Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Constraints on the dark sector from electroweak precision observables

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 A kinetically mixed dark photon tightens epsilon limits below the Z pole and can lower the CDF W-mass tension to 2.9 sigma.

desk verdict The paper's advertised 95% exclusion curves are not confidence intervals — Eq. (8) compares against the SM minimum rather than the dark photon best fit — and the only genuinely new result (g_chi constraints) sits on that same flawed statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20080 v2 pith:VUNJBIEU submitted 2025-06-25 hep-ph hep-ex

B. M. Loizos , X. G. Wang , A. W. Thomas , M. J. White , A. G. Williams This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords darkphotonkineticmixingelectroweakprecisionobservablesWbosonmassCDFW-massanomalyfermioncouplingZinvisibledecay95%confidenceexclusions
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 paper argues that the full set of electroweak precision observables confines a kinetically mixed dark photon: for every dark photon mass $m_{A_D}$, the mixing parameter $\epsilon$ is excluded above a 95% confidence curve, and that curve moves when the newer CDF $W$ mass is used. The exclusion tightens for $m_{A_D}m_Z$. It further claims the first electroweak-precision constraints on the dark photon's coupling $g_\chi$ to a Dirac dark fermion, through the invisible decay $Z\to\chi\bar\chi$. If correct, the CDF anomaly is softened but not removed: the best dark photon point, $m_{A_D}=200$ GeV and $\epsilon=0.1001$, predicts $m_W=80.4060$ GeV, reducing the discrepancy to $2.9\sigma$ while the fit value $\chi^2=33.7$ remains large.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is the tree-level mass-matrix diagonalisation of the dark photon and the Standard Model neutral gauge boson (Eqs. 2 to 4), which turns the kinetic mixing parameter $\epsilon$ into a physical mixing angle $\alpha$ and hence into shifts in the $Z$ couplings, including $C_{Z,\chi\bar\chi}=g_\chi\sin\alpha/\sqrt{1-\epsilon^2/\cos^2\theta_W}$. The Standard Model radiative corrections are kept in fixed parametrisations, so the dark photon enters only through these tree-level shifts. The $\chi^2$ statistic with experimental covariance (Eq. 7), together with the exclusion thresholds of Eqs. (8) and (11), converts those shifts into 95% confidence regions. A distinctive feature is the grey exclusion region near $m_{A_D}=m_Z$, produced by eigenmass repulsion in the mixing-angle formula.

