Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Vector Boson Fusion Signatures of Superheavy Majorana Neutrinos at Muon Colliders

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Future high-energy muon colliders could infer heavy Majorana neutrinos with masses far above the collider energy, down to mixing angles near 0.001, through t-channel vector-boson-fusion muon-pair production.

desk verdict A solid, useful projection paper whose abstract overstates the reach; the body's own width constraint kills the 100 TeV/0.001 headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06159 v2 pith:YDTX2LRW submitted 2025-06-06 hep-ph

Parham Dehghani , Mariana Frank , Benjamin Fuks This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords heavyMajorananeutrinosmuoncollidersvectorbosonfusiont-channelexchangeactive-sterilemixingleptonnumberviolationsame-signcollisionsmuTRISTAN
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

The paper argues that future muon colliders can probe heavy Majorana neutrinos whose masses lie far above the collider's own energy, by looking at t-channel vector-boson-fusion production of same-sign or opposite-sign muon pairs. This matters because the seesaw-scale neutrinos that could explain neutrino masses may be too heavy for any direct on-shell search, and the VBF exchange amplitude does not decouple as the mass grows. The authors show that a 10 TeV $\mu^+\mu^-$ machine with 10 ab$^{-1}$ of data, and even a 2 TeV $\mu^+\mu^+$ machine, could set 95% exclusion limits on the active-sterile mixing parameter $|V_{\mu N}|$ down to roughly $10^{-3}$ (and on $|V_{\mu N}|^2$ down to $\sim 10^{-6}$ with boosted decision trees) for masses up to tens of TeV. They are careful to note that the extreme 100 TeV reach lies in a width region the simplified model treats with caution, the realistic width-limited reach being around 20 TeV at few-percent mixing. Altogether this establishes muon colliders as a complementary probe of lepton-number violation and of the Majorana nature of neutrinos.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 2-to-4 vector-boson-fusion process $\mu^+\mu^\pm \to \nu_\mu \nu_\mu \mu^+\mu^\pm$, in which the heavy Majorana neutrino $N$ is exchanged in the t-channel, with an interfering s-channel contribution in the opposite-sign case. The heavy neutrino is described by a simplified type-I seesaw model in which a sterile state $N$ mixes with the muon neutrino through $V_{\mu N}$ and thereby inherits charged- and neutral-current couplings; the paper treats $M_N$ and $V_{\mu N}$ as free parameters and caps $\Gamma_N/M_N$ at 30% to stay within the regime where the simplified model is reliable. In the multi-TeV limit the t-channel amplitude does not decouple, so the cross section falls only as $|V_{\mu N}|^4/M_N^4$, which is what allows an indirect search to reach masses far above the collider energy. The discriminating kinematics, namely central energetic muons, large missing transverse energy, and a strong azimuthal correlation between the subleading muon and the missing momentum, are captured either by sequential cuts or by boosted decision trees trained on kinematic variables, with the multivariate model exploiting correlations among the muon azimuthal separation, the di-muon invariant mass, and the transverse-momentum sum.

What would settle it

A full detector-level simulation of a 10 TeV muon collider, applied to the vector-boson-fusion signal and its Standard Model backgrounds, would settle the central claim; if reconstructed forward muons or isolation efficiencies differ from the simplified simulation, the 95% exclusion contours in the ($M_N$, $|V_{\mu N}|^2$) plane would shift beyond the 0--20% systematic band shown in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the multi-TeV regime, vector-boson-fusion t-channel exchange of a heavy Majorana neutrino $N$ in the processes $\mu^+\mu^- \to \mu^+\mu^- \nu_\mu\nu_\mu$ and $\mu^+\mu^+ \to \mu^+\mu^+ \nu_\mu\nu_\mu$ gives a signal that survives for $M_N$ much larger than $\sqrt{s}$, scaling as $|V_{\mu N}|^4/M_N^4$ for large masses, and that this mechanism is detectable at future muon colliders. Concretely, the analysis finds sensitivity to masses up to about 100 TeV at large mixing, but the width-to-mass constraint $\Gamma_N/M_N < 30\%$ confines the credible reach to roughly 20 TeV for mixings of order a few percent, with all four configurations (1, 3, 10 TeV $\mu^+\mu^-$ and 2 TeV $\mu^+\mu^+$) showing exclusion power in the very-heavy regime. A boosted-decision-tree selection improves the reach by about two orders of magnitude in $|V_{\mu N}|^2$ at the highest masses, down to $|V_{\mu N}|^2 \sim 10^{-6}$, while the same-sign $\mu^+\mu^+$ mode cleanly isolates the t-channel amplitude and the opposite-sign mode benefits from s-channel/t-channel interference near $M_N \sim 0.5$--1 TeV. The authors frame this result as a complement to direct-production searches and to the existing same-sign WW scattering bounds at hadron colliders.

