Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Tracing Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions through Charged Lepton Collisions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Future e+e- colliders, especially CLIC at 3 TeV, would constrain neutrino non-standard interactions with electrons down to 0.019%, and could decisively exclude the sizable NSI scenarios proposed to resolve the T2K/NOvA tension.

desk verdict Solid, careful NSI monophoton projections for future e+e- colliders, but the headline claim that these colliders rule out the T2K/NOvA NSI solution outruns the electron-only operator the analysis actually constrains. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10703 v1 pith:4TS7KF5N submitted 2025-07-14 hep-ph hep-ex

Sudip Jana , Saumyen Kundu , Santosh Kumar Rai This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords neutrinonon-standardinteractionsmonophotonsearchesfutureleptoncollidersILCCLICFCC-eeT2KNOvAtensionPDFs
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 sets out to show that monophoton searches at future electron-positron colliders can probe neutrino non-standard interactions (NSI)—extra neutrino-matter interactions beyond the Standard Model—far more sensitively than neutrino-oscillation experiments, provided the NSI are mediated by particles at or above the electroweak scale. Working with a simplified vector-mediator model for the dimension-six NSI operator, the authors project 3-sigma sensitivities for ILC, CLIC, and FCC-ee and find that CLIC at 3 TeV is the strongest, reaching about 0.019%, with ILC at 0.034% and FCC-ee at about 0.7%. They also argue that lepton-collider data are free of the parameter degeneracies that plague oscillation fits, and that the sizable flavor-changing NSI proposed to explain the T2K/NOvA discrepancy would be completely tested and decisively excluded. The reason to care is that a null result at these facilities would close the window on a class of neutrino-mass models that predict large NSI.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dimension-six NSI operator for neutrino-electron interactions together with its simplified-model realisation as a vector mediator $Z'$. The match between the two is the identification $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta} = (g_\nu)_{\alpha\beta} g_e^V/(2\sqrt{2}G_F M_{Z'}^2)$, which lets the authors compute collider rates as a function of mediator mass rather than as a single EFT coefficient. The search channel is monophoton production $e^+e^- \to \gamma + $ invisible neutrino pair, with the photon emitted as initial-state radiation; sensitivity is dominated by resonant $Z'$ production when $M_{Z'}$ equals the collider energy, and is bounded from above by the theoretical consistency requirement $|\epsilon| \leq (3\pi/G_F M_{Z'}^2)(\Gamma_{Z'}/M_{Z'})$ together with perturbativity. Backgrounds are controlled by vetoing charged leptons, jets, and forward calorimeter deposits, and by an ME-ISR merging procedure that removes double-counted photon emission.

What would settle it

A CLIC 3 TeV run with 5 ab$^{-1}$ that observes exactly the Standard Model monophoton rate would place $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ below about $2\times10^{-4}$ for $M_{Z'}\simeq 3$ TeV; to settle the exclusion claim, one would then need to check whether the oscillation-fit NSI also couples to electrons, for example by comparing with an LHC monojet search for the quark-coupled analogue—if the quark-coupled search shows a nonzero NSI while the monophoton channel stays null, the paper's blanket exclusion would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the process $e^+e^- \to \gamma + \nu_\alpha \bar\nu_\beta$, with one hard initial-state-radiation photon, gives a clean probe of leptonic NSI of the form $\mathcal{L}_{\rm NSI} = -2\sqrt{2}G_F \epsilon_{\alpha\beta}(\bar\nu_\alpha \gamma^\mu P_L \nu_\beta)(\bar e \gamma_\mu P_X e)$, once this operator is matched to a simplified model with a vector mediator $Z'$ of mass $M_{Z'}$ and couplings $g_\nu$, $g_e^V$, so that $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta} = (g_\nu)_{\alpha\beta} g_e^V/(2\sqrt{2}G_F M_{Z'}^2)$. The paper's quantitative finding is that CLIC at $\sqrt{s}=3$ TeV with 5 ab$^{-1}$ constrains NSI effects down to 0.019%, ILC at 1 TeV with 8 ab$^{-1}$ reaches 0.034%, and FCC-ee at 365 GeV with 1.5 ab$^{-1}$ reaches about 0.7%, with the best sensitivity near resonant production $M_{Z'}\simeq\sqrt{s}$. The paper further claims that these colliders resolve degeneracies that oscillation experiments suffer, and that sizeable NSI scenarios proposed as solutions to the T2K/NOvA tension can be completely tested and excluded.