What would settle it

A single future $W$-mass measurement with roughly 1 MeV uncertainty whose central value matches the current world average would falsify the CDF-motivated dark photon window, since that point predicts $m_W=80.4060$ GeV, about 29 MeV above the PDG value and far outside such an error bar. Independently, a per-mille measurement of the invisible $Z$ width would test the $g_\chi$ plane directly through Eq. (10).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that electroweak precision observables, collected into a $\chi^2$ that compares theory with measurement, place tight limits on the dark photon. Adding the dark photon through tree-level kinetic mixing shifts the $Z$ mass and its couplings via a physical mixing angle, and the 95% exclusion on $\epsilon$ is set by $\chi^2_{A_D}-\chi^2_{\rm SM}\ge3.8$. With the PDG world-average $W$ mass, the $\epsilon$ exclusion reproduces earlier bounds; with the CDF $W$ mass, the exclusion strengthens for $m_{A_D}<m_Z$ and weakens for $m_{A_D}>m_Z$. When the dark photon also couples to a Dirac dark fermion, the $Z$ inherits the invisible decay $Z\to\chi\bar\chi$, and the measured $Z$ width yields the first electroweak-precision upper limits on $g_\chi$, set by the two-parameter condition $\chi^2_{A_D}(\epsilon,g_\chi)-\chi^2_{\rm SM}\ge5.99$.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the Standard Model's calculated predictions for the $W$ and $Z$ observables remain unchanged when the dark photon is mixed in only at tree level; if dark photon quantum corrections shift those predictions even at the 0.1 percent level, the exclusion curves move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below the $Z$ pole, any nonzero $\epsilon$ worsens the electroweak fit relative to the Standard Model, so the 95% upper limit on $\epsilon$ becomes stronger when the CDF $W$ mass is used.
  • The best dark photon point, $m_{A_D}=200$ GeV and $\epsilon=0.1001$, raises the predicted $W$ mass to 80.4060 GeV and cuts the CDF discrepancy to $2.9\sigma$, though the overall fit value remains large.
  • For a dark Dirac fermion with $m_\chi<m_Z/2$, the measured $Z$ width forbids the additional invisible decay, so $g_\chi$ is bounded from above for every $\epsilon$; the bound is strongest as $m_{A_D}$ approaches $m_Z$ from below and weakens as $m_\chi$ grows.
  • Future $e^+e^-$ colliders with higher precision on $Z$ and $W$ observables will sharpen both the $\epsilon$ and $g_\chi$ exclusion curves, as the paper expects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $Z\to\chi\bar\chi$ is invisible, these $g_\chi$ limits are equivalent to an upper bound on the invisible $Z$ width; a per-mille measurement of that width at a future collider would test the same parameter plane independently.
  • The CDF-motivated point with $\epsilon\simeq0.1$ predicts a $W$ mass about 27 MeV below the CDF value, so a future $\sim$1 MeV measurement of $m_W$ landing near the world average would exclude the region that currently best fits CDF.
  • The paper adds the dark photon only at tree level; a full one-loop electroweak calculation including the dark photon would show whether the exclusion curves shift at the $10^{-3}$ level, which is a natural next test.
  • The new $g_\chi$ bounds, when combined with relic-density and direct-detection constraints on $y=\epsilon^2\alpha_D(m_\chi/m_{A'})^4$, should map the allowed region for light thermal dark matter more completely.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript revisits electroweak precision constraints on a kinetically mixed dark photon. The authors fit the Standard Model to a set of Z-pole observables, m_W, and Gamma_W, with m_W taken either from the PDG average or from the CDF measurement, obtaining chi^2_SM = 12.9 and 68.2, respectively. They then add a dark photon, using tree-level mass-matrix diagonalisation, and derive 95% exclusion contours for the kinetic mixing parameter epsilon (Eq. 8, Fig. 1), finding that the CDF value tightens the limits for m_AD < m_Z and relaxes them above m_Z. They extend the model to a dark Dirac fermion chi with m_chi = 10 GeV and derive limits in the (epsilon, g_chi) plane from the invisible Z width (Eqs. 9-11, Fig. 2). The central quantitative claim is that a dark photon with m_AD = 200 GeV and epsilon = 0.1001 improves the CDF fit to chi^2 = 33.7 and reduces the W-mass tension to 2.9 sigma.

