Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Counting b-jets at the Electron-Ion Collider could probe new flavor-changing physics at scales up to about 5 TeV, more than 30 times the machine's collision energy.

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 12:17 UTC pith:PUPBOVSY

load-bearing objection A worthwhile, clearly-written EIC sensitivity study for b-Parity flavor violation; the headline reach is plausible only under optimistic b-tagging and a charm-jet fakes assumption that needs a real estimate. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.03345 v2 pith:PUPBOVSY submitted 2026-01-06 hep-ph hep-ex

Flavor physics at the EIC with b-jet tagging

Shaouly Bar-Shalom , Jose Wudka This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex PACS 13.60.-r14.65.Fy
keywords b-Parityb-jet taggingflavor-changing neutral currentsSMEFTElectron-Ion Colliderthird-generation quarksbeam polarizationeffective field theory
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.

This paper argues that the Electron-Ion Collider, despite its modest 141-GeV center-of-mass energy, can search for new flavor-changing interactions among third-generation quarks by exploiting an almost-conserved quantum number: b-Parity, the parity of the number of b-quark jets in the final state. In the Standard Model, charged-current e+p scattering with odd b-jet number is CKM-suppressed to a vanishing rate, so a single b-jet plus missing energy is a clean signature of new physics. Counting these events at 100 fb^-1 with tight b-tagging and a 70% right-handed electron beam, the authors find the EIC can exclude new-physics scales up to about 5 TeV for a tensor four-fermion operator—more than 30 times the collision energy. The sensitivity depends critically on the purity of b-jet identification and on beam polarization.

Core claim

The authors show that b-Parity, b_P = (-1)^n where n is the number of b-jets, is an approximately conserved quantum number of the Standard Model for e+p scattering at the EIC: any odd-b final state requires CKM off-diagonal couplings such as |V_ub|^2 or |V_cb|^2 and is unobservably rare. New physics generating b→u flavor-changing transitions can produce b_P = -1 events in charged-current single-jet production, e+p/A → j_b + missing E_T. Using a dimension-six SMEFT operator basis and counting events with exactly one b-tagged jet, the paper derives 95% CL bounds on the effective new-physics scale Λ_eff: up to 4.6 TeV for the tensor operator Q_ℓequ^{(3)}(1131) with 70% right-handed electron pol

What carries the argument

The central object is b-Parity, b_P = (-1)^n, the parity of the number of b-quark jets in a reaction; it is approximately conserved because the Standard Model's CKM mixing is nearly diagonal, giving an accidental global 'bottomness' symmetry. The analysis combines this counting rule with the probabilities ε_b (b-tagging efficiency) and t_j (light-jet→b misidentification) to convert single-jet plus missing-energy event counts into bounds on dimension-six SMEFT operators mediating b→u transitions. The tensor operator Q_ℓequ^{(3)}(1131) is the most sensitive because it couples to right-handed electrons, letting beam polarization suppress the left-handed SM background.

Load-bearing premise

The entire reach hinges on the assumed b-tagging purity—specifically that the effective light-jet (and charm-jet) misidentification rate t_j can be as low as 0.001 in a tight-tag configuration at the EIC; this performance is not yet measured, and a higher charm mistag rate would inflate the background and shrink the probed scale.

What would settle it

Measure the actual charm-jet→b-jet mistag rate in the EIC's tight-tag configuration; if it exceeds ~1%, the SM background from charm misidentification would outweigh the light-jet mistag background assumed in the paper, and the claimed Λ_eff ≈ 4.6 TeV bound for the tensor operator would not be attainable.

