh. The scope choice shapes all quantitative conclusions.
  • domain assumption The CERN operation year is 1.2e7 seconds of collisions for all facilities.
    Used to convert luminosities to years; based on 185 days at 75% efficiency. This lengthens the ILC@CERN timeline relative to the ILC design assumption of 1.6e7 seconds per year.
  • ad hoc to paper FCC-ee will be built with four interaction points from the start.
    The higher FCC-ee luminosity used in the comparison follows a mid-term review recommendation; this is a planning assumption, not a demonstrated capability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higgs Factory options for CERN: A comparative study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNMKAMHV

@misc{pith2026241213130,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higgs Factory options for CERN: A comparative study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNMKAMHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13130}
}
abstract

``All future $e^+e^-$ Higgs factories have similar reach for the precise measurement of the Higgs boson properties.'': this popular statement has often led to the impression that all $\rm e^+e^-$ options are scientifically equivalent when it comes to choosing the future post-LHC collider at CERN. More recently, the concept of sustainability has been added in attempts to rank Higgs factories. A comparative analysis of the data currently available is performed in this note to clarify these issues for three different options: the future circular colliders (FCC), and two linear collider alternatives (CLIC and ILC@CERN). The main observation is as follows. For the precise measurement of already demonstrated Higgs decays (b\=b, $\tau^+\tau^-$, gg, ZZ, WW) and for $\rm H \to c\bar c$, it would take half a century to CLIC and ILC@CERN to reach the precisions that FCC-ee can achieve in 8 years thanks to its large luminosity and its four interactions points. The corresponding electricity consumption, cost and carbon footprint would also be very significantly larger with linear colliders than with FCC-ee. Considering in addition that (i) [...]; (ii) [...]; (iii) [...]; and {\it (iv)} the vast experimental programme achievable with both FCC-ee and FCC-hh is out of reach of linear colliders; it is found that FCC-ee is a vastly superior option for CERN, and the only first step en route to the 100\,TeV hadron collider.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Descoped and Upscoped FCC-ee Running Scenarios in the SMEFT

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A descoped FCC-ee retains most of its SMEFT reach if a reduced-luminosity top-quark run is kept, while upscoped luminosity increases barely improve the global fit.

  2. Testing Higgs $CP$ properties at the CEPC with an additional ISR parameter

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using the ISR-induced shift in reconstructed event energy as an extra observable improves the projected CEPC sensitivity to CP-odd Higgs admixture by about 20% (15% in the abstract).

  3. Comment on "Sustainability Strategy for the Cool Copper Collider", arXiv:2307.04084

    hep-ex 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The sustainability metric used in the Cool Copper Collider comparison is shown to be arithmetically wrong and mathematically ill behaved, making its rankings unreliable.

  4. Accuracy complements energy: electroweak precision tests at Tera-Z

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Z-pole precision at a Tera-Z factory gives projected sensitivities to Higgs and gauge SMEFT operators that are competitive with, and complementary to, higher-energy runs such as WW and ZH.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [12]

    The carbon footprint of proposed $\rm e^+e^-$ Higgs factories

    P. Janot, A. Blondel, The carbon footprint of proposed e +e− Higgs facto- ries. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137(10), 1122 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/ s13360-022-03319-w. arXiv:2208.10466 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [11]

    de Blas, Y

    J. de Blas, Y. Du, C. Grojean, J. Gu, V. Miralles, M.E. Peskin, J. Tian, M. Vos, E. Vryonidou, Global SMEFT Fits at Future Colliders (2022). arXiv:2206.08326v5 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    Brundtland

    G. Brundtland. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Geneva, UN-Document A/42/427, http://www. un-documents.net/ocf-ov.htm (1987)

    work page 1987

  4. [2]

    2020 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics (Brochure)

    The European Strategy Group. 2020 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics (Brochure). http://cds.cern.ch/record/2721370 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  5. [3]

    Video-meeting: Restricted and Open Council - Two-Hundred-and-Third Session (2021)

    Main deliverables and timeline of the FCC feasibility study. Video-meeting: Restricted and Open Council - Two-Hundred-and-Third Session (2021). URL http://cds.cern.ch/record/2774007

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [4]

    Video-meeting: Restricted and Open Council - Two-Hundred-and-Third Session (2021)

    Organisational structure of the FCC feasibility study. Video-meeting: Restricted and Open Council - Two-Hundred-and-Third Session (2021). URL http://cds. cern.ch/record/2774006

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [5]

    Video-meeting: Scientific Policy Committee - Three-Hundred-and-Nineteenth Meeting

    Medium-Term Plan for the period 2021-2025 and draft budget of the Organi- zation for the sixty-seventh financial year 2021. Video-meeting: Scientific Policy Committee - Three-Hundred-and-Nineteenth Meeting. Tech. rep. (2020). URL https://cds.cern.ch/record/2735179

    work page arXiv 2020

  8. [6]

    Brunner, et al., The CLIC project (2022)

    O. Brunner, et al., The CLIC project (2022). arXiv:2203.09186 [physics.acc-ph]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [7]

    Aicheler, P

    M. Aicheler, P. Burrows, N. Catalan Lasheras, R. Corsini, M. Draper, J. Osborne, D. Schulte, S. Stapnes, M. Stuart, The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) – Project Implementation Plan . CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs (2018). https://doi. org/10.23731/CYRM-2018-004. URL https://c...