Load-bearing premise

The projected exclusions assume the simplified fast detector simulation accurately represents a future muon collider experiment, including beam-induced backgrounds and forward object reconstruction; the simulation is validated only against one alternative fast-simulation approach on top-pair events at 10 TeV, not against a full detector model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 2 TeV same-sign $\mu^+\mu^+$ collider could place meaningful constraints on superheavy neutrinos down to $M_N \sim 500$ GeV and up to about 100 TeV at large mixing, isolating the t-channel contribution without s-channel contamination.
  • For heavy neutrino masses above about 10 TeV, lower-energy $\mu^+\mu^-$ colliders can outperform the 10 TeV machine, because the Standard Model backgrounds at 10 TeV more closely mimic the signal topology while lower-energy backgrounds are kinematically suppressed.
  • The BDT analysis extends the best-case sensitivity to $|V_{\mu N}|^2 \sim 10^{-6}$ for the heaviest masses, about two orders of magnitude beyond the cut-based exclusions.
  • The projected exclusions remain stable when the background systematic uncertainty is varied from 0% to 20%, with only minor degradation.
  • The VBF channel is complementary to direct on-shell production: below $M_N \sim \sqrt{s}$ direct searches are stronger, while above that threshold VBF takes over.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same non-decoupling t-channel scaling suggests the VBF topology could be repurposed as a model-independent probe of electroweak-scale lepton-number violation, testing effective operators rather than the single seesaw state assumed here.
  • Editorial inference: the headline 100 TeV contours should be read alongside the paper's own width caveat; a more conservative experimental planning target is the roughly 20 TeV reach at few-percent mixing until a full off-shell treatment of the broad-width region is available.
  • Editorial inference: comparing same-sign and opposite-sign event rates would test the Majorana character of the exchanged state more directly than exclusion contours, since only a Majorana neutrino mediates the lepton-number-violating same-sign process at tree level.
  • Editorial inference: the feature-importance ranking suggests that a future experimental analysis could concentrate on a few observables, namely azimuthal separation of the two muons, di-muon invariant mass, and transverse-momentum sum, simplifying systematic-error propagation without losing much sensitivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies vector-boson-fusion (VBF) production of heavy Majorana neutrinos at future muon colliders, using MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, Pythia8, and a MadAnalysis5 SFS fast detector simulation. It considers muon-antimuon collisions at sqrt(s) = 1, 3, and 10 TeV and same-sign muon collisions at sqrt(s) = 2 TeV (muTRISTAN), and derives 95% CL exclusion contours in the (M_N, |V_muN|^2) plane with both cut-based and BDT-based analyses. The advertised headline is that active-sterile mixing angles as small as |V_muN| ~ 0.001 could be probed for neutrino masses up to 100 TeV. However, the body of the paper explicitly states that the 100 TeV reach is only technically possible for Gamma_N/M_N > 30%, which the paper itself labels unphysical, and that the realistic width-limited reach is about 20 TeV for few-percent mixing.