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

If this is right

  • A 100 fb^-1 EIC run with tight b-tagging can probe new flavor scales up to ~5 TeV in single b-jet plus missing-energy events, in some cases matching or exceeding existing LHC Drell-Yan bounds.
  • Beam polarization is a powerful discriminator: 70% right-handed polarization improves the reach for right-handed chiral operators by up to ~50%, and an explicit polarization asymmetry observable is sensitive to the same new physics.
  • The 'tight' b-tagging scenario (t_j = 0.001) is far more valuable than higher tagging efficiency, because the background is entirely mistag-dominated.
  • The di-jet channel e+p/A → 2j + missing E_T is less sensitive than the single-jet channel for all operators considered.
  • These results imply the EIC can act as a flavor-physics machine for third-generation quark transitions despite its low collision energy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted Λ_eff is the effective scale Λ/√α; for loop-generated operators (α ~ 1/(4π)^2), the physical mass scale of the new states would be an order of magnitude lower, so the reach in actual particle masses depends on the underlying coupling strength.
  • If real jet-flavor taggers at the EIC mistag charm jets at the few-percent level typical of existing detectors, the 'tight' background would be dominated by charm misidentification rather than light jets, which the paper folds into t_j without a detector-level simulation; this could reduce the reach below the quoted 4.6 TeV.
  • The same b-Parity counting logic could be applied to other lepton-hadron or electron-positron colliders, and to final states with more than one b-jet, as long as initial-state b-quark contributions remain negligible.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using an approximate conserved quantum number, b-Parity, defined as b_P = (-1)^n for the number n of b-jets in the final state, to search for flavor-changing third-generation new physics at the EIC in charged-current single-jet and di-jet production, e+p/A → j + missing E_T and e+p/A → 2j + missing E_T. The SM b_P-odd backgrounds are CKM suppressed, so the dominant SM background is b-jet misidentification. The authors compute SMEFT cross sections for six dimension-6 operators mediating b→u transitions, fold in b-tagging efficiency ε_b and light-jet mistag rate t_j, and derive 95% CL projected bounds on the effective new-physics scale Λ_eff. For the tensor operator Q_ℓequ^(3)(1131) in the tight tagging scenario with 70% right-handed electron polarization, they claim a reach of Λ_eff ≈ 4.6 TeV, more than an order of magnitude above the EIC center-of-mass energy. The di-jet channel is found to be less sensitive.

Significance. The b-Parity counting idea is simple and attractive, and the paper applies it to a concrete EIC program. The cross-section framework is transparent: standard PDFs (CT18NNLO), explicit cuts (pTj>20 GeV, |ηj|<3.5), a stated luminosity (100 fb^-1), and an explicit error combination are given. The comparison with existing LHC Drell-Yan and B-decay bounds is useful and places the EIC projections in context. If the claimed sensitivity survives a more realistic treatment of b-tagging and of charm-jet fakes, the paper would establish a genuinely new and falsifiable EIC search channel for third-generation flavor violation, complementary to LHC and low-energy probes. The main limitations are the unvalidated detector-performance assumptions and the treatment of charm jets, both of which directly control the headline reach.

