Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 41 references

The paper claims that electron-top contact interactions, even when all five operators are marginalised, shift the 1-sigma Higgs self-coupling bound from 16.9% to 17.2% at FCC-ee, keeping the extraction essentially uncontaminated.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:00 UTC pith:IRWBV3T4

load-bearing objection Solid projection paper: the eett flat direction is resolved by above-pole fermion-pair ratios, and the kappa3 sensitivity stays ~17% even if those ratios are dropped; it deserves a real referee.

arxiv 2512.06916 v2 pith:IRWBV3T4 submitted 2025-12-07 hep-ph

Could electron-top interactions spoil the measurement of the Higgs trilinear? -A quantitative estimate at future lepton colliders-

Lukas Allwicher , Christophe Grojean , Lucine Tabatt This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Higgs trilinear couplingSMEFTelectron-top contact interactionsHiggsstrahlungFCC-eekappa_3fermion pair productionleptoquarks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper asks whether four-fermion contact interactions coupling electrons to top quarks could contaminate the extraction of the Higgs self-coupling at a future e+e- collider, since both types of effect enter the Higgsstrahlung cross-section at one loop. It argues that they cannot: once the five electron-top operators are constrained by other measurements — above-pole fermion-pair ratios, electroweak precision observables, and Drell-Yan tails — the marginalised 1-sigma bound on the self-coupling modifier kappa3 moves only from 16.9% to 17.2%. The decisive ingredient is the ratio of top-pair to light-quark-pair production at 365 GeV, which breaks a degeneracy that otherwise leaves one combination of electron-top operators poorly constrained. A sympathetic reader would care because it means a below-threshold lepton collider can still deliver a clean determination of the Higgs trilinear coupling despite this possible new-physics contamination.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that electron-top contact interactions do not spoil the Higgs self-coupling measurement at FCC-ee. The central numbers are the 1-sigma bounds on kappa3: 16.9% with no electron-top operators, and 17.2% when all five are active and marginalised over; even adding all top- and electron-philic operators yields 23%, and the explicit leptoquark models give 0.172 (tree-level matching) and 0.171 (one-loop matching). The mechanism is that the degeneracy between the self-coupling and the electron-top operators in Higgsstrahlung is broken by independent observables — especially the ratio of e+e- to t-tbar to light-quark pair production at 365 GeV and the light-qua

What carries the argument

The load-bearing observable is the ratio Rt = sigma(e+e- -> t tbar) / sum_q sigma(e+e- -> q qbar) at sqrt(s) = 365 GeV, projected to be measured to about one part in 10^4. Rt is a tree-level probe of the five electron-top operators, and its sensitivity is orthogonal to the one-loop, top-Yukawa-enhanced mixing of the same operators into the Z-electron coupling (for example, the Zee coupling receives a contribution proportional to log(mZ/Lambda) times [Cqe] - [Ceu]). The analysis combines Rt with above-pole Rb, Rs, Rc ratios, FCC-ee electroweak precision observables, HL-LHC Drell-Yan, and the NLO Higgsstrahlung cross-section; keeping all five operators in a marginalised fit removes the flat di

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the 365 GeV measurement of the ratio of top-pair to light-quark-pair production reaches the projected ~10^-4 precision, and that all Higgs couplings other than the trilinear remain SM-like; if either fails, the flat direction between the electron-top operators and the self-coupling can reopen and push the kappa3 bound above the quoted 17-18%.