Significance. If the 100 TeV, |V_muN| ~ 0.001 claim were supported, this would provide strong motivation for a high-energy muon collider. The paper has clear strengths: a standard, reproducible Monte Carlo chain; multiple collider configurations and luminosity scenarios; validation of the SFS detector card against Delphes; inclusion of background-systematic bands; and explicit discussion of the width-to-mass-ratio reliability condition. The realistic result, a VBF-driven reach up to about 20 TeV for few-percent mixing in the physical Gamma_N/M_N < 30% region, is itself valuable and complementary to existing LHC and muTRISTAN projections. The main weakness is not the technical setup but the mismatch between the headline claim and the body's own physicality criterion, which must be fixed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.1 (after Fig. 7), Abstract, Section IV] The abstract and conclusion claim that active-sterile mixing angles as small as 0.001 could be probed for neutrino masses up to 100 TeV, and the conclusion repeats that |V_muN|^2 ~ 10^-6 is reachable in the most favourable benchmarks. Yet Section III.1 states: 'Our results indicate that sensitivity to heavy neutrinos with masses up to 100 TeV is technically possible, but only in extreme cases featuring Gamma_N/M_N > 30%. More realistic scenarios with Gamma_N/M_N < 30% remain accessible up to around 20 TeV, provided the active-sterile mixing is of order a few percent.' Since Section II.1 defines Gamma_N/M_N < 30% as the reliability condition for the simplified model, and since Figs. 7 and 10 shade Gamma_N/M_N > 30% as 'unphysical', the advertised simultaneous (100 TeV, |V_muN| = 0.001) reach is not supported by the paper's own analysis. This is a load-bearing internal contradiction. Please revise the abstract, introduction, and conclusions so that the physical-region reach (about 20 TeV for few-percent mixing) is the primary claim, and present any 100 TeV statement only as an explicitly unphysical limiting case.
  2. [Section III.1 (benchmark scenarios) and Section II.1] The cut-based analysis at sqrt(s) = 10 TeV uses benchmark scenarios with M_N = 100, 500, and 1000 GeV and V_muN = 1.0, 1.0, and 0.5, respectively. The M_N = 1 TeV benchmark therefore has |V_muN|^2 = 0.25, whereas Section II.1 states that at M_N = 1 TeV the condition Gamma_N/M_N < 30% requires |V_muN|^2 <~ 0.2. Thus one of the three benchmarks used to optimize the cuts lies outside the region the paper itself defines as reliable. This inconsistency should be corrected by changing the benchmark or by explicitly justifying why the width constraint is relaxed for cut optimisation.
  3. [Section II.2 (detector validation)] The SFS detector parametrisation is validated only against Delphes for inclusive top-antitop production at sqrt(s) = 10 TeV (Figs. 1-3). The signal and background processes in this paper involve forward/central muons and missing transverse energy, and beam-induced background is a known challenge for muon colliders, but no validation against a full Geant-level muon-collider detector simulation is provided. Since the projected exclusion contours depend on muon reconstruction, isolation, and missing-energy performance, the impact of the fast-simulation approximation on the quoted reach should be quantified, for example by comparing a subset of signal and background samples with a public full-simulation muon-collider card or by varying the object-efficiency assumptions in the SFS card.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.2] The text contains a typo: 'Hea vyN' should read 'HeavyN'. Also, Eq. (3.1) uses sigma_B for the background systematic uncertainty inside the square root; the notation should be clarified in the text (e.g., define it as an absolute uncertainty, not a relative one).
  2. [Abstract and Section IV] The paper derives 95% CL exclusion limits, but the abstract and conclusion use the phrase 'discovery potential'. These are distinct statistical statements; please rephrase to distinguish exclusion reach from discovery significance.
  3. [Sections III.1 and III.2] The notation 'mu+mu+-' and 'mu+mu+' is sometimes written ambiguously as 'mu+mu^pm' in the text; the two collider modes should be written explicitly as 'mu+mu-' and 'mu+mu+' throughout.
  4. [Reference list] Reference [46] contains a typo ('tyep-I' should be 'type-I'). Please also check that all references to the muTRISTAN design parameters are consistent with the published version of the proposal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exclusions follow from simulated event counts; the abstract-body 100 TeV mismatch is an internal consistency issue, not a derivation loop.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: signal and SM-background events are generated with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, Pythia8, and the SFS/MadAnalysis5 detector chain, and the exclusion contours are obtained by applying cut-based or BDT selections and counting signal and background events in Eq. (3.1). No physics parameter is fitted to data. The BDT classifiers are trained and tested on the same generator samples, but that is an internal classification procedure, not a prediction derived from its own output. The SFS detector card is benchmarked against an independent Delphes muon-collider simulation for inclusive top-pair production (Figs. 1-3), so the detector model is not self-referential. The width-to-mass ratio is computed with MadWidth and used only to flag unphysical regions, not to define the reach. The high-mass scaling sigma ~ |V_muN|^4/M_N^4 is cited from prior literature including a coauthor, but it is an analytic result that is also realized in the explicitly simulated samples up to 100 TeV and is not used as a uniqueness or ansatz argument. The self-citations (MadAnalysis5, SFS, Fuks et al.) are normal toolchain and scaling references and are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The most important caveat is an internal inconsistency rather than circularity: Section III.1 explicitly states that 'sensitivity to heavy neutrinos with masses up to 100 TeV is technically possible, but only in extreme cases featuring Gamma_N/M_N > 30%,' and that sub-30%-width scenarios are limited to about 20 TeV at few-percent mixing, whereas the abstract advertises 100 TeV and |V_muN| ~ 0.001 without that qualification. That is a correctness, consistency, and presentation issue, not a case of a result being equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the scanned model parameters (M_N, |V_μN|) are physical inputs, not ad hoc adjustments. The main assumptions are the validity of the simplified seesaw model, the LO simulation accuracy, the detector parametrisation, and the completeness of background generation. No new particles or forces are invented beyond the standard heavy neutrino.