major comments (3)
  1. [Footnote 3 and Eq. (9)] The statement that c-quark jets are 'negligible' is load-bearing and unquantified. The SM CC background σ_CC_SM includes e s → ν c (and e \bar s → ν \bar c); with standard PDFs this charm component is at the few-percent level of the 13 pb CC cross section. Realistic charm-jet mistag rates for ε_b≈0.6 are t_c≈3–10%, two orders of magnitude above the assumed t_j=0.001 in the tight scenario. The charm-fake background t_c f_c σ_SM can then be comparable to or larger than the light-jet fake background t_j(1−f_c)σ_SM, directly degrading the 4.6 TeV reach. Please provide a PDF-level estimate of f_c or a detector-level t_c, or conservatively include charm fakes separately in Eq. (9).
  2. [Sec. III, Table III and Fig. 1] The tight tagging scenario (ε_b=0.6, t_j=0.001) is not connected to any EIC detector performance; the paper itself states that EIC tagging efficiencies are still unknown. The reach is strongly t_j-dependent: for the tensor operator the bound drops from 4.6 TeV to about 3.1 TeV at t_j=0.01 and about 2.5 TeV at t_j=0.03. Since the central claim is phrased as a capability of the EIC, the analysis should either use a detector-motivated range of (ε_b, t_j, t_c) or present the reach as a function of these parameters more prominently, including the charm-fake contribution.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (13), Eq. (14) and Table III] I could not reproduce the polarized tight bound for Q_ℓequ^(3)(1131) from the numbers given. Taking Table II as σ_NP at Λ_eff=1 TeV, L=100 fb^-1, A=0.8, ε_b=0.6, t_j=0.001, δ_s=δ_t=0.02, and Eq. (14) with P_e=0.7, I obtain N_SM≈156 and N_NP(Λ)≈7181/Λ^4 events; solving the 95% CL condition in Eq. (13) gives Λ_eff≈4.0 TeV, not 4.6 TeV. The unpolarized value (≈3.2 TeV) reproduces well. Please clarify the value of N_SD, the treatment of σ_CC_SM under polarization, and the normalization of Table II; the stated 4.6 TeV is the headline result and should be reproducible from the reported inputs.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table II caption] Please state the assumed reference scale used to compute the quoted cross sections. The values scale as Λ_eff^{-4}, so without an explicit Λ_eff (apparently 1 TeV) the table is ambiguous.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] Typo: 'singel-jet' should be 'single-jet'.
  3. [Sec. I] Typo: 'initial sate' should be 'initial state'.
  4. [Summary] Typo: 'framewrok' should be 'framework'.
  5. [Secs. III A and IV] The text in Sec. III A refers to 'Fig. 4' for the polarization asymmetry, but the caption immediately below is 'FIG. 3'; the figure numbering appears inconsistent and should be corrected.
  6. [Sec. IV] Typo: 'seperated' should be 'separated'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the b-parity observable is re-derived from CKM suppression, NP cross sections are computed from SMEFT operators, and the reach follows from a significance formula with free tagging inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The b-Parity observable is defined in Sec. I as b_P = (-1)^{n_f - n_i}, and the paper independently re-derives the approximate U(1)_b symmetry from CKM smallness: "in the limit where the CKM parameters V3j = Vj3 = 0 (j != 3), the SM acquires an additional global U(1)_b symmetry". The self-citation [1] that named b-Parity is thus not load-bearing; removing it would not change the argument. The NP single-b cross sections are computed from the listed SMEFT operators (Table II) with CT18NNLO PDFs and specified cuts. The SM background is Eq. (9), bar_sigma^CC_1jb(SM) = t_j * sigma^CC_SM, and the reach is obtained by solving the significance inequality Eq. (13) with statistical and systematic errors. There is no fitted parameter later presented as a prediction: the tagging parameters (epsilon_b, t_j), acceptance A = 0.8, luminosity 100 fb^-1, and systematic errors delta_s = delta_t = 0.02 are freely specified inputs; the reported Lambda_eff numbers are parametric sensitivities. The only self-citation, [1], supplies the b-Parity concept, but the physical content is independently stated in the text. The assumption in Footnote 3 that c-quark jet contributions are negligible, and the assumption that EIC b-tagging will reach the 'tight' scenario (epsilon_b, t_j) = (0.6, 0.001), are unvalidated and could change the numerical reach, but this is a physics/correctness risk, not circularity: adding a charm-fake background or changing t_j modifies the SM background in Eqs. (9)/(13) without making the output an input. No circular step is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles. Its central assumptions are the approximate b-Parity symmetry, negligible intrinsic b-quark content, negligible charm-jet mistagging, and the SMEFT dominance of the listed operators. The detector parameters (ε_b, t_j, A, δ_s, δ_t) are chosen by hand and are the main unvalidated inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • b-tagging efficiency ε_b = 0.6–0.8 (loose/medium/tight scenarios)
