Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Probing the electromagnetic dipole moment of the $\tau$ lepton in the $e^+e^- \to \gamma^*/Z \to \tau^+ \tau^-$ reaction

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that optimal observables in $e^+e^-\to\gamma^*/Z\to\tau^+\tau^-$ can measure the tau weak dipole moment to $10^{-21}\,e\,\text{cm}$ at the Z pole and its electric dipole moment to $10^{-20}\,e\,\text{cm}$ at Belle-II.

desk verdict Useful idealized optimal-observable projection for tau EDM/WDM/AMDM at BEPCII, Belle-II, and CEPC, but the central numbers are weakened by a double-counted tau decay channel and an inconsistent Belle-II event yield. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19557 v1 pith:QKMO4HRX submitted 2025-06-24 hep-ph

Peng-Cheng Lu , Zong-Guo Si , Han Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords tauleptonelectricdipolemomentweakanomalousmagneticoptimalobservablese+e-collisionsCPviolationspindensitymatrix
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 analyzing the full kinematics of $\tau^+\tau^-$ events at electron-positron colliders with optimal observables can push sensitivity to the tau lepton's electric, weak, and anomalous magnetic dipole moments far beyond existing bounds. It claims projected one-$\sigma$ precisions of $4.87\times10^{-17}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ for the real electric dipole moment at BEPCII, $9.42\times10^{-20}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ at Belle-II, and $1.12\times10^{-21}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ for the weak dipole moment at the CEPC Z pole, with imaginary parts at $2.40\times10^{-17}$, $2.43\times10^{-20}$, and $1.78\times10^{-21}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ respectively. For the anomalous magnetic moment it projects $\delta\,{\rm Re}\,a_\tau=1.88\times10^{-5}$ and $\delta\,{\rm Im}\,a_\tau=1.76\times10^{-5}$ at Belle-II. A nonzero electric or weak dipole moment would be a direct signature of new CP-violating physics, so these projections matter because they indicate where future colliders might first see such a signal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the production spin density matrix $\chi_{\alpha\alpha'\beta\beta'}$ for $e^+e^-\to\tau^+\tau^-$, decomposed in the Fano-Bloch basis and expanded to first order in ${\rm Re}\,d_\tau$, ${\rm Im}\,d_\tau$, ${\rm Re}\,a_\tau$, and ${\rm Im}\,a_\tau$. This is folded with the decay density matrices of polarized $\tau^\pm$, whose spin-analyzing powers encode how well each one-prong or multi-prong final state carries the tau spin. From that product the optimal observables $O_i=S_{1,i}/S_0$ are built; these are the variables that minimize statistical uncertainty in a maximum-likelihood sense, and the paper uses the CP and naive-T symmetry properties of each piece to show which cross terms vanish and therefore to diagonalize the covariance matrix.