What would settle it

Rerun the marginalised fit replacing the assumed 10^-4 uncertainty on Rt at 365 GeV with 10^-3: if a flat direction reappears and the 1-sigma kappa3 bound grows beyond about 20%, the paper's central conclusion fails. An observed deviation in Rt or Rb at FCC-ee larger than the projected precision would also change the electron-top constraints enough to reopen the degeneracy with the trilinear.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • With all five electron-top operators switched on and marginalised, the 1-sigma kappa3 precision degrades from 16.9% to 17.2%, a relative change of about 2%.
  • The above-pole fermion-pair ratios, not Higgsstrahlung, provide the main constraints on electron-top operators, so the kappa3 extraction is largely insensitive to them.
  • Individual bounds on the five coefficients reach the 10-20 TeV range even in the fully marginalised fit.
  • In explicit leptoquark models that generate all five operators, one-loop versus tree-level matching changes the kappa3 bound only from 0.172 to 0.171.
  • A 1-sigma sensitivity of order 17% on kappa3 is preserved under the assumption of otherwise SM-like Higgs couplings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the same mechanism — using orthogonal tree-level pair-production ratios to break loop-level degeneracies — should apply to other four-fermion operators that contaminate Higgsstrahlung, such as electron-charm or electron-bottom contacts; the paper's framework can be exported to those cases.
  • The reliance on ratios rather than absolute cross-sections cancels luminosity-type systematics, but it shifts the burden onto the Standard Model prediction for the normalising sum; a mismatch there would be a new source of error not covered by the quoted precision.
  • If the 365 GeV top-pair-to-light-quark ratio is measured with worse precision than 10^-4, or if that run is dropped from the schedule, the marginalised kappa3 bound is likely to approach the 17.6% value the authors find without the above-pole ratios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper quantifies the impact of SMEFT four-fermion operators with two electrons and two top quarks on the extraction of the Higgs trilinear coupling κ3 from e+e−→Zh at FCC-ee. The authors combine the NLO Zh cross-section of Ref. [18] with projected constraints from LHC Drell-Yan, current and FCC-ee EWPOs, FCC-ee measurements of R_b, R_s, R_c, R_t and R_e above the Z pole, and the Zh measurement itself. Fitting CH together with the five eett Wilson coefficients, they find that the 1σ sensitivity to κ3 degrades only from 16.9% to 17.2% (and to 17.6% if the above-pole Rq ratios are removed), and to 23% if all top- and electrophilic operators are included. The result is checked in two leptoquark UV completions (S1 and R2), including one-loop matching.

Significance. The conclusion—that eett contact interactions do not significantly spoil the FCC-ee κ3 program—is an important and non-trivial input for the design of the Higgs physics case of future e+e− colliders. The paper goes beyond earlier work (Ref. [10]) by showing that Rq-type fermion-pair measurements above the Z pole resolve the pseudo-flat direction, and it carefully checks the robustness of this conclusion: the row 'All eett (w/o Rq above pole)' in Table III already limits the degradation to 0.7 percentage points, so the headline claim does not hinge on the least-validated external projections. The explicit leptoquark matching and the Λ=10 TeV scale check are also commendable. These features make the analysis more convincing than a purely EFT projection.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section V.B] The phrase 'below the percent level' is ambiguous: the change from 16.9% to 17.2% is 0.3 percentage points, but a relative degradation of about 1.8%. Please specify 'by less than one percentage point in absolute terms' to avoid overstatement.
  2. [Eq. (23)] There are typographical errors in Eq. (23): 'g4' should presumably be 'g^4' and there is a double plus sign ('+ +g2'). Please correct.
  3. [Table I and Section V.B] The paper uses projected precisions from Ref. [22] for Rq and Rt as inputs. Although Table III shows that removing the Rq ratios does not change the central conclusion, the text would benefit from an explicit sentence stating that the O(10^-4) Rt precision and the Rq projections are assumed inputs and that the conclusion is stable if they are degraded or removed.
  4. [General] The analysis relies on public tools (DsixTools, HighPT) but no data-availability statement is provided. Making the precise likelihood inputs, observable definitions, and fit configurations available (e.g. as a supplementary file) would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Figures 6 and 7] The labels and legends in Figures 6 and 7 are very small. Enlarging them, or providing an online version, would help the reader compare the marginalised and individual bounds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the kappa3 sensitivity is a projected SMEFT parameter mapping, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The central claim is that eett four-fermion operators degrade the projected 1-sigma sensitivity to kappa3 from 16.9% (no eett) to 17.2% (all five eett coefficients marginalised), with 17.6% even if the above-pole Rq ratios are removed (Table III). The derivation chain is: (i) Eq. (8) gives the SMEFT NLO decomposition of sigma(e+e- -> Zh) in terms of Wilson coefficients; (ii) Eq. (5) expresses kappa3 in terms of CH (with CH2 and CHD argued to be separately constrained by kappaZ and the T-parameter, Fig. 1); (iii) the paper projects the expected bound on CH from the assumed Zh precision, marginalising over eett coefficients whose constraints come from independent observables (EWPOs, HL-LHC Drell-Yan via HighPT, and FCC-ee fermion-pair ratios). The conversion of the CH bound into a kappa3 bound is a parameter mapping within the same EFT, not a case of fitting kappa3 and then claiming to predict it; this is standard SMEFT projection practice and is explicitly labeled as such ('delta kappa3 proportional to CH, such that a bound on CH can be automatically translated into a constraint on the Higgs self-coupling'). No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input. The least externally validated input is the O(10^-4) precision on Rt from Ref. [22], but Table III's 'All eett (w/o Rq above pole)' row (0.176) shows the central claim does not rest on that input. Self-citations (HighPT [20], flavour papers [14,23,27,29]) are to public code and external literature, used as tools, not as unverified uniqueness theorems. The paper explicitly performs conservative checks (Lambda=10 TeV changes bounds by 20-30% and strengthens them; one-loop vs tree-level leptoquark matching gives delta kappa3 = 0.172 vs 0.171). I find no step satisfying the quoted-reduction standard for circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests standard SMEFT assumptions: dimension-6 dominance, the specific flavour scenario, external FCC projections, and linearised cross-sections. No new particles/entities are invented; the S1 and R2 leptoquarks are existing UV models. The only real free parameters are the Wilson coefficients/leptoquark couplings being constrained, plus the choice Lambda=1 TeV, whose sensitivity is checked.