    Chosen by hand; not yet measured at the EIC; directly multiplies the NP signal (Eq. 10).
  • light-jet mis-tag rate t_j = 0.001–0.03 (scenarios)
    Chosen by hand; critical because the SM background is t_j·σ_SM (Eq. 9); EIC performance unknown.
  • acceptance/efficiency factor A = 0.8
    Set by hand after Eq. 12 for event counting; not detector-simulated.
  • systematic/theory error δ_s, δ_t = 0.02 each
    Assumed per-event errors combined in quadrature in Eq. 13; changes reach modestly.
  • integrated luminosity L = 100 fb^-1
    Assumed EIC projection; scales event numbers linearly.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption In the limit V_{3j}=V_{j3}=0 (j≠3), the SM has an exact U(1)_b symmetry, so b_P is approximately conserved; CKM-suppressed b_P-odd SM rates are negligible.
    Load-bearing: the entire background suppression relies on this approximate symmetry. Invoked in Sec. I around Eqs. (1)-(3).
  • domain assumption The b-quark content of the proton is negligible and the CM energy is below the top threshold, so initial/final top and intrinsic b contributions can be ignored.
    Needed for b_P=(-1)^n with n final b-jets only. Stated in Sec. I.
  • domain assumption Charm jets can be treated as light jets with mis-tag probability t_j; their contribution is negligible.
    Footnote 3 (p.3); if charm mistag rates are instead ~10%, the tight-purity background is underestimated.
  • domain assumption Dim-6 SMEFT operators listed in Table I are the dominant PTG operators, with O(1) Wilson coefficients for PTG and no large RGE mixing.
    Standard SMEFT assumption, stated in Sec. II; not derived here.
  • domain assumption SM×NP interference is CKM suppressed and neglected.
    Footnote 5 in Sec. III; if not negligible, reach changes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13424 in / 12944 out tokens · 123187 ms · 2026-08-03T12:17:53.917189+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We employ an approximate conserved quantum number (defined as "$b$-Parity" in [1]) of the Standard Model (SM): $b_P=(-1)^n$, where $n$ is the number of produced $b$-jets in the reaction $e + p/A \to n \cdot j_b +X$, to explore new TeV-scale flavor-changing interactions involving the 3rd generation quarks at the EIC; simply by counting the number of $b$-jets in the final state. In particular, the SM single and di-jet production at the EIC which occur through charge current interactions, $e + p/A \to j + \!\not\!E_T$ and $e + p/A \to 2\cdot j + \!\not\!E_T$, are $b_P$-even since the $b_P$-violating (i.e, $b_P=-1$) SM signals for these processes are necessarily CKM suppressed and, therefore, have a vanishingly small production rate. In contrast, new flavor physics can generate $b_P=-1$ signals at the EIC whose only significant SM background is due to $b$-jet misidentification. We thus show that $b_P$ can be used as a simple and sensitive probe of new flavor violating physics; specifically, we find that counting single $b$-jet events in $e + p/A \to j + \!\not\!E_T$ at the EIC with a center-of-mass (CM) energy of $\sqrt{s} \sim 140$ GeV, can probe scales of new physics up to $\Lambda \sim {\cal O}(5)$ TeV for a certain type of new chiral flavor-changing physics in 3rd generation interactions. This is remarkably more than 30 times larger than the assumed EIC CM energy and it critically depends on the $b$-tagging efficiency and purity as well as the feasibility of electron-beam polarization. The sensitivity of the di-jet process, $e + p/A \to 2j + \!\not\!E_T$, to these type of new physics is reduced compared to the single-jet channel.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.03345 by Jose Wudka, Shaouly Bar-Shalom.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Expected 95% CL bounds on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Expected 95% CL bounds on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The polarization asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Expected 95% CL bounds on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. On Exclusive Coherent Production of Bosons in Electron-Proton Collisions