What would settle it

One concrete test is to run the same optimal-observable analysis through a full detector simulation for one of the three collider scenarios, applying the actual acceptance, tau reconstruction efficiency, and backgrounds: if the effective surviving event count falls well below the assumed $N_{\tau\tau}$, the projected $10^{-21}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ reach at the Z pole and the $10^{-20}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ reach at Belle-II cannot be realized. A cleaner physics check is to measure $E[O_{{\rm Im}\,d_\tau}]$ in $\tau^+\to\pi^+\bar\nu$ and $\tau^-\to\pi^-\nu$ events at Belle-II energy with no phase-space cuts, where the SM expectation is zero, and see whether the statistical uncertainty matches $\delta\,{\rm Im}\,d_\tau=2.43\times10^{-20}\,e\,{\rm cm}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for $e^+e^-\to\gamma^*/Z\to\tau^+\tau^-$, with $\tau$ decays into leptons, pions, rho mesons, and three-pion final states, the optimal observables $O_i=S_{1,i}/S_0$ formed from the linear-in-coupling part of the differential cross section give the best statistical reach on all four real and imaginary parts of $d_\tau^\gamma$, $d_\tau^Z$, and $a_\tau$. The paper computes expectation values and covariances of these observables from the production spin density matrix expanded to first order in the dipole couplings, combines decay channels through branching fractions and spin-analyzing powers, and reports the sensitivities in Tables II and V. It finds that the Z-pole sample at CEPC could reach $10^{-21}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ for the weak dipole moment, that Belle-II could reach $10^{-20}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ for the electric dipole moment, and that the imaginary component of the electric dipole moment is accessible even though it is T-odd.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted sensitivities assume every produced $\tau^+\tau^-$ pair is counted with no acceptance loss; the paper applies no phase-space cuts and takes the event numbers $3.5\times10^6$, $4.5\times10^{10}$, and $1.2\times10^{11}$ as inputs, so any real detector efficiency or background that reduces the effective sample weakens every limit by the inverse square root of the surviving count.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the CEPC Z pole, $\delta\,{\rm Re}\,d_\tau^Z=1.12\times10^{-21}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ and $\delta\,{\rm Im}\,d_\tau^Z=1.78\times10^{-21}\,e\,{\rm cm}$, enough to be sensitive to BSM predictions at the $10^{-19}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ level.
  • At Belle-II ($\sqrt{s}=10.58$ GeV), $\delta\,{\rm Re}\,d_\tau^\gamma=9.42\times10^{-20}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ and $\delta\,{\rm Im}\,d_\tau^\gamma=2.43\times10^{-20}\,e\,{\rm cm}$.
  • At BEPCII ($\sqrt{s}=3.686$ GeV, $3.5\times10^6$ tau pairs), the optimal-observable reach is $4.87\times10^{-17}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ for ${\rm Re}\,d_\tau$ and $2.40\times10^{-17}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ for ${\rm Im}\,d_\tau$.
  • The anomalous magnetic moment of the tau can be measured at Belle-II with $\delta\,{\rm Re}\,a_\tau=1.88\times10^{-5}$ and $\delta\,{\rm Im}\,a_\tau=1.76\times10^{-5}$.
  • Optimal observables improve on the simple momentum-based observables by more than a factor three for ${\rm Re}\,d_\tau^Z$ and by more than a factor twenty for ${\rm Im}\,d_\tau^Z$.
  • The reach improves with event count as $1/\sqrt{N}$, so any luminosity upgrade or better tau-tagging efficiency would tighten every quoted limit under the same formalism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the quoted limits scale as $1/\sqrt{N_{\rm eff}}$, a detector simulation that reduces the effective event sample by a factor $f$ worsens every one-sigma projection by $\sqrt{f}$; this is an editorial extension of the paper's own inverse-square-root scaling.
  • The $O_i=S_{1,i}/S_0$ construction transfers directly to other fermion-pair processes or to off-peak running where both $\gamma^*$ and $Z$ contribute, so the machinery here is a template for future dipole-moment searches beyond tau pairs.
  • The imaginary parts of $d_\tau$ are CP-odd but require no polarized beams, which means a high-statistics Z-pole machine like CEPC could act as a CP-violation search tool competitive with dedicated electron EDM experiments, although its interpretation depends on the new-physics scale lying above the momentum transfer.
  • A comparison of the photon-only and Z-pole sensitivities using the same dimensionless form-factor normalization would separate the effect of larger Z couplings from spin-correlation strength; the paper's Table II suggests the Z pole gains mainly from event count and coupling size.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a sensitivity study of the process e+e−→γ*/Z→τ+τ− with subsequent one- and multi-prong τ decays. The authors expand the production density matrix to first order in the real and imaginary parts of the τ electromagnetic/weak dipole moments and anomalous magnetic moment, combine it with decay density matrices for the e/μ, π, ρ, ππ0, and 3π channels, and construct simple and optimal observables. Using the event-count formula N_ab = 2N_ττ Br(τ→a)Br(τ→b), they quote 1σ combined statistical sensitivities for BEPCII at √s = 3.686 GeV, a hypothetical 5.6 GeV run, Belle-II at 10.58 GeV, and CEPC at the Z pole, with headline numbers δRe dτγ = 4.87×10−17 e cm, δRe dτγ = 9.42×10−20 e cm at Belle-II, δRe dτZ = 1.12×10−21 e cm and δIm dτZ = 1.78×10−21 e cm at CEPC, and δRe aτ = 1.88×10−5 and δIm aτ = 1.76×10−5 at Belle-II. The analysis explicitly assumes no phase-space cuts and treats the τ-pair yields N_ττ as input parameters.

