pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05924 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Doubly charged Higgs production within the Higgs triplet model at future electron-positron colliders

Shu-Xiang Li , Ren-You Zhang , Ming-Hui Liu , Xiao-Feng Wang , Zhong-Yuan Liu , Yi Jiang , Liang Han , Qing-hai Wang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords Higgs triplet modeldoubly charged Higgsdiscovery potentialYukawa-like regiongauge-like regionsame-sign leptonselectron-positron collisions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Future electron-positron colliders can discover doubly charged Higgs bosons up to 1.2 TeV with better reach than high-luminosity hadron colliders in the Higgs triplet model.

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

The paper studies the discovery potential of the doubly charged Higgs boson at future electron-positron colliders in the Higgs triplet model by considering two benchmark points for the Yukawa-like and gauge-like parameter regions. It calculates production rates in different collision modes and the resulting significances for specific final states like same-sign lepton pairs. In the Yukawa-like region single production channels provide clear signals, while in the gauge-like region the reach extends to high masses. The analysis concludes that these colliders have superior potential compared to high-luminosity hadron colliders.

Core claim

Within the Higgs triplet model the authors consider two extreme benchmark points as representatives of the Yukawa-like and gauge-like regions. They show that at future electron-positron colliders operating in e-e-, e-γ, γγ and e+e- modes the doubly charged Higgs can be discovered with high statistical significance. In the gauge-like region this holds for the same-sign dilepton plus at least three jets final state up to a mass of approximately 1.2 TeV. The results also indicate greater advantages and superior discovery potential relative to searches at high-luminosity hadron colliders.

What carries the argument

The benchmark points in the Yukawa-like and gauge-like regions of the Higgs triplet model parameter space, which determine the dominant production and decay modes of the doubly charged Higgs boson. These points enable the computation of signal cross sections and significances across different collider operating modes.

If this is right

  • Single production of the doubly charged Higgs via e-e- and e-γ collisions yields detectable same-sign lepton pairs in the Yukawa-like region.
  • The gauge-like region permits robust discovery up to 1.2 TeV mass using the same-sign lepton plus multiple jet final state.
  • Electron-positron colliders provide greater discovery potential than high-luminosity hadron colliders for this particle.
  • Various collision modes are explored to maximize sensitivity within the experimentally allowed parameter space.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If realized, such searches would allow tighter constraints on the Higgs triplet model parameters through non-observation or discovery.
  • The approach highlights the value of multi-mode operation in future linear colliders for beyond-Standard-Model physics.
  • Similar benchmark strategies could apply to searches for other exotic Higgs bosons in extended models.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen benchmark points are representative of the Yukawa-like and gauge-like regions across the parameter space allowed by current experimental constraints.

What would settle it

An absence of excess events in the same-sign dilepton and jet final state at masses near 1.2 TeV in electron-positron collisions would show that the discovery potential does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05924 by Liang Han, Ming-Hui Liu, Qing-hai Wang, Ren-You Zhang, Shu-Xiang Li, Xiao-Feng Wang, Yi Jiang, Zhong-Yuan Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Branching ratios of the dominant decay channels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Production cross sections of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Kinematic distributions for the signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig.3, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fig.5. For background events, the invariant mass of the leading opposite-sign electron pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Kinematic distributions for the signal process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig.5, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate in detail the discovery potential of the doubly charged Higgs boson at the Compact Linear Collider in $e^-e^-$, $e^-\gamma$, $\gamma\gamma$, and $e^+e^-$ collision modes, within the Higgs triplet model at two extreme benchmark points as representatives of the Yukawa-like and gauge-like regions. In the Yukawa-like region, the most promising production mechanism is the single production via $e^-e^-$ and $e^-\gamma$ collisions. Given the subsequent decay of the doubly charged Higgs into a same-sign lepton pair, CLIC can achieve statistical significance well beyond the discovery threshold, within the parameter space permitted by experimental constraints. In the gauge-like region, with the $\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm} + \geq 3j$ final state, CLIC exhibits robust discovery potential for the doubly charged Higgs boson, up to a mass of approximately $1.2~\mathrm{TeV}$. We also investigate the search for doubly charged Higgs at the HL-LHC. Our results demonstrate that CLIC possesses greater advantages and offers superior discovery potential for the doubly charged Higgs boson, compared to the HL-LHC.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the discovery potential of the doubly charged Higgs boson within the Higgs triplet model at CLIC across e^{-}e^{-}, e^{-}γ, γγ, and e^{+}e^{-} modes, as well as at the HL-LHC. It employs two extreme benchmark points to represent the Yukawa-like and gauge-like regions of the allowed parameter space, reporting high statistical significances for same-sign lepton pair final states in the Yukawa-like region and robust reach up to ~1.2 TeV in the gauge-like region via the ℓ±ℓ± + ≥3j channel, concluding that CLIC offers superior discovery potential compared to HL-LHC.