free parameters (3)
  • Wilson coefficients C_lq(1), C_lq(3), Clu, Cqe, Ceu, CH (and for the leptoquark models the couplings yS1, yR2 and masses = Values bounded/floated in the fit; reported as bounds in TeV (e.g. individual 40.3 TeV for C_lq(1), marginalised 18.0 Te
    These are the effective couplings being constrained by the data. CH is the parameter through which the bound on kappa3 is expressed. They are introduced as the SMEFT operator coefficients, not independently fixed by the model, and the central numerical results are the fitted bounds on them.
  • Renormalisation/initial scale Lambda = Lambda = 1 TeV in the main analysis
    The scale at which the Wilson coefficients are defined is a modelling choice. The paper checks sensitivity to Lambda = 10 TeV in Section V.A (bounds change by 20-30%, always stronger), which mitigates the arbitrariness for the marginalised bounds.
  • Experimental precision assumptions (input projections) = e.g. 0.3% precision on sigma(Zh) at 240 GeV; O(10^-4) precision on Rt at 365 GeV from Ref. [22]
    These projected experimental uncertainties enter the likelihood and determine the quoted sensitivities. They are taken from external projections, not derived in this paper, and are effectively parameters of the forecast.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption SMEFT parametrisation with dimension-6 operators is a valid description of new physics at the scales considered.
    Used throughout; the paper discusses only linear interference and logs, with quadratic terms only where explicitly stated. Stated in Sections II and IV.
  • standard math The Warsaw basis and the standard SMEFT operator normalisation are used.
    Explicitly stated in Section III; the operators are defined in Eq. (9).
  • domain assumption The background SM predictions for the ratio observables Rq, Rt etc. are known with negligible uncertainty compared to the projected experimental precision.
    The expected precision on Rq from Ref. [22] is assumed; theory/parametric uncertainties on the SM prediction are not included in the main fit. Entered in Section IV.A and Table I.
  • domain assumption Only SM-NP interference terms are kept in the cross-sections (linear SMEFT), and O(C^2) terms are neglected except where noted.
    Stated in Section II and III; for Drell-Yan, Appendix B notes that quadratic terms are included in the analysis for e.g. bb->tau tau. In the main fit, linearised projections are used.
  • domain assumption The flavour assumption of an electrophilic and top-philic scenario (U(1)_e and third-generation dominance) defines the operator set.
    Section IV.C; the U(2)5 case is only used as comparison. This assumption restricts the 5+ operators considered.
  • domain assumption The matching of the S1 and R2 leptoquarks onto SMEFT is valid at one-loop, with the given finite terms computed by SOLD.
    Section VI and the matching conditions Eqs. (22)-(24) rely on the validity of the one-loop matching computation from Ref. [36].
  • domain assumption The quoted projected sensitivities from FCC feasibility studies (Zh precision 0.3%, EWPO projections, etc.) are realistic.
    These external projections enter the likelihood and drive the final bounds; the paper does not re-derive them.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17860 in / 8555 out tokens · 63493 ms · 2026-08-03T18:00:49.417868+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling is considered the next milestone in the study of the Higgs boson properties. At future $e^+e^-$ facilities below the double Higgs production threshold, this is extracted from the $Zh$ production cross-section, which is sensitive to the trilinear coupling at the one-loop level. At the same perturbative order, potential effects beyond the Standard Model (SM) may affect the Higgstrahlung rate and distort the self-coupling determination. We study the question focusing especially on contact interactions containing two electron and two top-quark fields. We conclude that, in the context of FCC-ee and its planned runs at different energies, $eett$ interactions change the Higgs self-coupling sensitivity below the percent level. Even in the most pessimistic scenarios, we confirm a robust sensitivity of the order of 17% at the 1$\sigma$ confidence level under the assumption of otherwise SM-like Higgs couplings. A crucial role in these results is played by the measurement of fermion pair production above the $Z$ resonance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.06916 by Christophe Grojean, Lucine Tabatt, Lukas Allwicher.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: In red: allowed regions at 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Contribution of the Higgs trilinear coupling to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Example one-loop SMEFT diagrams involving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Operators included in our analysis when considering one-loop matching for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Comparison of different contributions to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: The 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: The 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    pp → ee with a b¯b pair in the initial state ( b¯b → ee)