Significance. The framework is a standard and transparent application of optimal-observable techniques to τ-pair production, and the analytic density-matrix derivation is the main strength: the first-order expansion in dipole moments is laid out cleanly, the production matrices are given explicitly in the Appendix following ref. [45], and the comparison with existing Belle/LEP constraints and with ref. [35] helps calibrate the results. If the numerical issues noted below are corrected, the paper would be a useful reference for future e+e− dipole-moment programs. The quoted numbers are statistical-only projections that scale directly with the assumed event yields and assume full reconstruction efficiency; they should be labelled as such, not as predicted experimental sensitivities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Table I] Table I lists τ−→ρ−(q−)ν and τ−→π−(q1)π0(q2)ν as separate decay channels, both with a 25.5% branching ratio. Since the ρ− decays almost entirely to π−π0, these two entries describe the same τ−→π−π0ν final state, with and without the intermediate resonance. Because the statistical combination uses N_ab = 2N_ττ Br(τ→a)Br(τ→b), counting both entries effectively doubles the 25.5% branching ratio for all pairs involving this final state, including the ρρ/ππ0ππ0 diagonal combinations and the ρ/ππ0 cross terms. Since the sensitivities scale as δ ∝ 1/√N, this inflates the effective statistics and artificially improves the combined rows in Tables II and V; for the dominant ππ0 channel the improvement can approach a factor of √2. Please remove one of the two entries or define explicitly disjoint phase-space selections, and recompute all combined numbers accordingly.
  2. [Section IV, Table II] The Belle-II event yield is internally inconsistent. The text and Scenario III state N_ττ = 4.5×10^10 τ-pair events at √s = 10.58 GeV, and Section IV.B repeats this value, but Table II uses N_ττ = 5.5×10^10 in the √s = 10.58 GeV row. Because δ ∝ 1/√N, the 22% difference changes the quoted Belle-II sensitivities by about 10%. Please reconcile the text and the table and state explicitly which event yield underlies the Belle-II projections in Tables II and V. In addition, the √s = 5.6 GeV row uses N_ττ = 5.5×10^7 while the text gives only an integrated luminosity L = 20 fb−1; please show how this event number is derived.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV] The abstract and the summary present the quoted sensitivities without repeating the caveat stated in Section IV that no phase-space cuts are applied. Since the numbers assume 100% acceptance and reconstruction efficiency, please add a sentence in the abstract or conclusions clarifying that these are idealized statistical projections.
  2. [Section IV.B, Tables III-V] The text says the channel results are combined 'in quadrature,' but the precise combination formula over decay channels is not given. Because Tables II and V are the central quantitative results, please specify explicitly how the N_ab weights and the per-channel sensitivities are combined.
  3. [Equation (29)] In Eq. (29) the imaginary part is written as Im[ˆd_V^τ] = √s/e Im[dτ]; this should be Im[d_V^τ] to match the notation used for the real part. The subscripts in Eqs. (31) and (32) are also ambiguous and should be typeset consistently.
  4. [Introduction, Eq. (2)] The quoted LEP result contains an apparent typo: '(−0.6.5±1.49)×10−18 ecm' should read '(−0.65±1.49)×10−18 ecm' (or the correct value from the cited source).
  5. [Section IV, AMDM at Belle-II] At √s = 10.58 GeV the Z-exchange contribution is small but not strictly zero; the paper does not quantify the effect of neglecting γ–Z interference in the AMDM analysis. Please provide a numerical estimate of the resulting uncertainty or bias at the claimed 10−5 sensitivity level.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected sensitivities follow from the standard optimal-observable formulas with published density matrices and assumed event counts as inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained in the statistical sense. Equations (13)-(18) define the differential cross section at first order in d_tau and a_tau and construct optimal observables O_i = S_{1,i}/S_0; the sensitivities in Eqs. (31)-(32) are then computed from the coefficient matrices and covariances evaluated with the SM density matrix S0 and the published production/decay density matrices from refs. [43,45]. No parameter is fitted to the target quantities, and the claimed limits are not equivalent by construction to any input. The event counts N_tau_tau and branching fractions are explicit inputs, and the paper states 'No phase space cuts are applied,' so the projected numbers are idealized statistical projections rather than circular predictions. The cited density-matrix results are external to this paper and not self-citations of the present authors. The skeptic's concerns about double-counting of rho and pipi0 channels and the N=5.5e10 versus 4.5e10 yield discrepancy are internal consistency or correctness issues, not circularity, and do not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation depends on published density-matrix inputs, first-order linearization, and an idealized full-efficiency event sample. No new particles or forces are introduced. The quoted sensitivities are therefore conditional on these assumptions and on the assumed tau-pair yields.