Significance. If the reported constraints were correct, the paper would provide a useful update of dark photon EWPO limits and one of the direct bounds on the dark fermion coupling g_chi from Z-width data. The authors use a standard chi^2 minimisation, give explicit formulas for the mixing angle and partial width, and make the comparison against both PDG and CDF W-mass values; the cross-check against Ref. [20] is also a useful point of contact. The main statistical construction, however, means that the quoted CDF '95% exclusion' is not a confidence interval, so the headline results need substantial revision before their significance can be assessed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (8)] The 95% exclusion is defined as chi^2_AD(epsilon) - chi^2_SM >= 3.8, i.e. as a comparison with the Standard-Model minimum rather than with the minimum of the dark-photon model at fixed m_AD. A confidence interval on epsilon must instead use the profile likelihood, Delta chi^2(epsilon) = chi^2_AD(epsilon) - min_{epsilon'} chi^2_AD(epsilon') >= 3.84. In the CDF case the two prescriptions differ materially: chi^2_SM = 68.2 and the best dark-photon point has chi^2_AD = 33.7, so Eq. (8) excludes epsilon with chi^2_AD above 72.0, whereas the profile-likelihood region excludes chi^2_AD above 37.5. The red CDF curve in Fig. 1 is therefore not a 95% confidence upper limit, and the same construction enters the two-parameter bound of Eq. (11). Because the abstract and Fig. 1 present these as exclusions at 95% CL, this statistical choice is load-bearing and must be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (10) and Fig. 2] The m_chi dependence is not treated as a parameter. The Z -> chi chi partial width in Eq. (10) depends on m_chi through the factor (1 + 2 m_chi^2 / m_Z^2) sqrt(1 - 4 m_chi^2 / m_Z^2), so the limits on g_chi weaken as m_chi approaches m_Z / 2. The paper fixes m_chi = 10 GeV, and the abstract claims 'first electroweak precision observable constraints' on the dark photon coupling to dark fermions; as presented, the claim applies to a single mass point and is not a constraint on the coupling model. A scan over m_chi, or at least an explicit statement of the mass range for which the limits apply, is needed.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (7) and Table 1] The covariance matrix is not displayed and theory uncertainties are not propagated. The W-mass parametrisation of Ref. [15] and the W-width parametrisation of Ref. [16] are treated as exact theory predictions, although these predictions carry residual theoretical errors. Since the epsilon exclusions are driven by differences at the 10^-2 to 10^-3 GeV level in m_W and Gamma_W, neglecting these errors could overstate the limits. The authors should state the theory uncertainties and test their effect on the exclusion curves.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 5] There are typos: 'predications' in the Introduction and 'scenarious' in the Conclusions.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (8)] The threshold 3.8 is a rounded form of the standard one-parameter 95% value 3.84; the paper should use the exact value for consistency with Eq. (11)'s 5.99.
  3. [Sec. 3] The sentence 'The covariance matrix ... is diagonal' is contradicted by the correlation matrices adopted from Refs. [18,19]; the experimental uncertainty matrix is diagonal, but the full covariance matrix is not.
  4. [Fig. 1] The grey region attributed to 'eigenmass repulsion' is not explained in the text; a short description of the branch choice in Eq. (3) would help the reader.
  5. [Table 1 and Ref. [17]] The paper refers to 'the latest dataset found in [17]', but Ref. [17] is the 2022 PDG review; the dataset should be updated or the reference should be made precise.
  6. [Fig. 1] The black dotted 'EWPO limit' taken from Ref. [6] is not described in the text; it should be stated which observables and which statistical definition that curve uses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dark photon exclusion limits are obtained by a chi-squared fit against published electroweak precision data, with model couplings taken from standard (mostly external) formalism; the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the dark photon mass-matrix diagonalisation is quoted from the external literature (Ref. [13], Kribs/McKeen/Raj), the SM radiative corrections are taken from external parametrisations (Refs. [14,15,16]), and the experimental values and correlations are from PDG, LEP, SLC, and Tevatron data (Refs. [17,18,19]). The paper then defines chi^2 in Eq. (7) as (theory - experiment) with the experimental covariance, and the exclusion statements in Eqs. (8) and (11) are comparisons of chi^2 values, not a quantity that was itself fitted into the model. The dark fermion coupling constraint in Eqs. (9)-(10) is a genuine new contribution to Gamma_Z whose strength is set by the mixing angle in Eq. (3); it is subsequently constrained by the measured Z width, so it is not equivalent to an input. The only self-citations are Ref. [11] (the authors' own prior paper for tree-level Z couplings) and Ref. [20] (a consistency cross-check of the CDF best-fit curve). Neither carries the central argument: the same couplings are available in the external Ref. [13], and the consistency check is not used to derive the exclusion. The statistical choice in Eq. (8) of comparing chi^2_AD with chi^2_SM rather than profiling over epsilon is a methodological issue about confidence-level definition, not a circularity in which a prediction reduces by construction to its inputs. Overall, the central limits are computed from external measurements and standard model expressions, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central constraints rest on the standard kinetic-mixing dark photon model, on the assumption that SM radiative corrections carry over unchanged, on five floated SM inputs, and on the choice m_chi = 10 GeV. None of these is newly derived here; the added content is a chi^2 scan. The SM inputs are data-bound rather than ad hoc, but they are genuine free parameters of the fit.