    2018

  2. [8]

    Aryshev, et al., The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021 (2022)

    A. Aryshev, et al., The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021 (2022). arXiv:2203.07622 [physics.acc-ph]

    2022

  3. [9]

    J. List, S. Stapnes. Linear Collider Vision Community Event. Workshop organised at CERN, 8–10 January 2025, https://indico.cern.ch/event/1471891/ (2025)

    2025

  4. [10]

    de Blas, et al., Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders

    J. de Blas, et al., Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders. JHEP 01, 139 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2020)139. arXiv:1905.03764v2 [hep-ph] 25

    2020

  5. [13]

    Breidenbach, B

    M. Breidenbach, B. Bullard, E.A. Nanni, D. Ntounis, C. Vernieri, Sustainability Strategy for the Cool Copper Collider. PRX Energy 2(4), 047001 (2023). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PRXEnergy.2.047001. arXiv:2307.04084v2 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bloom, V

    K. Bloom, V. Boisvert, Sustainability and Carbon Emissions of Future Accelerators (2024). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100906. arXiv:2411.03473 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Janot, C

    P. Janot, C. Grojean, F. Zimmermann, M. Benedikt. Integrated Luminosities and Sequence of Events for the FCC Feasibility Study Report (2024). https: //doi.org/10.17181/nfs96-89q08. URL https://doi.org/10.17181/nfs96-89q08

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    S. Stapnes. Linear colliders, towards the ESPP update. Presenta- tion at the 3rd ECF A workshop on Higgs, top and Electroweak factories, Paris, 9–11 Oct 2024, https://indico.in2p3.fr/event/32629/contributions/140466/ attachments/87556/132225/linear-colliders-ecfa-uploaded.pptx (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Bambade, et al., The International Linear Collider: A Global Project (2019)

    P. Bambade, et al., The International Linear Collider: A Global Project (2019). arXiv:1903.01629 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bordry, M

    F. Bordry, M. Benedikt, O. Br¨ uning, J. Jowett, L. Rossi, D. Schulte, S. Stapnes, F. Zimmermann, Machine Parameters and Projected Luminosity Performance of Proposed Future Colliders at CERN (2018). arXiv:1810.13022 [physics.acc-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Auchmann, W

    B. Auchmann, W. Bartmann, M. Benedikt, J.P. Burnet, P. Craievich, M. Gio- vannozzi, C. Grojean, J. Gutleber, K. Hanke, P. Janot, M. Mangano, J. Osborne, J. Poole, T. Raubenheimer, T. Watson, F. Zimmermann, R. Losito. FCC Feasibility Study Midterm Report (2024). https://doi.org...

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Gianotti

    F. Gianotti. Highlights of the June 2024 Council week and other news. Address to the personnel of CERN, 2 Jul 2024, slide 23, https://indico.cern.ch/event/ 1428865/ (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Sonnemann

    F. Sonnemann. Head of the CERN Finance and Administrative Process Department, Private communication (Dec. 2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Roser, et al., Report of the Snowmass 2021 Collider Implementation Task Force (2022)

    T. Roser, et al., Report of the Snowmass 2021 Collider Implementation Task Force (2022). arXiv:2208.06030 [physics.acc-ph] 26

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Carbon base [Data set]

    ADEME. Carbon base [Data set]. http://data.europa.eu/88u/dataset/ 65bd0b310a81ca31f396a59a (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Evans, B

    S. Evans, B. Castle. CLIC and ILC Life Cycle Assessment Final Report. https://edms.cern.ch/ui/file/2917948/1/Life Cycle Assessment for CLIC and ILC Final Report July 2023.pdf (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    D. Mauree. FCC Construction Carbon Footprint Benchmark and Optimisation Strategies. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13899160 (2024)

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Bliewert, J

    B. Bliewert, J. List, D. Ntounis, J. Tian, J.M. Torndal, C. Vernieri, in 42nd International Conference on High Energy Physics (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Alison, et al., Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspec- tives

    J. Alison, et al., Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspec- tives. Rev. Phys. 5, 100045 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revip.2020.100045. arXiv:1910.00012 [hep-ph]

    2020

  20. [28]

    M. Kado. Private communication (Nov. 2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Mangano, G

    M.L. Mangano, G. Ortona, M. Selvaggi, Measuring the Higgs self-coupling via Higgs-pair production at a 100 TeV p-p collider. Eur. Phys. J. C 80(11), 1030 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08595-3. arXiv:2004.03505 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Durieux, M

    G. Durieux, M. McCullough, E. Salvioni, Charting the Higgs self-coupling boundaries. JHEP 12, 148 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2022)148. [Erratum: JHEP 02, 165 (2023)]. arXiv:2209.00666 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zimmermann

    F. Zimmermann. Towards More Luminosity. Presentation given at the 7th FCC Physics Workshop, LAPP, Annecy-le-Vieux, France, https://indico.cern.ch/ event/1307378 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    J. List. Running Scenarios for a Linear Collider Facility at CERN. Presentation given at the Future Colliders workshop, DESY, Hamburg, Germany (2024). URL https://indico.desy.de/event/47363

    2024

  25. [33]

    Raubenheimer

    T. Raubenheimer. Private communication (Dec. 2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    R. Losito. Chair of the CERN Sustainable Accelerators Panel, Private commu- nication (Nov. 2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Gutleber

    J. Gutleber. Member of the FCC Coordination Group in charge of the FCC sustainability aspects, Private communication (Nov. 2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Sustainability Strategy for the Cool Copper Collider

    C. Grojean, P. Janot. Comment on “Sustainability Strategy for the Cool Copper Collider” (2024). https://doi.org/10.17181/gbp32-1b445 27

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.