free parameters (1)
  • Assumed tau-pair yields N_tau_tau per scenario = Scenario I: 3.5e6; Scenario II: 5.5e7; Scenario III: 4.5e10 in text, 5.5e10 in Table II; Scenario IV: 1.2e11
    The sensitivities in Table II scale as 1/sqrt(N_tau_tau). These yields are input assumptions, not derived from detector simulation, and the inconsistency between 4.5e10 and 5.5e10 for Belle-II directly affects the quoted EDM sensitivities.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The production density matrix and tau decay density matrices from refs. [43,45] are correct.
    Eq. (9) factors the cross section into these published matrices, so the numerical sensitivities inherit any errors in those formulas.
  • domain assumption The expansion is truncated at first order in d_tau and a_tau, with quadratic and higher terms neglected.
    Eq. (11) and Eq. (13) define the linear signal terms, and Eq. (17) uses only these terms to estimate the one-sigma sensitivities.
  • domain assumption Electrons are unpolarized and massless, and gamma-Z interference is absent at the chosen energies.
    Stated in Section II before Eq. (5) and before Eq. (11); this restricts the calculation to the listed centre-of-mass energies.
  • domain assumption The narrow-width approximation applies to the tau, so production and decay factor.
    Used in Eq. (9); valid because the tau width is much smaller than its mass, but it is still an approximation.
  • domain assumption No phase space cuts and full reconstruction efficiency are assumed.
    Section IV states 'No phase space cuts are applied', and the quoted sensitivities depend on the full event sample surviving.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the electromagnetic dipole moment of the $\tau$ lepton in the $e^+e^- \to \gamma^*/Z \to \tau^+ \tau^-$ reaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QKMO4HRX

@misc{pith2026250619557,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the electromagnetic dipole moment of the $\tau$ lepton in the $e^+e^- \to \gamma^*/Z \to \tau^+ \tau^-$ reaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QKMO4HRX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19557}
}
abstract

High-precision measurements of the lepton's electromagnetic dipole moments provide a powerful probe for testing the Standard Model. A non-zero value of the $\tau$ lepton's electric(weak) dipole moment ($d_{\tau}^{\gamma}$, $d_{\tau}^{Z}$) would serve as a smoking gun of the new physics. On the one hand, current and future high energy colliders offer an ideal environment for such measurements. On the other hand, it is essential to investigate the optimal measurement method for extracting not only $d_{\tau}^{\gamma}$ and $d_{\tau}^{Z}$, but also the anomalous magnetic dipole moment ($a_{\tau}$). In this work, we analyze the precision of observables, particularly optimal observables, for determining these physics quantities through the process $e^+e^- \to \gamma^*/Z \to \tau^+ \tau^-$ with $\tau$ leptons undergoing (semi-)leptonic and hadronic decays at the centre-of-mass energies at the Z pole mass and significantly below $m_Z$. By considering the full kinematic information of the decay products, we find that the sensitivities to Im$d_{\tau}$ and Re$d_{\tau}$ can reach $10^{-21}$ $ecm$ at CEPC $\sqrt s = m_Z$, compared to $10^{-20}$ $ecm$ at Belle-II $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance and $10^{-17}$ $ecm$ at BEPCII $\psi(2S)$ resonance. For $a_{\tau}$, we find that Im$a_{\tau}$ and Re$a_{\tau}$ with a precision of $10^{-5}$ at Belle-II $\sqrt s=10.58$ GeV can be attained.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19557 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Simple observables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Optimal observables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The same as the Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The same as the Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Optimal sensitivity of anomalous charged triple gauge couplings through $W$ boson helicity at the $e^+e^-$ colliders