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A phenomenological 2-to-3 framework is constructed for exclusive boson electroproduction that matches flux-factorized predictions near Q^{2}=0 while capturing finite-Q^{2} effects at larger virtualities.

  2. Counting b-jets at the FCC-ee as a probe of top-quark flavor physics

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5

    FCC-ee at 240 GeV can probe Λ_eff ∼ 7–13 TeV for scalar, vector and tensor eetu/eetc operators by counting b_P-odd single-b-jet multi-jet events.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bar-Shalom and J

    S. Bar-Shalom and J. Wudka. Counting inclusive b jets as an efficient probe of new flavor physics.Phys. Rev. Lett., 86:3722–3725, 2001, hep-ph/9904365

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  2. [2]

    Accardi et al

    A. Accardi et al. Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all.Eur. Phys. J. A, 52(9):268, 2016, 1212.1701

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Abdul Khalek et al

    R. Abdul Khalek et al. Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report. Nucl. Phys. A, 1026:122447, 2022, 2103.05419

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    K. S. Kumar, Sonny Mantry, W. J. Marciano, and P. A. Souder. Low Energy Measurements of the Weak Mixing Angle. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 63:237–267, 2013, 1302.6263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    K. S. Kumar, A. Deshpande, J. Huang, S. Riordan, and Y. X. Zhao. Electroweak and BSM Physics at the EIC.EPJ Web Conf., 112:03004, 2016

    2016

  6. [6]

    Y. X. Zhao, A. Deshpande, J. Huang, K. S. Kumar, and S. Riordan. Neutral-Current Weak Interactions at an EIC.Eur. Phys. J. A, 53(3):55, 2017, 1612.06927

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Bin Yan, Zhite Yu, and C. P. Yuan. The anomalous Zbb¯couplings at the HERA and EIC.Phys. Lett. B, 822:136697, 2021, 2107.02134

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Hai Tao Li, Bin Yan, and C. P. Yuan. Jet charge: A new tool to probe the anomalous Zbb¯couplings at the EIC.Phys. Lett. B, 833:137300, 2022, 2112.07747

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Neutral-current electroweak physics and SMEFT studies at the EIC.Phys

    Radja Boughezal, Alexander Emmert, Tyler Kutz, Sonny Mantry, Michael Nycz, Frank Petriello, Kağan Şimşek, Daniel Wiegand, and Xiaochao Zheng. Neutral-current electroweak physics and SMEFT studies at the EIC.Phys. Rev. D, 106(1):016006, 2022, 2204.07557

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Ramsey-Musolf

    Matthew Gonderinger and Michael J. Ramsey-Musolf. Electron-to-Tau Lepton Flavor Violation at the Electron-Ion Col- lider.JHEP, 11:045, 2010, 1006.5063. [Erratum: JHEP 05, 047 (2012)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  11. [11]

    Horowitz, Sonny Mantry, and Paul A

    Jens Erler, Charles J. Horowitz, Sonny Mantry, and Paul A. Souder. Weak Polarized Electron Scattering.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 64:269–298, 2014, 1401.6199. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    Removing flat directions in standard model EFT fits: How polarized electron-ion collider data can complement the LHC.Phys

    Radja Boughezal, Frank Petriello, and Daniel Wiegand. Removing flat directions in standard model EFT fits: How polarized electron-ion collider data can complement the LHC.Phys. Rev. D, 101(11):116002, 2020, 2004.00748

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Charged Lepton Flavor Violation at the EIC.JHEP, 03:256, 2021, 2102.06176

    Vincenzo Cirigliano, Kaori Fuyuto, Christopher Lee, Emanuele Mereghetti, and Bin Yan. Charged Lepton Flavor Violation at the EIC.JHEP, 03:256, 2021, 2102.06176

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Searching for the axion-like particle at the EIC*.Chin

    Yandong Liu and Bin Yan. Searching for the axion-like particle at the EIC*.Chin. Phys. C, 47(4):043113, 2023, 2112.02477

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Hooman Davoudiasl, Roman Marcarelli, and Ethan T. Neil. Lepton-flavor-violating ALPs at the Electron-Ion Collider: a golden opportunity.JHEP, 02:071, 2023, 2112.04513

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Probing the dark photon via polarized DIS scattering at the HERA and EIC.Phys

    Bin Yan. Probing the dark photon via polarized DIS scattering at the HERA and EIC.Phys. Lett. B, 833:137384, 2022, 2203.01510

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Abdul Khalek et al

    R. Abdul Khalek et al. Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Electron Ion Collider for High Energy Physics. 3 2022, 2203.13199

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    J. L. Zhang et al. Search for e→τcharged lepton flavor violation at the EIC with the ECCE detector.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1053:168276, 2023, 2207.10261

    arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Heavy neutral leptons at the Electron-Ion Collider.JHEP, 03:020, 2023, 2210.09287