free parameters (5)
  • epsilon (kinetic mixing) = Upper limits plotted; best-fit 0.0489 (PDG W) and 0.1001 (CDF W) at m_AD = 200 GeV
    The dark photon coupling to SM hypercharge; floated in the chi^2 fit and constrained in Figs. 1 and 2.
  • m_AD (dark photon mass) = Scanned from about 10 to 200 GeV; best-fit 200 GeV for the CDF W case
    Scanned by hand with epsilon floated; the grey region near m_Z is excluded by the eigenmass repulsion condition.
  • g_chi (dark fermion coupling) = 95 percent CL upper bounds only, for m_chi = 10 GeV
    Fitted jointly with epsilon in the two-parameter exclusion using chi^2_AD - chi^2_SM >= 5.99 and the Z to chi chi width.
  • m_chi (dark fermion mass) = 10 GeV (chosen, not scanned)
    Chosen as a representative heavy dark fermion; conclusions about mass dependence are drawn from the kinematic factor in Eq. (10) rather than a scan.
  • SM fit inputs (m_h, m_Zbar, m_t, alpha_s, Delta_alpha_had) = Table 1 columns, e.g. m_t = 172.75 GeV and alpha_s = 0.1203 for the PDG W fit
    Five conventional inputs floated in every fit around their measured values; they are strongly data-bound rather than ad hoc, but they are genuine free parameters of the chi^2 procedure.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The dark photon Lagrangian of Eq. (1), with kinetic mixing and a minimal dark fermion coupling, is the new physics model.
    The entire constraint analysis assumes this U(1)' extension; it is standard in the dark sector literature but not derived here.
  • domain assumption The physical Z and dark photon are obtained by tree-level diagonalisation of the mass-squared matrix with mixing angle Eq. (3).
    The shifts in Z couplings and W mass all follow from this diagonalisation; it is the mechanism that connects the dark photon to EWPO.
  • domain assumption Standard Model radiative corrections from Refs. [14-16] remain valid once tree-level dark photon mixing is included.
    Load-bearing: the theory predictions in chi^2 are built from SM parametrisations without a new one-loop dark photon computation.
  • domain assumption The experimental covariance and correlation matrices from Refs. [18,19], plus the W mass-width correlation of -0.174, describe the data correctly.
    Taken on trust from the cited literature; the paper does not reproduce these matrices.
  • domain assumption The PDG world average and the CDF W mass can be used as alternative input settings for the same global fit.
    The fit treats them as separate cases without discussing whether CDF is already contained in the PDG average or how the incompatibility is handled.
  • ad hoc to paper m_chi = 10 GeV is a representative heavy dark fermion mass.
    Chosen without a scan; the claimed dependence of the g_chi bound on m_chi rests on the kinematic factor in Eq. (10).
invented entities (2)
  • Dark photon A' independent evidence
    purpose: Additional U(1) gauge boson that kinetically mixes with hypercharge, shifting Z couplings and the W mass and mediating interactions with the dark sector.
    Well-studied hypothetical entity with many laboratory, beam-dump, and astrophysical search strategies; its mixing and decay signatures are falsifiable outside this paper, although it has not been observed.
  • Dark fermion chi independent evidence
    purpose: Stable dark matter candidate coupled to the dark photon; provides a new Z invisible decay channel used to constrain g_chi.
    Relic density and direct detection observables cited in Ref [10] give external falsifiable handles, so chi is not a purely ad hoc entity invented for this fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on the dark sector from electroweak precision observables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUNJBIEU

@misc{pith2026250620080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on the dark sector from electroweak precision observables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUNJBIEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20080}
}
read the original abstract

We revisit the Standard Model fit to electroweak precision observables in using the latest data and the Particle Data Group (PDG) measurement of the W boson mass. The analysis is then repeated in light of the new W boson mass measurement from the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) collaboration. We then introduce a dark photon to the model, placing constraints on the parameter space arising from these electroweak precision observables, both for the PDG and CDF values for the W boson mass. We also extend previous work by placing the first electroweak precision observable constraints on the coupling of dark photons to the fermionic dark matter sector.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20080 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The solid blue (red) curves represent the 95% CL exclusion constraints on 𝜖 for the case in which 𝑚𝑊 is taken to be the PDG (CDF) result. The blue (red) dashed curves represents the dark photon parameters that provide the best fit, i.e the minimum 𝜒 2 𝐴𝐷 value that can be obtained by floating 𝜖, for the PDG (CDF) value of 𝑚𝑊. The region in grey is not accessible due to the “eigenmass repulsion" associated with the Z… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 95% CL exclusion constraints on dark parameters in the 𝑔𝜒 − 𝜖 plane, using 𝑚 PDG 𝑊 . Each curve corresponds to 𝜒 2 𝐴𝐷 (𝜖, 𝑔𝜒) − 𝜒 2 SM = 5.99 for each respective 𝑚𝐴𝐷 . 5. Conclusions In this work, we revisited the constraints on the dark photon’s kinetic mixing parameter 𝜖 using electroweak precision observables (EWPO), in light of the new CDF measurement of the 𝑊 boson mass. We discover constraints on 𝜖 tighten… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Loizos, X.G

    B.M. Loizos, X.G. Wang, A.W. Thomas, M.J. White and A.G. Williams,Constraints on the dark sector from electroweak precision observables,J. Phys. G51(2024) 075002 [2306.13408]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [20]

    Thomas and X.G

    A.W. Thomas and X.G. Wang,Constraints on the dark photon from parity violation and the W mass,Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 056017 [2205.01911]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [15]

    Awramik, M

    M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas and G. Weiglein,Precise prediction for the W boson mass in the standard model, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 053006 [hep-ph/0311148]

    arXiv 2004

  4. [16]