    S. Jahedi, J. Lahiri and A. Subba, [arXiv:2411.13664 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [45]

    Bernreuther, L

    W. Bernreuther, L. Chen and O. Nachtmann, Phys. Rev. D103, no.9, 096011 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.096011 [arXiv:2101.08071 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [1]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.49, 652-657 (1973) doi:10.1143/PTP.49.652

    doi:10.1143/ptp.49.652 1973

  4. [2]

    if the beam direction is identified with the z-axis. When the coefficient matrix is not diagonal in eq.(30), using the ‘whitening transformation’ to de-correlate the observables, one can find a linearly-approximated optimal basis out of the original chosen ones. The resulting ideal one standard deviation (1 s.d.) sensitivity of the E(W)DM couplings are gi...

    work page

  5. [3]

    Sizable EDMs of heavy fermions i.e

    and|d µ|≤1.9×10 −19 ecm[4]. Sizable EDMs of heavy fermions i.e. of theτlepton can be generated in some models beyond the SM (BSM) [5], which might be detectable in the near future. ∗ pclu@sdu.edu.cn † zgsi@sdu.edu.cn ‡ han.zhang@mail.sdu.edu.cn arXiv:2506.19557v1 [hep-ph] 24 Jun 2025 2 However, due to short mean lifetime of theτlepton, around 2.9×10 −13s ...

    arXiv 2025

  6. [4]

    Hoogeveen, Nucl

    F. Hoogeveen, Nucl. Phys. B341, 322-340 (1990) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90182-D

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90182-d 1990

  7. [5]

    T. S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, T. Wright, W. B. Cairncross, Y. Shagam, K. B. Ng, N. Schlossberger, S. Y. Park, A. Wang and J. Ye,et al.Science381, no.6653, adg4084 (2023) doi:10.1126/science.adg4084 [arXiv:2212.11841 [physics.atom-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    G. W. Bennettet al.[Muon (g-2)], Phys. Rev. D80, 052008 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.052008 [arXiv:0811.1207 [hep-ex]]. 22

    arXiv 2009

Show all 47 references
  1. [7]

    Bernreuther, A

    W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg and P. Overmann, Phys. Lett. B391, 413-419 (1997) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B412, 425-425 (1997)] doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01501-8 [arXiv:hep-ph/9608364 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  3. [9]

    Inamiet al.[Belle], JHEP04, 110 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2022)110 [arXiv:2108.11543 [hep-ex]]

    K. Inamiet al.[Belle], JHEP04, 110 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2022)110 [arXiv:2108.11543 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Lohmann, Nucl

    W. Lohmann, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.144, 122-127 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2005.02.017 [arXiv:hep-ex/0501065 [hep-ex]]

    2005 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Kinoshita, Int

    T. Kinoshita, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29, 1430003 (2014) doi:10.1142/S0217751X14300038

    2014 doi

  6. [12]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey and H. M¨ uller, Science360, 191 (2018) doi:10.1126/science.aap7706 [arXiv:1812.04130 [physics.atom-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [13]

    G. W. Bennettet al.[Muon g-2], Phys. Rev. D73, 072003 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.072003 [arXiv:hep-ex/0602035 [hep-ex]]

    2006 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Abiet al.[Muon g-2], Phys

    B. Abiet al.[Muon g-2], Phys. Rev. Lett.126, no.14, 141801 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801 [arXiv:2104.03281 [hep-ex]]

    2021

  9. [15]

    D. P. Aguillardet al.[Muon g-2], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.16, 161802 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.161802 [arXiv:2308.06230 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  10. [16]

    Aoyama, N

    T. Aoyama, N. Asmussen, M. Benayoun, J. Bijnens, T. Blum, M. Bruno, I. Caprini, C. M. Carloni Calame, M. C` e and G. Colangelo,et al.Phys. Rept.887, 1-166 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.006 [arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Cotrozzi [Muon g-2], Nuovo Cim

    L. Cotrozzi [Muon g-2], Nuovo Cim. C47, no.5, 282 (2024) doi:10.1393/ncc/i2024-24282-9

    2024 doi

  12. [18]

    B. C. Toth, S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. Guenther, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, L. Lellouch, T. Lippert, K. Miura and L. Parato,et al.PoSLA TTICE2021, 005 (2022) doi:10.22323/1.396.0005

    2022 doi

  13. [19]