free parameters (2)
  • Heavy neutrino mass M_N = not fitted; scanned over 10 GeV to 100 TeV
    Input parameter of the simplified model; the paper reports exclusions as a function of M_N. Not fitted to data.
  • Active-sterile mixing V_μN = not fitted; benchmark values such as 1.0, 0.1, 0.025
    Input parameter controlling production rate and width; chosen to keep Γ/M < 30% and to define benchmark scenarios. Not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The type-I seesaw-inspired simplified model with one sterile neutrino mixing only with the muon flavor captures the relevant phenomenology for VBF-induced production.
    Section II.1: eq. (2.1)-(2.2) define the mixing; other flavors and UV completions are neglected, so the projected reach is model-dependent.
  • domain assumption Leading-order matrix elements from MadGraph5_aMC@NLO with the HeavyN UFO are accurate for the t-channel VBF signal and background cross sections.
    Section II.2: no NLO or EW corrections are applied; the paper notes width-to-mass ratios up to 30% may impair accuracy.
  • domain assumption The SFS detector parametrisation faithfully reproduces the performance of a future muon collider detector.
    Section II.2: validated only against Delphes for ttbar; beam-induced background effects are smeared but not validated against full simulation.
  • domain assumption The simulated SM backgrounds represent the dominant irreducible backgrounds for the targeted final states.
    Section III.1: backgrounds are generated at LO; potential missing processes or higher-order contributions could change signal significance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vector Boson Fusion Signatures of Superheavy Majorana Neutrinos at Muon Colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDTX2LRW

@misc{pith2026250606159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vector Boson Fusion Signatures of Superheavy Majorana Neutrinos at Muon Colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDTX2LRW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06159}
}
abstract

We investigate the sensitivity of future high-energy muon colliders to heavy Majorana neutrinos, considering both opposite-sign ($\mu^+\mu^-$) and same-sign ($\mu^+\mu^+$) collision modes. We focus on $\mu^+\mu^-$ colliders operating at centre-of-mass energies of 1, 3 and 10 TeV, as well as the proposed $\mu$TRISTAN facility at 2 TeV, and we analyse the production of heavy neutrinos via vector boson fusion in the $t$-channel, a mechanism that becomes dominant in the multi-TeV regime. We evaluate its exclusion potential in terms of the heavy neutrino mass and the mixing of the heavy neutrino with its Standard Model counterparts, using both cut-based selections and boosted decision trees trained to exploit the distinct kinematic signatures of heavy Majorana neutrino exchanges. Our results demonstrate the complementarity between collider configurations, and show that active-sterile mixing angles as small as 0.001 could be probed for neutrino masses up to 100 TeV, an experimentally inaccessible region of the parameter space at current facilities. Altogether, this work establishes the discovery potential of muon colliders for testing super-heavy Majorana neutrinos, complementary to conventional probes, and provides compelling motivation for the next generation of high-energy lepton colliders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Pseudo-rapidity (top row) and transverse momentum (bottom row) distributions of the leading electron (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Missing transverse energy distribution derived from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Transverse momentum (top) and pseudo-rapidity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Representative Feynman diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Kinematic distributions used to define the selection cuts shown prior to the application of each respective cut. The panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. 95% CL exclusions expected from the four muon colliders considered, projected in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Classification performance of BDT models trained for three representative heavy Majorana neutrino benchmarks with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Importance ranking calculated using the gain-based method implemented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Projected 95% CL exclusion limits in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Multiboson Signatures of Doubly Charged Scalars at a Same-Sign Muon Collider