    G.-C. Cho, K. Hagiwara, Y. Matsumoto and D. Nomura,The MSSM confronts the precision electroweak data and the muon g-2,JHEP 11(2011) 068 [1104.1769]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [1]

    Fayet,Effects of the Spin 1 Partner of the Goldstino (Gravitino) on Neutral Current Phenomenology, Phys

    P. Fayet,Effects of the Spin 1 Partner of the Goldstino (Gravitino) on Neutral Current Phenomenology, Phys. Lett. B95(1980) 285

    work page 1980

  6. [2]

    Fayet,On the Search for a New Spin 1 Boson,Nucl

    P. Fayet,On the Search for a New Spin 1 Boson,Nucl. Phys. B187 (1981) 184

    work page 1981

  7. [3]

    Holdom,Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,Phys

    B. Holdom,Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,Phys. Lett. B166 (1986) 196

    work page 1986

  8. [4]

    Okun,LIMITS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS: PARAPHOTONS?,Sov

    L.B. Okun,LIMITS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS: PARAPHOTONS?,Sov. Phys. JETP56 (1982) 502

    1982

Show all 27 references
  1. [5]

    A. Hook, E. Izaguirre and J.G. Wacker,Model Independent Bounds on Kinetic Mixing,Adv. High Energy Phys.2011(2011) 859762 [1006.0973]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [6]

    Curtin, R

    D. Curtin, R. Essig, S. Gori and J. Shelton,Illuminating Dark Photons with High-Energy Colliders, JHEP 02(2015) 157 [1412.0018]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [7]

    Harigaya, E

    K. Harigaya, E. Petrosky and A. Pierce,Precision electroweak tensions and a dark photon, JHEP 07(2024) 201 [2307.13045]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [8]

    Bento, H.E

    M.P. Bento, H.E. Haber and J.P. Silva,Classes of complete dark photon models constrained by z-physics, Physics Letters B850 (2024) 138501

    2024

  5. [9]

    Davoudiasl, K

    H. Davoudiasl, K. Enomoto, H.-S. Lee, J. Lee and W.J. Marciano,Searching for new physics effects in future W mass and sin2𝜃W(Q2) determinations, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 115018 [2309.04060]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [10]

    Izaguirre, G

    E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster and N. Toro,Analyzing the Discovery Potential for Light Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 251301 [1505.00011]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Aaltonen et al.,High-precision measurement of the𝑊 boson mass with the CDF II detector,Science 376 (2022) 170

    T. Aaltonen et al.,High-precision measurement of the𝑊 boson mass with the CDF II detector,Science 376 (2022) 170. 7 Constraints on the dark sector from electroweak precision observables B. M. Loizos

    2022

  8. [13]

    Kribs, D

    G.D. Kribs, D. McKeen and N. Raj,Breaking up the Proton: An Affair with Dark Forces, Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) 011801 [2007.15655]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Cho and K

    G.-C. Cho and K. Hagiwara,Supersymmetry versus precision experiments revisited, Nucl. Phys. B574(2000) 623 [hep-ph/9912260]

    2000 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of Particle Physics,PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  11. [18]

    Janot and S

    P. Janot and S. Jadach,Improved Bhabha cross section at LEP and the number of light neutrino species,Phys. Lett. B803 (2020) 135319 [1912.02067]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Rept.427(2006) 257 [hep-ex/0509008]

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group , SLD Electroweak Group , SLD Heavy Flavour Groupcollaboration,Precision electroweak measurements on the𝑍 resonance,Phys. Rept.427(2006) 257 [hep-ex/0509008]

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Zhang and W.-Z

    K.-Y. Zhang and W.-Z. Feng,Explaining the W boson mass anomaly and dark matter with a U(1) dark sector*,Chin. Phys. C47 (2023) 023107 [2204.08067]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Y.-P. Zeng, C. Cai, Y.-H. Su and H.-H. Zhang,Z boson mixing and the mass of the W boson, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 056004 [2204.09487]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cheng, X.-G

    Y. Cheng, X.-G. He, F. Huang, J. Sun and Z.-P. Xing,Dark photon kinetic mixing effects for the CDF W-mass measurement,Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 055011 [2204.10156]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    CEPC Study Groupcollaboration,CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector, 1811.10545

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    FCCcollaboration, FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2, Eur. Phys. J. ST228 (2019) 261

    2019

  18. [26]

    A Global Project, 1901.09829

    ILC collaboration, The International Linear Collider. A Global Project, 1901.09829

    1901 arXiv

  19. [27]

    CLICdp , CLICcollaboration,The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report, 1812.06018. 8

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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