    Masjuan, A

    P. Masjuan, A. Miranda and P. Roig, PoSQNP2024, 216 (2025) doi:10.22323/1.465.0216 [arXiv:2411.09811 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Aliberti, T

    R. Aliberti, T. Aoyama, E. Balzani, A. Bashir, G. Benton, J. Bijnens, V. Biloshytskyi, T. Blum, D. Boito and M. Bruno,et al.[arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  15. [21]

    S. P. Martin and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D64, 035003 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.035003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0103067 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Rept

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Rept. Prog. Phys.87, no.10, 107801 (2024) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad6fcb [arXiv:2406.03975 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Keshavarzi, D

    A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D101, no.1, 014029 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.014029 [arXiv:1911.00367 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Abeet al.[Belle-II], [arXiv:1011.0352 [physics.ins-det]]

    T. Abeet al.[Belle-II], [arXiv:1011.0352 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv

  19. [25]

    Kouet al.[Belle-II], PTEP2019, no.12, 123C01 (2019) [erratum: PTEP2020, no.2, 029201 (2020)] doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz106 [arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]]

    E. Kouet al.[Belle-II], PTEP2019, no.12, 123C01 (2019) [erratum: PTEP2020, no.2, 029201 (2020)] doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz106 [arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]]

    2019

  20. [26]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Chin

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Chin. Phys. C48, no.9, 093001 (2024) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ad595b [arXiv:2403.06766 [hep-ex]]. 23

    2024

  21. [27]

    H. B. Liet al.[BESIII], [arXiv:2204.08943 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  22. [28]

    J. B. Guimar˜ aes da Costaet al.[CEPC Study Group], [arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  23. [29]

    Chenget al.[CEPC Physics Study Group], [arXiv:2205.08553 [hep-ph]]

    H. Chenget al.[CEPC Physics Study Group], [arXiv:2205.08553 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  24. [30]

    Atwood and A

    D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D45, 2405-2413 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.2405

    1992 doi

  25. [31]

    Diehl and O

    M. Diehl and O. Nachtmann, Z. Phys. C62, 397-412 (1994) doi:10.1007/BF01555899

    1994 doi

  26. [32]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B805, 135426 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135426 [arXiv:2002.05315 [hep-ex]]

    2020

  27. [33]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP05, 105 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)105 [arXiv:2304.09612 [hep- ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP05, 105 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)105 [arXiv:2304.09612 [hep- ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [34]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. D104, no.5, 052004 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.052004 [arXiv:2104.12152 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Abbiendiet al.[OPAL], Eur

    G. Abbiendiet al.[OPAL], Eur. Phys. J. C33, 463-476 (2004) doi:10.1140/epjc/s2003-01524-6 [arXiv:hep-ex/0308067 [hep-ex]]

    2004 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Bernreuther, L

    W. Bernreuther, L. Chen and O. Nachtmann, Phys. Rev. D104, no.11, 115002 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.115002 [arXiv:2108.13106 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Chen and Y

    X. Chen and Y. Wu, JHEP10, 089 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)089 [arXiv:1803.00501 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [39]

    X. G. He, C. W. Liu, J. P. Ma, C. Yang and Z. Y. Zou, JHEP04, 001 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2025)001 [arXiv:2501.06687 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Bhide and V

    K. Bhide and V. Lang, [arXiv:2410.23070 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  34. [41]

    Banerjee, A

    S. Banerjee, A. Y. Korchin, E. Richter-Was and Z. Was, Phys. Rev. D109, no.1, 013002 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.013002 [arXiv:2307.03526 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Jahedi and A

    S. Jahedi and A. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D110, no.9, 095021 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.095021 [arXiv:2408.00190 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Fano, Rev

    U. Fano, Rev. Mod. Phys.55, 855-874 (1983) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.55.855

    1983 doi

  37. [44]

    Acciarriet al.[L3], Phys

    M. Acciarriet al.[L3], Phys. Lett. B426, 207-216 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00290-1

    1998 doi

  38. [46]

    Huang, W

    T. Huang, W. Lu and Z. j. Tao, Phys. Rev. D55, 1643-1652 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.1643 [arXiv:hep-ph/9609220 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bernreuther, O

    W. Bernreuther, O. Nachtmann and P. Overmann, Phys. Rev. D48, 78-88 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.78

    1993 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.