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A same-sign muon collider at 2 TeV with 1 ab^-1 could reach 2-sigma sensitivity to Type-II seesaw doubly charged scalars decaying to WW up to roughly 425-430 GeV, slightly extending current LHC coverage.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fukuda et al., Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos, Phys

    Super-Kamiokande collaboration, Y. Fukuda et al., Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett.81 (1998) 1562–1567, [hep-ex/9807003]

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    SNO collaboration, Q. R. Ahmad et al.,Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett.89 (2002) 011301, [nucl-ex/0204008]

    arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Minkowski,µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of109 Muon Decays?, Phys

    P. Minkowski,µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of109 Muon Decays?, Phys. Lett. B67 (1977) 421–428

    1977

  4. [4]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,Complex Spinors and Unified Theories, Conf. Proc. C790927 (1979) 315–321, [1306.4669]

    arXiv 1979

  5. [5]

    S. L. Glashow,The Future of Elementary Particle Physics, NATO Sci. Ser. B61 (1980) 687

    1980

  6. [6]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett.44 (1980) 912

    1980

  7. [7]

    Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos, Conf

    T. Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos, Conf. Proc. C7902131 (1979) 95–99

    1979

  8. [8]

    Magg and C

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich,Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy, Phys. Lett. B94 (1980) 61–64

    1980

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    R. E. Shrock,General Theory of Weak Leptonic and Semileptonic Decays. 1. Leptonic Pseudoscalar Meson Decays, with Associated Tests For, and Bounds on, Neutrino Masses and Lepton Mixing, Phys. Rev. D24 (1981) 1232

    1981

  2. [10]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle,Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 2227

    1980

  3. [11]

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li,Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2) x U(1) Models of Electroweak Interactions, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 2860

    1980

  4. [12]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 165

    1981

  5. [13]

    Lazarides, Q

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich,Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model, Nucl. Phys. B181 (1981) 287–300

    1981

  6. [14]

    R. Foot, H. Lew, X. G. He and G. C. Joshi,Seesaw Neutrino Masses Induced by a Triplet of Leptons, Z. Phys. C 44 (1989) 441

    1989

  7. [15]

    A. Atre, T. Han, S. Pascoli and B. Zhang,The Search for Heavy Majorana Neutrinos, JHEP 05 (2009) 030, [0901.3589]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Y. Cai, T. Han, T. Li and R. Ruiz,Lepton Number Violation: Seesaw Models and Their Collider Tests, Front. in Phys.6 (2018) 40, [1711.02180]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Boscolo, J.-P

    M. Boscolo, J.-P. Delahaye and M. Palmer,The future prospects of muon colliders and neutrino factories, Rev. Accel. Sci. Tech.10 (2019) 189–214, [1808.01858]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. P. Delahaye, M. Diemoz, K. Long, B. Mansoulié, N. Pastrone, L. Rivkin et al.,Muon Colliders, 1901.06150

    1901 arXiv

  11. [19]

    K. Long, D. Lucchesi, M. Palmer, N. Pastrone, D. Schulte and V. Shiltsev,Muon colliders to expand frontiers of particle physics, Nature Phys.17 (2021) 289–292, [2007.15684]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Al Ali et al.,The muon Smasher’s guide, Rept

    H. Al Ali et al.,The muon Smasher’s guide, Rept. Prog. Phys. 85 (2022) 084201, [2103.14043]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    K. M. Black et al.,Muon Collider Forum report, JINST 19 (2024) T02015, [2209.01318]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hamada, R