Load-bearing premise

The blanket conclusion that lepton colliders can rule out the NSI explanation of the T2K/NOvA tension assumes that the neutrino-electron operators probed by $e^+e^-$ monophoton searches are the same operators, or are tightly related to, the matter NSI used in the oscillation fits; if the anomaly comes from neutrino-quark couplings, the lepton-collider bound does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 3 TeV CLIC run with 5 ab$^{-1}$ would constrain $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ to about 0.019% for a resonantly produced mediator, making it the most sensitive probe among the colliders considered.
  • ILC at 1 TeV with 8 ab$^{-1}$ would reach 0.034%, and FCC-ee at 365 GeV with 1.5 ab$^{-1}$ about 0.7%, so even the lower-energy future lepton colliders could beat current oscillation bounds for heavy mediators.
  • Because collider rates depend on the mediator mass and are not blind to axial-vector contributions, monophoton data would lift parameter degeneracies that make oscillation fits ambiguous.
  • The sizable flavor-changing NSI proposed to explain the T2K/NOvA tension would be decisively excluded, provided the electron-coupled operators probed in $e^+e^-$ collisions are the ones responsible for the oscillation anomaly.
  • Lepton-initiated processes at hadron colliders, accessed through lepton parton distribution functions, offer a complementary but background-limited route to the same leptonic NSI.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's explicit claims, the electron-coupling reach could be translated into bounds on neutrino-quark NSI in ultraviolet completions where the same $Z'$ couples to quarks; the paper does not quantify this step, so its exclusion statement is strictly about leptonic NSI.
  • A null monophoton run at CLIC would separately constrain the vector and axial (or $LL$ and $LR$) components of $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$, a decomposition oscillation experiments cannot provide; this could be used to discriminate between underlying operator structures.
  • If the T2K/NOvA tension instead originates from neutrino-quark NSI, a lepton-collider monophoton search would remain silent, so a combined analysis with LHC monojet data would be needed to close the loophole in the paper's exclusion claim.
  • For mediator masses below the beam energy, the resonance-return peak in the photon spectrum at $E_\gamma = (s - M_{Z'}^2)/(2\sqrt{s})$ lets the same colliders probe lighter mediators than the quoted benchmark sensitivities suggest.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies monophoton signatures of neutrino non-standard interactions at future electron-positron colliders, adopting a vector Z' simplified model that matches the dimension-six EFT operator in Eq. (1) with f=e. It presents Whizard and Delphes simulations for ILC, CLIC, and FCC-ee, derives a consistency constraint from the mediator width, reports a LEP monophoton recast and OPAL e+e- -> e+e- constraints, and shows cross sections for lepton-PDF-induced NSI production at the LHC and FCC-hh. The headline results are that CLIC at 3 TeV can constrain NSI parameters down to 0.019%, ILC at 1 TeV to 0.034%, and FCC-ee at 365 GeV to about 0.7%, and that the sizeable NSI scenarios proposed to explain the T2K/NOvA tension can be completely tested and decisively excluded.