    Drell–Yan at LHC, i.e. pp → ee with a b¯b pair in the initial state ( b¯b → ee). This has been explored e.g. in Ref. [23], yielding bounds in the TeV range

  2. [2]

    b¯b production at lepton colliders above the Z pole, for which the FCC-ee prospects have been studied in detail in Ref. [22]. 4 CH e e Z h Z h Z FIG. 2: Contribution of the Higgs trilinear coupling to the Zh cross-section. e e Ceett t t Z h Ceett e e v v t t Z q q Ceett t t e e (a) (b) (c) FIG. 3: Example one-loop SMEFT diagrams involving eett operators r...

  3. [3]

    Scalar and tensor operators The scalar and tensor operators complying with our assumptions are [O(1) lequ]1133 = (¯l1e1)(¯q3u3) [O(3) lequ]1133 = (¯l1σµνe1)(¯q3σµνu3) (14) These have top-quark Yukawa enhanced running effects into both the electron Yukawa and electron dipole oper- ators (the latter one being two-loop), so one gets a con- straint from the e...

  4. [4]

    Quantum Universe

    Four-lepton and four-quark operators Under the same assumptions, four-lepton and four- quark operators may be generated as well. In particular, the following structures would be allowed [Oee]1111 = (¯e1γµe1)(¯e1γµe1) , [Ole]1111 = (¯l1γµl1)(¯e1γµe1) , [Oll]1111 = (¯l1γµl1)(¯l1γµl1) , [O(1) qq ]3333 = (¯q3γµq3)(¯q3γµq3) , [O(3) qq ]3333 = (¯q3γµσI q3)(¯q3γ...

  5. [5]

    collaboration (CMS), (2025), arXiv:2510.07527 [hep- ex]

    C. collaboration (CMS), (2025), arXiv:2510.07527 [hep- ex]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 101801 (2024), arXiv:2406.09971 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B 309, 282 (1988)

    1988

  8. [8]

    Alison et al

    J. Alison et al. , Rev. Phys. 5, 100045 (2020), arXiv:1910.00012 [hep-ph]. 15 1000 2000 3000 4000 500010-5 10-4 0.001 0.010 0.100 FIG. 11: Comparison of different contributions to the partonic Drell–Yan cross-section. All coefficients except [C(3) lq ]1133 are set to zero at the scale Λ. The red (NLO) line is the contribution from the constant, finite ter...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    McCullough, Phys

    M. McCullough, Phys. Rev. D 90, 015001 (2014), [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.D 92, 039903 (2015)], arXiv:1312.3322 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    Di Vita, G

    S. Di Vita, G. Durieux, C. Grojean, J. Gu, Z. Liu, G. Panico, M. Riembau, and T. Vantalon, JHEP 02, 178 (2018), arXiv:1711.03978 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Maltoni, D

    F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, and X. Zhao, JHEP 07, 087 (2018), arXiv:1802.07616 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Benedikt et al

    M. Benedikt et al. (FCC), (2025), 10.17181/CERN.9DKX.TDH9, arXiv:2505.00272 [hep- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    de Blas et al

    J. de Blas et al. (Physics Preparatory Group), (2025), 10.17181/CERN.35CH.2O2P, arXiv:2511.03883 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Bellafronte, S

    L. Bellafronte, S. Dawson, P. P. Giardino, and H. Liu, (2025), arXiv:2507.02039 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Barbieri, B

    R. Barbieri, B. Bellazzini, V. S. Rychkov, and A. Varag- nolo, Phys. Rev. D 76, 115008 (2007), arXiv:0706.0432 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  16. [16]