    Y. Hamada, R. Kitano, R. Matsudo, H. Takaura and M. Yoshida,µTRISTAN, PTEP 2022 (2022) 053B02, [2201.06664]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Accettura et al.,Towards a muon collider, Eur

    C. Accettura et al.,Towards a muon collider, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 864, [2303.08533]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fridell, R

    K. Fridell, R. Kitano and R. Takai,Lepton flavor physics at µ+µ+ colliders, JHEP 06 (2023) 086, [2304.14020]. 15

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Akturk, B

    D. Akturk, B. Dagli, B. Ketenoglu, A. Ozturk and S. Sultansoy,µTRISTAN and LHC/Tevatron/FCC/SppC Based Antimuon-Hadron Colliders, 2406.02647

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Li, C.-Y

    T. Li, C.-Y. Yao and M. Yuan,Searching for heavy neutral lepton and lepton number violation through VBS at high-energy muon colliders, JHEP 09 (2023) 131, [2306.17368]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. Li, Z. Liu and K.-F. Lyu,Heavy neutral leptons at muon colliders, JHEP 03 (2023) 231, [2301.07117]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    T. H. Kwok, L. Li, T. Liu and A. Rock,Searching for heavy neutral leptons at a future muon collider, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 075009, [2301.05177]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Keung and G

    W.-Y. Keung and G. Senjanovic,Majorana Neutrinos and the Production of the Right-handed Charged Gauge Boson, Phys. Rev. Lett.50 (1983) 1427

    1983

  22. [30]

    del Aguila, J

    F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and R. Pittau, Heavy neutrino signals at large hadron colliders, JHEP 10 (2007) 047, [hep-ph/0703261]

    2007 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Banerjee, P

    S. Banerjee, P. S. B. Dev, A. Ibarra, T. Mandal and M. Mitra,Prospects of Heavy Neutrino Searches at Future Lepton Colliders, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 075002, [1503.05491]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Nemevšek, F

    M. Nemevšek, F. Nesti and G. Popara, Keung-Senjanović process at the LHC: From lepton number violation to displaced vertices to invisible decays, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 115018, [1801.05813]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pascoli, R

    S. Pascoli, R. Ruiz and C. Weiland,Heavy neutrinos with dynamic jet vetoes: multilepton searches at√s = 14 , 27, and 100 TeV, JHEP 06 (2019) 049, [1812.08750]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    B. Fuks, J. Neundorf, K. Peters, R. Ruiz and M. Saimpert,Majorana neutrinos in same-signW ±W ± scattering at the LHC: Breaking the TeV barrier, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 055005, [2011.02547]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mękała, J

    K. Mękała, J. Reuter and A. F. Żarnecki,Heavy neutrinos at future linear e+e− colliders, JHEP 06 (2022) 010, [2202.06703]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nemevšek and F

    M. Nemevšek and F. Nesti,Left-right symmetry at an FCC-hh, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 015030, [2306.12104]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Frank, B

    M. Frank, B. Fuks, A. Jueid, S. Moretti and O. Ozdal, A novel search strategy for right-handed charged gauge bosons at the Large Hadron Collider, JHEP 02 (2024) 150, [2312.08521]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    ATLAScollaboration, M. Aaboud et al.,Search for heavy Majorana or Dirac neutrinos and right-handedW gauge bosons in final states with two charged leptons and two jets at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 01 (2019) 016, [1809.11105]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Aaboud et al.,Search for a right-handed gauge boson decaying into a high-momentum heavy neutrino and a charged lepton in pp collisions with the ATLAS detector at√s = 13 TeV, Phys

    ATLAScollaboration, M. Aaboud et al.,Search for a right-handed gauge boson decaying into a high-momentum heavy neutrino and a charged lepton in pp collisions with the ATLAS detector at√s = 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B798 (2019) 134942, [1904.12679]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Aad et al.,Search for Majorana neutrinos in same-sign WW scattering events from pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Eur