    Brian Batell, Tathagata Ghosh, Tao Han, and Keping Xie. Heavy neutral leptons at the Electron-Ion Collider.JHEP, 03:020, 2023, 2210.09287

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Transverse spin asymmetries at the EIC as a probe of anomalous electric and magnetic dipole moments.Phys

    Radja Boughezal, Daniel de Florian, Frank Petriello, and Werner Vogelsang. Transverse spin asymmetries at the EIC as a probe of anomalous electric and magnetic dipole moments.Phys. Rev. D, 107(7):075028, 2023, 2301.02304

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Hooman Davoudiasl, Roman Marcarelli, and Ethan T. Neil. Displaced signals of hidden vectors at the Electron-Ion Collider. Phys. Rev. D, 108(7):075017, 2023, 2307.00102

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Probing axion-like particles at the Electron-Ion Collider.JHEP, 02:123, 2024, 2310.08827

    Reuven Balkin, Or Hen, Wenliang Li, Hongkai Liu, Teng Ma, Yotam Soreq, and Mike Williams. Probing axion-like particles at the Electron-Ion Collider.JHEP, 02:123, 2024, 2310.08827

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Probing the four-fermion operators via the transverse double spin asymmetry at the Electron-Ion Collider.Phys

    Hao-Lin Wang, Xin-Kai Wen, Hongxi Xing, and Bin Yan. Probing the four-fermion operators via the transverse double spin asymmetry at the Electron-Ion Collider.Phys. Rev. D, 109(9):095025, 2024, 2401.08419

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Hooman Davoudiasl, Roman Marcarelli, and Ethan T. Neil. Flavor-violating ALPs, electron g-2, and the Electron-Ion Collider.Phys. Rev. D, 109(11):115013, 2024, 2402.17821

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Global analysis ofµ→e interactions in the SMEFT.JHEP, 07:283, 2025, 2411.13497

    Filippo Delzanno, Kaori Fuyuto, Sergi Gonzàlez-Solís, and Emanuele Mereghetti. Global analysis ofµ→e interactions in the SMEFT.JHEP, 07:283, 2025, 2411.13497

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Testing lepton flavor universality at the Electron-Ion Collider

    Yongjie Deng, Xu-Hui Jiang, Tianbo Liu, and Bin Yan. Testing lepton flavor universality at the Electron-Ion Collider. JHEP, 06:157, 2025, 2503.02605

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Electron-ion collider as a discovery tool for invisible dark bosons.Phys

    Hooman Davoudiasl and Hongkai Liu. Electron-ion collider as a discovery tool for invisible dark bosons.Phys. Rev. D, 112(7):075001, 2025, 2505.08871

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Probing top-quark electroweak couplings indirectly at the Electron-Ion Collider

    Xu-Hui Jiang, Yiming Liu, and Bin Yan. Probing top-quark electroweak couplings indirectly at the Electron-Ion Collider. 7 2025, 2507.21477

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Braking protons at the EIC: from invisible meson decay to new physics searches

    ReuvenBalkin, Ta’elCoren, AlexanderJentsch, HongkaiLiu, MaksymOvchynnikov, YotamSoreq, andSokratisTrifinopou- los. Braking protons at the EIC: from invisible meson decay to new physics searches. 12 2025, 2601.00068

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Klein and R

    M. Klein and R. Yoshida. Collider Physics at HERA.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 61:343–393, 2008, 0805.3334

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  31. [31]

    South and Monica Turcato

    David M. South and Monica Turcato. Review of Searches for Rare Processes and Physics Beyond the Standard Model at HERA.Eur. Phys. J. C, 76(6):336, 2016, 1605.03459

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler. Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation.Nucl. Phys., B268:621–653, 1986

    1986

  33. [33]

    C. Arzt, M. B. Einhorn, and J. Wudka. Patterns of deviation from the standard model.Nucl. Phys., B433:41–66, 1995, hep-ph/9405214

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  34. [35]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek. Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian.JHEP, 10:085, 2010, 1008.4884

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [36]

    The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory.Phys

    Ilaria Brivio and Michael Trott. The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory.Phys. Rept., 793:1–98, 2019, 1706.08945