Significance. If correct, the projected sensitivities would establish future e+e- monophoton searches as the most sensitive direct probes of heavy-mediator neutrino-electron NSI and would provide a degeneracy-free complement to oscillation fits. The paper has genuine strengths: the simulation setup is described with explicit generation cuts in Table I, detector effects are included through Delphes with appropriate cards, the significance formula in Eq. (6) accounts for background systematics, and the analysis incorporates existing LEP and OPAL constraints. However, the central exclusion claim about the T2K/NOvA solutions depends on an operator identification that is not established in the manuscript, and the consistency bound in Eq. (11) contains an algebraic error. These issues are load-bearing for the strongest conclusions and need to be repaired or the claims appropriately restricted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Collider Analysis, paragraph after Fig. 2; Conclusions] The statement that the sizeable flavor-changing NSIs proposed to explain the T2K/NOvA discrepancy [6,7] 'can be entirely ruled out' by future monophoton searches is not supported by the analysis as presented. The collider limit constrains the operator in Eq. (1) with f=e, i.e., neutrino-electron NSI, while the long-baseline fits of Refs. [6,7] and the global limits of Ref. [36] plotted in Fig. 2 constrain matter NSI that can be saturated by couplings to up or down quarks. A Z' that couples only to leptons would not affect neutrino propagation through the Earth, and a Z' that couples only to quarks would not contribute to e+e- -> gamma + invisible. The paper supplies no UV relation connecting gV_e to quark couplings, so the exclusion claim rests on an unstated assumption about the operator content of the benchmark solutions. Either demonstrate that the relevant T2K/NOvA solutions are dominated by electron couplings, or explicitly reframe the conclusion as conditional on that assumption.
  2. [Collider Analysis, Eqs. (10)-(11)] The inequality in Eq. (10) is algebraically incorrect: for a fixed product g_nu gV_e, the minimum of g_nu^2 + (gV_e)^2 is 2 g_nu gV_e, attained at g_nu = gV_e, and not 2*sqrt(2) g_nu gV_e. Using the stated 2*sqrt(2) factor, Eq. (11) gives |epsilon| <= 3*pi*Gamma/(G_F M^3), whereas the correct bound from the width constraint is |epsilon| <= 3*sqrt(2)*pi*Gamma/(G_F M^3), which is larger by a factor of sqrt(2). The gray 'Inconsistent Theory' boundary in Fig. 2 is therefore displaced, and the associated perturbativity discussion should be redone with the corrected inequality.
  3. [Collider Analysis, LEP recast] The LEP constraint is a quantitative input to Figs. 2 and 4, but its derivation is described only by the sentence after Eq. (8): 'To estimate sigma_NSI, we replicated the event topology for the multi-photon channel as detailed in Ref. [34].' No selection cuts, photon definition, efficiency corrections, validation against the L3 observed event counts, or systematic treatment are reported. The red LEP curves should be either documented in enough detail to be reproduced, for example in an appendix, or replaced by previously published limits.
  4. [Lepton PDFs in proton-proton collisions] Figure 5 shows cross sections for e+e- -> gamma Z' -> gamma nu nu at the LHC and FCC-hh via lepton PDFs, but the section stops at cross-section predictions. It does not estimate the dominant backgrounds (Z+gamma, W+gamma), acceptances, or a sensitivity reach on epsilon, even though the abstract and Conclusions present lepton-PDF probes as part of the paper's contribution. A quantitative sensitivity statement, or an explicit statement that this part is only an exploratory cross-section scan, is needed before this material can be evaluated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2] The figure contains typographical errors, including 'Incosistant Theory', and the legend labels for different flavor combinations are garbled; the curves for epsilon_ee, epsilon_mu_mu, epsilon_tau_tau, epsilon_e_mu, epsilon_e_tau, and epsilon_mu_tau should be clearly distinguished.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The variables q+ and q- are introduced for the ME-ISR merging prescription, but the polar angle theta_gamma should be defined just before Eq. (5) so that the selection criteria q+- < 1 GeV and E_gamma < 1 GeV are unambiguous.
  3. [OPAL constraint discussion] The sentence 'we put a constraint at ge > 2.2 x 10^-4 M_Z'' is confusing, since a lower bound on a coupling is not a standard way to state an excluded region; please clarify whether this is a limit on the product ge*g_nu or a translation of the OPAL bound into the simplified-model parameter space.
  4. [General] Several typographical errors should be corrected, including 'constarints' in the text near Fig. 3 and 'Incosistant' in Fig. 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis is a forward collider simulation anchored to external LEP, OPAL, and oscillation constraints. The only notable weakness is an operator-identification assumption in the T2K/NOvA exclusion claim, which is a validity concern rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and forward-directed. Equation (2) defines a simplified Z' model, Eq. (3) translates its couplings into the NSI parameter, and monophoton signal/background yields are obtained from Whizard and Delphes simulations with fixed systematic uncertainties via Eq. (6). No parameter is fitted to the target sensitivities: the projected 3-sigma reaches in Fig. 2 are computed from simulated event counts, and the LEP benchmark is an external observed cross-section recast through Eq. (8) following Ref. [35]. The oscillation bounds plotted in Fig. 2 are taken from the external global fit Ref. [36], not from this paper's own results, so the comparison is not a self-fulfilling construction. Self-citations (Refs. [2,29,31,39]) are used only for contextual motivation, a Z-return peak analogy, detector/polarization choices, and a muon-collider reference; none is load-bearing for the central sensitivity claim. The one substantive concern is the assertion, in the paragraph following Fig. 2 and in the Conclusions, that future e+e- monophoton searches can 'entirely rule out' and 'decisively exclude' the sizeable NSI scenarios proposed for the T2K/NOvA tension. That claim requires the unstated assumption that those oscillation benchmarks are dominated by, or UV-related to, the neutrino-electron operator constrained in Eq. (1) with f = e. If the benchmark solutions are quark-dominated matter NSIs, the electron-only collider bound does not logically constrain them. This is a missing operator identification, not an equivalence-by-construction or a fitted input renamed as a prediction, so it does not meet the standard for circularity under the review rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the EFT/simplified-model matching, the assumed mediator width ratios, and an unstated identification between the leptonic NSI probed at colliders and the matter NSI used in oscillation fits for the T2K/NOvA claim.