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for Majorana neutrinos in same-sign WW scattering events from pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 824, [2305.14931]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Aad et al.,Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in e±e± and e±µ± final states via WW scattering in pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in e±e± and e±µ± final states via WW scattering in pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B856 (2024) 138865, [2403.15016]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al.,Search for a heavy right-handed W boson and a heavy neutrino in events with two same-flavor leptons and two jets at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 05 (2018) 148, [1803.11116]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al.,Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in same-sign dilepton channels in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 01 (2019) 122, [1806.10905]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Tumasyan et al.,Search for a right-handed W boson and a heavy neutrino in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 04 (2022) 047, [2112.03949]

    CMS collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al.,Search for a right-handed W boson and a heavy neutrino in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 04 (2022) 047, [2112.03949]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Tumasyan et al.,Probing Heavy Majorana Neutrinos and the Weinberg Operator through Vector Boson Fusion Processes in Proton-Proton Collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys

    CMS collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al.,Probing Heavy Majorana Neutrinos and the Weinberg Operator through Vector Boson Fusion Processes in Proton-Proton Collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 011803, [2206.08956]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. Das, J. Li, S. Mandal, T. Nomura and R. Zhang, Testing tree level TeV scale tyep-I and type-II seesaw scenarios in µTRISTAN, 2410.21956

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Jiang, T

    R. Jiang, T. Yang, S. Qian, Y. Ban, J. Li, Z. You et al., Searching for Majorana neutrinos at a same-sign muon collider, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 035020, [2304.04483]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C. H. de Lima, D. McKeen, J. N. Ng, M. Shamma and D. Tuckler,Probing lepton number violation at same-sign lepton colliders, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 075002, [2411.15303]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    P. S. B. Dev, J. Heeck and A. Thapa,Neutrino mass models at µTRISTAN, Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) 148, [2309.06463]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bandyopadhyay and S

    P. Bandyopadhyay and S. Parashar,Probing a scalar singlet-triplet extension of the standard model via vector boson fusion at a muon collider, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 115032, [2410.06298]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    B. Fuks, J. Neundorf, K. Peters, R. Ruiz and M. Saimpert,Probing the Weinberg operator at colliders, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 115014, [2012.09882]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    P. S. B. Dev, A. Pilaftsis and U.-k. Yang,New Production Mechanism for Heavy Neutrinos at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.112 (2014) 081801, [1308.2209]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    D. Alva, T. Han and R. Ruiz,Heavy Majorana neutrinos from W γfusion at hadron colliders, JHEP 02 (2015) 072, [1411.7305]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    J. Y. Araz, B. Fuks and G. Polykratis,Simplified fast detector simulation in MADANALYSIS 5, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 329, [2006.09387]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J. Y. Araz, B. Fuks, M. D. Goodsell and M. Utsch, Recasting LHC searches for long-lived particles with MadAnalysis 5, Eur. Phys. J. C82 (2022) 597, [2112.05163]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J. Y. Araz, A. Buckley and B. Fuks,Searches for new physics with boosted top quarks in the MadAnalysis 5 and Rivet frameworks, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 664, [2303.03427]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Fuks and G. Serret,MadAnalysis 5, A User-Friendly Framework for Collider Phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun.184 (2013) 222–256, [1206.1599]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Dumont, B. Fuks and C. Wymant, Designing and recasting LHC analyses with MadAnalysis 5, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 3103, [1405.3982]

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Conte and B

    E. Conte and B. Fuks,Confronting new physics theories to LHC data with MADANALYSIS 5, Int. J. Mod. 16 Phys. A33 (2018) 1830027, [1808.00480]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Alwall, C

    J. Alwall, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, O. Mattelaer, D. G. Öztürk and C.-H. Shen,Computing decay rates for new physics theories with FeynRules and MadGraph 5_aMC@NLO, Comput. Phys. Commun.197 (2015) 312–323, [1402.1178]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Degrande, O

    C. Degrande, O. Mattelaer, R. Ruiz and J. Turner, Fully-Automated Precision Predictions for Heavy Neutrino Production Mechanisms at Hadron Colliders, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 053002, [1602.06957]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    N. D. Christensen, P. de Aquino, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, M. Herquet et al.,A Comprehensive approach to new physics simulations, Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1541, [0906.2474]

    2011 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun.185 (2014) 2250–2300, [1310.1921]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Degrande,Automatic evaluation of UV and R2 terms for beyond the Standard Model Lagrangians: a proof-of-principle, Comput