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [37]

    Einhorn and Jose Wudka

    Martin B. Einhorn and Jose Wudka. The Bases of Effective Field Theories.Nucl. Phys. B, 876:556–574, 2013, 1307.0478

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  37. [38]

    Rare b decays meet high-mass Drell-Yan.JHEP, 05:087, 2023, 2212.10497

    Admir Greljo, Jakub Salko, Aleks Smolkovič, and Peter Stangl. Rare b decays meet high-mass Drell-Yan.JHEP, 05:087, 2023, 2212.10497

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [39]

    Faroughy, Florentin Jaffredo, Olcyr Sumensari, and Felix Wilsch

    Lukas Allwicher, Darius A. Faroughy, Florentin Jaffredo, Olcyr Sumensari, and Felix Wilsch. Drell-Yan tails beyond the Standard Model.JHEP, 03:064, 2023, 2207.10714

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [40]

    SMEFT restrictions on exclusive b→uℓνdecays.JHEP, 11:023, 2023, 2306.09401

    Admir Greljo, Jakub Salko, Aleks Smolkovič, and Peter Stangl. SMEFT restrictions on exclusive b→uℓνdecays.JHEP, 11:023, 2023, 2306.09401

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [41]

    More synergies from beauty, top, Z and Drell-Yan measurements in SMEFT.JHEP, 11:110, 2023, 2304.12837

    Cornelius Grunwald, Gudrun Hiller, Kevin Kröninger, and Lara Nollen. More synergies from beauty, top, Z and Drell-Yan measurements in SMEFT.JHEP, 11:110, 2023, 2304.12837

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [42]

    Total Drell–Yan in the flavorful SMEFT.Eur

    Gudrun Hiller, Lara Nollen, and Daniel Wendler. Total Drell–Yan in the flavorful SMEFT.Eur. Phys. J. C, 85(6):657, 2025, 2502.12250

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [43]

    Bar-Shalom and J

    S. Bar-Shalom and J. Wudka. Flavor changing single top quark production channels at e+ e- colliders in the effective Lagrangian description.Phys. Rev. D, 60:094016, 1999, hep-ph/9905407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  43. [44]

    Achard et al

    P. Achard et al. Search for single top production at LEP.Phys. Lett. B, 549:290–300, 2002, hep-ex/0210041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  44. [45]

    Abdallah et al

    J. Abdallah et al. Search for single top quark production via contact interactions at LEP2.Eur. Phys. J. C, 71:1555, 2011, 1102.4455

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [46]

    Global approach to top-quark flavor-changing interactions.Phys

    Gauthier Durieux, Fabio Maltoni, and Cen Zhang. Global approach to top-quark flavor-changing interactions.Phys. Rev. D, 91(7):074017, 2015, 1412.7166

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [47]

    Top quark decay at next-to-leading order in the 12 Standard Model Effective Field Theory.Phys

    Radja Boughezal, Chien-Yi Chen, Frank Petriello, and Daniel Wiegand. Top quark decay at next-to-leading order in the 12 Standard Model Effective Field Theory.Phys. Rev. D, 100(5):056023, 2019, 1907.00997

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [48]

    Aguilar-Saavedra

    J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra. Effective four-fermion operators in top physics: A Roadmap.Nucl. Phys. B, 843:638–672, 2011, 1008.3562. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 851, 443–444 (2011)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  48. [49]

    Mangano, Stephane Perries, and Viola Sordini

    Sacha Davidson, Michelangelo L. Mangano, Stephane Perries, and Viola Sordini. Lepton Flavour Violating top decays at the LHC.Eur. Phys. J. C, 75(9):450, 2015, 1507.07163

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [50]

    Constraining four-fermion operators using rare top decays.JHEP, 04:014, 2019, 1809.09624

    Mikael Chala, Jose Santiago, and Michael Spannowsky. Constraining four-fermion operators using rare top decays.JHEP, 04:014, 2019, 1809.09624

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [51]

    New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC.Phys

    Tie-Jiun Hou et al. New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC.Phys. Rev. D, 103(1):014013, 2021, 1912.10053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021