free parameters (2)
  • Mediator width ratio Gamma_Z'/M_Z' = 0.1 and 0.3
    Chosen as benchmark assumptions for the sensitivity curves; not fitted to data, but the reach depends on this assumption.
  • Systematic uncertainties for neutrino and Bhabha backgrounds = 1% and 0.2%
    Assumed following previous ILC and CLIC studies; larger systematics would degrade the reported reach.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dimension-6 NSI operator in Eq. (1) with f = e captures the leading low-energy effect of new neutrino-electron interactions.
    Used throughout to define epsilon_alpha beta and to match to the Z' simplified model; true only if other operators (e.g., tensor or scalar) are subdominant.
  • domain assumption A single vector mediator Z' with couplings g_nu and g_X^e reproduces the NSI EFT after integration, with epsilon = g_nu g_V^e / (2 sqrt(2) G_F M_Z'^2) (Eq. 3).
    Assumes the UV completion is a vector mediator with no additional particles; scalar or tensor mediators would give different energy growth.
  • domain assumption The decay width inequality Eq. (10) bounds epsilon for a given M_Z' and width ratio.
    Assumes Gamma_Z' receives contributions only from nu nu-bar and e+ e- channels; other decay channels would relax the bound.
  • domain assumption Leptonic PDFs in the proton as computed in Ref. [20] provide the dominant lepton-initiated process at hadron colliders.
    Used only for the exploratory hadron-collider section; the reach of that channel is not quantified.
invented entities (1)
  • Vector Z' mediator
    purpose: Simplified model realization of the NSI operator to compute collider cross sections with correct energy dependence.
    The Z' is a benchmark model, not a claim of existence; the paper derives constraints on its parameter space. No falsifiable prediction outside the collider search itself is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tracing Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions through Charged Lepton Collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4TS7KF5N

@misc{pith2026250710703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tracing Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions through Charged Lepton Collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4TS7KF5N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10703}
}
abstract

Neutrino non-standard interactions (NSI) play a crucial role in neutrino oscillations and can provide valuable insights for constructing models of neutrino masses and mixing. While NSI have been widely explored through oscillation and scattering experiments, as well as in cosmological and astrophysical contexts, we focus on probing them at future lepton colliders like the ILC, CLIC, and FCC-$ee$. If NSI arise from heavy mediators above the electroweak scale, these colliders can offer superior sensitivity compared to neutrino experiments across a broad mass range. A notable outcome is that lepton collider data can help resolve parameter degeneracies seen in oscillation studies. We find that large NSI scenarios, proposed to address the tension between T2K and NO$\nu$A results, can be completely tested at such collider facilities. We also explore the potential of future colliders like the FCC to probe leptonic NSI using lepton PDFs in proton-proton collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative Feynman diagrams for production [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The projected 3σ sensitivity to neutrino NSI is shown as a function of the mediator mass for various e +e − colliders operating at their highest proposed upgrade configurations. Solid and dashed lines correspond to two different assumptions for the mediator width, specifically ΓZ′ = 0.1MZ′ and ΓZ′ = 0.3MZ′ , respectively. The shaded region, along with the gray solid and dashed lines, indicates the parameter space ex… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The projected 3σ sensitivity reach of √gegν as a function of the mediator mass is shown for future lepton col￾liders. For comparison, we include existing constraints from the LEP monophoton search (brown shaded region) and the LEP e −e + → e −e + scattering data (yellow shaded region), as￾suming the neutrino coupling to the vector mediator remains within the perturbative regime. The gray shaded region in￾dicates the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) Parton distribution functions for different constituents in proton. (Right) Cross-sections at different colliders as a function of the cut-off scale (Z ′ mass) is strongest at the resonance point and gradually weak￾ens at higher mass regions. In the higher mass …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    Global constraints on non-standard neutrino interactions with quarks and electrons,

    P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. a. P. Pinheiro, and S. Urrea, “Global constraints on non-standard neutrino interactions with quarks and electrons,” JHEP 08 (2023) 032, arXiv:2305.07698 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [34]