    C. Degrande,Automatic evaluation of UV and R2 terms for beyond the Standard Model Lagrangians: a proof-of-principle, Comput. Phys. Commun.197 (2015) 239–262, [1406.3030]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter,UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output, Comput. Phys. Commun.183 (2012) 1201–1214, [1108.2040]

    2012 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Darmé et al.,UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format, Eur

    L. Darmé et al.,UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 631, [2304.09883]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07 (2014) 079, [1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022 (2022) 8, [2203.11601]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04 (2008) 063, [0802.1189]

    2008 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J.C72 (2012) 1896, [1111.6097]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Collamati, C

    F. Collamati, C. Curatolo, D. Lucchesi, A. Mereghetti, N. Mokhov, M. Palmer et al.,Advanced assessment of beam-induced background at a muon collider, JINST 16 (2021) P11009, [2105.09116]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Muon Collider collaboration, C. Aimè, C. Riccardi, P. Salvini and I. Vai,Simulated performance of a multi-purpose experiment at a Muon Collider, PoS ICHEP2022 (2022) 1109

    2022

  65. [73]

    Bartosik et al., Simulated Detector Performance at the Muon Collider, 2203.07964

    Muon Collider collaboration, N. Bartosik et al., Simulated Detector Performance at the Muon Collider, 2203.07964

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Arominski et al.,A detector for CLIC: main parameters and performance, 1812.07337

    CLICdp collaboration, D. Arominski et al.,A detector for CLIC: main parameters and performance, 1812.07337

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    Grefe,Detector Optimization Studies and Light Higgs Decay into Muons at CLIC

    C. Grefe,Detector Optimization Studies and Light Higgs Decay into Muons at CLIC. PhD thesis, Bonn U.,

  68. [76]

    Zimmermann,LHC/FCC-based muon colliders, J.Phys.Conf.Ser

    F. Zimmermann,LHC/FCC-based muon colliders, J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 1067 (2018) 022017

    2018

  69. [77]

    Benedikt et al.,Future Circular Hadron Collider FCC-hh: Overview and Status, 2203.07804

    M. Benedikt et al.,Future Circular Hadron Collider FCC-hh: Overview and Status, 2203.07804

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    de Favereau, C

    DELPHES 3 collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens et al.,DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP 02 (2014) 057, [1307.6346]

    2014 arXiv

  71. [79]

    CMS collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al.,Search for heavy neutral leptons in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 06 (2024) 123, [2403.00100]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    B. P. Roe, H.-J. Yang, J. Zhu, Y. Liu, I. Stancu and G. McGregor,Boosted decision trees, an alternative to artificial neural networks, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A543 (2005) 577–584, [physics/0408124]

    2005 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Coadou,Boosted Decision Trees and Applications, EPJ Web Conf.55 (2013) 02004

    Y. Coadou,Boosted Decision Trees and Applications, EPJ Web Conf.55 (2013) 02004

    2013

  74. [82]

    Albertsson et al.,Machine Learning in High Energy Physics Community White Paper, J

    K. Albertsson et al.,Machine Learning in High Energy Physics Community White Paper, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1085 (2018) 022008, [1807.02876]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby et al.,Machine learning and the physical sciences, Rev. Mod. Phys.91 (2019) 045002, [1903.10563]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    A. S. Cornell, W. Doorsamy, B. Fuks, G. Harmsen and L. Mason,Boosted decision trees in the era of new physics: a smuon analysis case study, JHEP 04 (2022) 015, [2109.11815]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Choudhury, A

    A. Choudhury, A. Mondal and S. Sarkar,Searches for the BSM scenarios at the LHC using decision tree-based machine learning algorithms: a comparative study and review of random forest, AdaBoost, XGBoost and LightGBM frameworks, Eur. Phys. J. ST233 (2024) 2425–2463, [2405.06040]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    A. S. Cornell, B. Fuks, M. D. Goodsell and A. M. Ncube, Improving smuon searches with neural networks, Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) 51, [2411.04526]

    2025 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Hastie, R

    T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani and J. Friedman,The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer, 2009, 10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7

    2009 doi

  80. [88]

    Chen and C

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin,XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System, 1603.02754

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.