    Elias-Mir´ o, C

    J. Elias-Mir´ o, C. Grojean, R. S. Gupta, and D. Mar- zocca, JHEP 05, 019 (2014), arXiv:1312.2928 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Contino, M

    R. Contino, M. Ghezzi, C. Grojean, M. Muhlleitner, and M. Spira, JHEP 07, 035 (2013), arXiv:1303.3876 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    Allwicher, C

    L. Allwicher, C. Cornella, G. Isidori, and B. A. Stefanek, JHEP 03, 049 (2024), arXiv:2311.00020 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Maura, B

    V. Maura, B. A. Stefanek, and T. You, JHEP 10, 022 (2025), arXiv:2412.14241 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    ter Hoeve, L

    J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A. N. Rossia, and E. Vryonidou, Phys. Rev. D 112, 013008 (2025), arXiv:2504.05974 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Maura, B

    V. Maura, B. A. Stefanek, and T. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 141802 (2025), arXiv:2503.13719

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Asteriadis, S

    K. Asteriadis, S. Dawson, P. P. Giardino, and R. Szafron, JHEP 02, 162 (2025), arXiv:2409.11466 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP 10, 085 (2010), arXiv:1008.4884 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    Allwicher, D

    L. Allwicher, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo, O. Sumensari, and F. Wilsch, Comput. Phys. Commun. 289, 108749 (2023), arXiv:2207.10756 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Bres´ o-Pla, A

    V. Bres´ o-Pla, A. Falkowski, and M. Gonz´ alez-Alonso, JHEP 08, 021 (2021), arXiv:2103.12074 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Greljo, H

    A. Greljo, H. Tiblom, and A. Valenti, SciPost Phys. 18, 152 (2025), arXiv:2411.02485 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Allwicher, D

    L. Allwicher, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo, O. Sumensari, and F. Wilsch, JHEP 03, 064 (2023), arXiv:2207.10714 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, JHEP 01, 035 (2014), arXiv:1310.4838 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    Crivellin, C

    A. Crivellin, C. Greub, D. M¨ uller, and F. Saturnino, JHEP 02, 182 (2021), arXiv:2010.06593 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Davoudiasl and P

    H. Davoudiasl and P. P. Giardino, Phys. Rev. D 109, 075037 (2024), arXiv:2311.12112 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Allwicher, M

    L. Allwicher, M. McCullough, S. Renner, D. Rocha, and B. Smith, (2025), arXiv:2511.02642 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    J. J. Ethier, G. Magni, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang (SMEFiT), JHEP 11, 089 (2021), arXiv:2105.00006 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Allwicher, G

    L. Allwicher, G. Isidori, and M. Pesut, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 631 (2025), arXiv:2503.17019 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Bordone, C

    M. Bordone, C. Cornella, and J. Davighi, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 995 (2025), arXiv:2503.22635 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Fuentes-Martin, P

    J. Fuentes-Martin, P. Ruiz-Femenia, A. Vicente, and J. Virto, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 167 (2021), arXiv:2010.16341 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Future col- lider constraints on top-quark operators,

    F. Cornet-Gomez, V. Miralles, M. Miralles L´ opez, M. Moreno Ll´ acer, and M. Vos, “Future col- lider constraints on top-quark operators,” (2025), arXiv:2503.11518 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Dorˇ sner, S

    I. Dorˇ sner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik, and N. Koˇ snik, Phys. Rept.641, 1 (2016), arXiv:1603.04993 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    de Blas, J

    J. de Blas, J. C. Criado, M. Perez-Victoria, and J. San- tiago, JHEP 03, 109 (2018), arXiv:1711.10391 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Gherardi, D

    V. Gherardi, D. Marzocca, and E. Venturini, JHEP 07, 225 (2020), [Erratum: JHEP 01, 006 (2021)], arXiv:2003.12525 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Guedes and P

    G. Guedes and P. Olgoso, (2024), arXiv:2412.14253 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Gargalionis, J

    J. Gargalionis, J. Quevillon, P. N. H. Vuong, and T. You, JHEP 07, 136 (2025), arXiv:2412.01759 [hep-ph]. 16 FIG. 12: The 2 σ C.L. allowed regions from different observables, for the one particle extension of the Leptoquark R2 only, with MR2 = 1 TeV. The matching on the left is done at tree level and on the right at one-loop. The couplings are defined in ...

    arXiv 2025