    Single photon and multiphoton events with missing energy in e+e− collisions at LEP,

    L3 Collaboration, P. Achard et al., “Single photon and multiphoton events with missing energy in e+e− collisions at LEP,” Phys. Lett. B587 (2004) 16–32, arXiv:hep-ex/0402002

    arXiv 2004

  3. [1]

    Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions: A Status Report, vol. 2. 2019. arXiv:1907.00991 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [2]

    Non-Standard Interactions in Radiative Neutrino Mass Models,

    K. S. Babu, P. S. B. Dev, S. Jana, and A. Thapa, “Non-Standard Interactions in Radiative Neutrino Mass Models,” JHEP 03 (2020) 006, arXiv:1907.09498 [hep-ph]. 7

    arXiv 2020

  5. [3]

    Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,

    L. Wolfenstein, “Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,” Phys. Rev. D17 (1978) 2369–2374

    work page 1978

  6. [4]

    Are solar neutrino oscillations robust?,

    O. G. Miranda, M. A. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “Are solar neutrino oscillations robust?,” JHEP 10 (2006) 008, arXiv:hep-ph/0406280

    arXiv 2006

  7. [5]

    Solar neutrinos and neutrino physics,

    M. Maltoni and A. Y. Smirnov, “Solar neutrinos and neutrino physics,” Eur. Phys. J. A52 no. 4, (2016) 87, arXiv:1507.05287 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [6]

    CP -Violating Neutrino Nonstandard Interactions in Long-Baseline-Accelerator Data,

    P. B. Denton, J. Gehrlein, and R. Pestes, “ CP -Violating Neutrino Nonstandard Interactions in Long-Baseline-Accelerator Data,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126 no. 5, (2021) 051801, arXiv:2008.01110 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 39 references
  1. [7]

    Nonstandard Neutrino Interactions as a Solution to the N OνAand T2K Discrepancy,

    S. S. Chatterjee and A. Palazzo, “Nonstandard Neutrino Interactions as a Solution to the N OνAand T2K Discrepancy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126 no. 5, (2021) 051802, arXiv:2008.04161 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions: Complementarity Between LHC and Oscillation Experiments,

    K. S. Babu, D. Gon¸ calves, S. Jana, and P. A. N. Machado, “Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions: Complementarity Between LHC and Oscillation Experiments,” Phys. Lett. B815 (2021) 136131, arXiv:2003.03383 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Probing nonstandard neutrino interactions at the LHC Run II,

    D. Choudhury, K. Ghosh, and S. Niyogi, “Probing nonstandard neutrino interactions at the LHC Run II,” Phys. Lett. B784 (2018) 248–254, arXiv:1801.01513 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [10]

    New or ν missing energy: Discriminating dark matter from neutrino interactions at the LHC,

    D. Buarque Franzosi, M. T. Frandsen, and I. M. Shoemaker, “New or ν missing energy: Discriminating dark matter from neutrino interactions at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 9, (2016) 095001, arXiv:1507.07574 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Probing Nonstandard Standard Model Backgrounds with LHC Monojets,

    A. Friedland, M. L. Graesser, I. M. Shoemaker, and L. Vecchi, “Probing Nonstandard Standard Model Backgrounds with LHC Monojets,” Phys. Lett. B714 (2012) 267–275, arXiv:1111.5331 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions at Colliders,

    S. Davidson and V. Sanz, “Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions at Colliders,” Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 113011, arXiv:1108.5320 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions at Neutrino Experiments and Colliders,

    A. Freitas and M. Low, “Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions at Neutrino Experiments and Colliders,” arXiv:2505.01401 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions: Confronting COHERENT and LHC,

    V. M. Lozano, G. Sanchez Garcia, and A. Terrones, “Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions: Confronting COHERENT and LHC,” arXiv:2503.11766 [hep-ph]

  9. [15]

    Constraints on neutrino non-standard interactions from LHC data with large missing transverse momentum,

    D. Liu, C. Sun, and J. Gao, “Constraints on neutrino non-standard interactions from LHC data with large missing transverse momentum,” JHEP 02 (2021) 033, arXiv:2009.06668 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [16]

    For insights into muon–neutrino interactions, refer to the muon collider study in Ref. [39]

  11. [17]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary,

    “The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary,” (6, 2013) , arXiv:1306.6327 [physics.acc-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Updated baseline for a staged Compact Linear Collider,

    CLIC, CLICdpCollaboration, M. J. Boland et al., “Updated baseline for a staged Compact Linear Collider,” (8, 2016) , arXiv:1608.07537 [physics.acc-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [19]

    FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,

    FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al., “FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,” Eur. Phys. J. ST228 no. 2, (2019) 261–623

    2019

  14. [20]

    Leptons in the proton,

    L. Buonocore, P. Nason, F. Tramontano, and G. Zanderighi, “Leptons in the proton,” JHEP 08 no. 08, (2020) 019, arXiv:2005.06477 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [21]

    FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,

    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, arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [22]

    WHIZARD: Simulating Multi-Particle Processes at LHC and ILC,

    W. Kilian, T. Ohl, and J. Reuter, “WHIZARD: Simulating Multi-Particle Processes at LHC and ILC,” Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1742, arXiv:0708.4233 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Habermehl, Dark Matter at the International Linear Collider

    M. Habermehl, Dark Matter at the International Linear Collider. PhD thesis, Hamburg U., Hamburg, 2018

    2018

  18. [24]

    Simulating hard photon production with WHIZARD,

    J. Kalinowski, W. Kotlarski, P. Sopicki, and A. F. Zarnecki, “Simulating hard photon production with WHIZARD,” Eur. Phys. J. C80 no. 7, (2020) 634, arXiv:2004.14486 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [25]

    DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,

    DELPHES 3Collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi, “DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,” JHEP 02 (2014) 057, arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [26]

    FastJet User Manual,

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet User Manual,” Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [27]

    The anti- kt jet clustering algorithm,

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

    2008 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Forward Instrumentation for ILC Detectors,

    H. Abramowicz et al., “Forward Instrumentation for ILC Detectors,” JINST 5 (2010) P12002, arXiv:1009.2433 [physics.ins-det]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Single photon signals for warped quantum gravity at a linear e+ e- collider,

    S. Kumar Rai and S. Raychaudhuri, “Single photon signals for warped quantum gravity at a linear e+ e- collider,” JHEP 10 (2003) 020, arXiv:hep-ph/0307096

    2003 arXiv

  24. [30]

    WIMP Dark Matter at the International Linear Collider,

    M. Habermehl, M. Berggren, and J. List, “WIMP Dark Matter at the International Linear Collider,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 7, (2020) 075053, arXiv:2001.03011 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [31]

    EFT analysis of leptophilic dark matter at future electron-positron colliders in the mono-photon and mono-Z channels,

    S. Kundu, A. Guha, P. K. Das, and P. S. B. Dev, “EFT analysis of leptophilic dark matter at future electron-positron colliders in the mono-photon and mono-Z channels,” Phys. Rev. D107 no. 1, (2023) 015003, arXiv:2110.06903 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [32]

    ILC Operating Scenarios,

    T. Barklow, J. Brau, K. Fujii, J. Gao, J. List, N. Walker, and K. Yokoya, “ILC Operating Scenarios,” (6, 2015) , arXiv:1506.07830 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Physics performance for Dark Matter searches at √s = 3 TeV at CLIC using mono-photons and polarised beams,

    CLICdp Collaboration, J.-J. Blaising, P. Roloff, A. Sailer, and U. Schnoor, “Physics performance for Dark Matter searches at √s = 3 TeV at CLIC using mono-photons and polarised beams,” (3, 2021) , arXiv:2103.06006 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Limits on the nonstandard interactions of neutrinos from e+ e- colliders,

    Z. Berezhiani and A. Rossi, “Limits on the nonstandard interactions of neutrinos from e+ e- colliders,” Phys. Lett. B 535 (2002) 207–218, arXiv:hep-ph/0111137

    2002 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Tests of the standard model and constraints on new physics from measurements of fermion pair production at 189-GeV to 209-GeV at LEP,

    OP ALCollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., “Tests of the standard model and constraints on new physics from measurements of fermion pair production at 189-GeV to 209-GeV at LEP,” Eur. Phys. J. C33 (2004) 173–212, 8 arXiv:hep-ex/0309053

    2004 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Light Z’ Bosons at the Tevatron,

    M. R. Buckley, D. Hooper, J. Kopp, and E. Neil, “Light Z’ Bosons at the Tevatron,” Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 115013, arXiv:1103.6035 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Muonic force and nonstandard neutrino interactions at muon colliders,

    S. Jana and S. Klett, “Muonic force and nonstandard neutrino interactions at muon colliders,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 9, (2024) 095011, arXiv:2308.07375 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.