Significance. If the results hold, the work would add useful collider phenomenology for extended Higgs sectors by comparing multiple CLIC operating modes against HL-LHC projections in a constrained BSM model. The explicit focus on experimentally allowed regions and different production mechanisms provides concrete guidance for future lepton collider searches.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims of 'robust discovery potential' up to approximately 1.2 TeV and 'superior discovery potential' relative to HL-LHC rest exclusively on results at two extreme benchmark points chosen to represent the Yukawa-like and gauge-like regimes. The HTM parameter space (v_Δ, Yukawa matrix Y, mixing angles) is multi-dimensional and subject to constraints from the ρ parameter, electroweak precision observables, neutrino oscillations, and LFV bounds; without a scan or additional intermediate points, it is unclear whether production cross sections, branching ratios (e.g., H++ → ℓ+ℓ+ vs. W+W+), or kinematic distributions remain favorable across the full allowed region, undermining the generalizability of the quoted significances and the CLIC-vs-HL-LHC comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims of 'robust discovery potential' up to approximately 1.2 TeV and 'superior discovery potential' relative to HL-LHC rest exclusively on results at two extreme benchmark points chosen to represent the Yukawa-like and gauge-like regimes. The HTM parameter space (v_Δ, Yukawa matrix Y, mixing angles) is multi-dimensional and subject to constraints from the ρ parameter, electroweak precision observables, neutrino oscillations, and LFV bounds; without a scan or additional intermediate points, it is unclear whether production cross sections, branching ratios (e.g., H++ → ℓ+ℓ+ vs. W+W+), or kinematic distributions remain favorable across the full allowed region, undermining the generalizability of the quoted significances and the CLIC-vs-HL-LHC comparison.

    Authors: The manuscript explicitly investigates the discovery potential at two extreme benchmark points chosen as representatives of the Yukawa-like and gauge-like regions of the allowed parameter space in the Higgs triplet model. These points are selected to illustrate the contrasting decay patterns and production mechanisms while satisfying all experimental constraints, including those from the ρ parameter, electroweak precision observables, neutrino oscillations, and lepton flavor violation. Although a comprehensive scan is not performed, the extreme points allow us to probe the boundaries of the phenomenology: one where same-sign dilepton decays dominate and another where gauge boson decays are prominent. Intermediate points would be expected to exhibit behaviors between these extremes. The reported significances and mass reaches are therefore specific to these benchmarks, and we maintain that they provide valuable insights into the model's discovery potential at CLIC versus HL-LHC. We will update the abstract to better emphasize that the results are based on these representative benchmark points. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: benchmark calculations are direct simulations, not reductions to inputs

full rationale

The paper selects two fixed benchmark points inside the experimentally allowed HTM parameter space and computes production cross sections, branching ratios, and statistical significances via standard Monte Carlo event generation for the listed collider modes and final states. These outputs are independent numerical results for the chosen points; no parameter is fitted to a subset of the target observables and then re-labeled as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz or definition is smuggled in. The CLIC-versus-HL-LHC comparison follows from applying the same simulation pipeline to both machines. The limited coverage of the multi-dimensional parameter space is a question of representativeness, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumptions of the Higgs triplet model and the choice of benchmark points within experimentally allowed regions. No free parameters are explicitly fitted in the abstract, but the model itself introduces additional parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • Benchmark points
    Two extreme points chosen to represent Yukawa-like and gauge-like regions of the parameter space.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Higgs triplet model is a valid extension of the Standard Model with a scalar triplet field.
    The entire analysis is performed within this model framework.
invented entities (1)
  • Doubly charged Higgs boson no independent evidence
    purpose: To provide a new particle that can be produced and detected in collider experiments.
    This particle is predicted by the Higgs triplet model but has no independent experimental confirmation mentioned.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5535 in / 1479 out tokens · 84095 ms · 2026-05-10T19:29:23.293829+00:00 · methodology

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

76 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Theoretical constraints on Higgs quartic couplings In the Higgs potential of the HTM, the quartic coupling constants (λandλ 1,2,3,4 ) are subject to three theoretical constraints: perturbativity, vacuum stability, and perturbative unitarity. Specifically, perturbativity ensures that all couplings remain within the pertur- bative regime [38, 39]; vacuum st...

  2. [2]

    Experimental constraints onv ∆, Higgs masses and Yukawa couplings In the HTM, the masses of theW ± andZ 0 bosons, arising from the kinetic terms of the Higgs multiplets in Eq.(2), are given by mW ± = g2 2 q v2 Φ + 2v2 ∆ , m Z0 = g2 2 cosθW q v2 Φ + 4v2 ∆ ,(16) where the Weinberg angleθ W is defined as cosθ W =g 2/ p g2 1 +g 2

  3. [3]

    Electroweak precision measurements yieldρ= 1.0001±0.0009 at the 1σconfidence level (CL) [43], indicatingv 2 ∆/v2 Φ <4×10 −4

    The correspondingρ parameter is then expressed as ρ≡ m2 W ± m2 Z0 cos2 θW = 1 + 2v2 ∆/v2 Φ 1 + 4v2 ∆/v2 Φ .(17) In contrast to the tree-level predictionρ= 1 in the SM, the HTM predictsρ <1. Electroweak precision measurements yieldρ= 1.0001±0.0009 at the 1σconfidence level (CL) [43], indicatingv 2 ∆/v2 Φ <4×10 −4. Combined with the relation p v2 Φ + 2v2 ∆ ...

    2000

  4. [4]

    Signal events are characterized by a larger /pT , and thus we require /pT >150 GeV

  5. [5]

    The same-sign lepton pair fromH ±± decays is typically more collimated, which moti- vates the requirement ∆R(ℓ, ℓ)<3

  6. [6]

    In signal events, the transverse momentum of the SSDL system typically aligns with /pT , thereby motivating the requirement ∆ϕ(ℓℓ, /pT ) <1.5; 23

  7. [7]

    The jets in signal events originate from the decays of the doubly charged Higgs and typ- ically yield larger values ofH T , for which we impose the requirementH T >1500 GeV. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 /pT [GeV] 0 100 200 300 400 500 600Nevents CLIC√s = 3 TeV ,5 ab -1 W W ℓ ℓ W W W ℓ W Z ℓ W W Z ℓ ℓ 3V + 4V 1000 GeV 1200 GeV 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ∆R(ℓ, ℓ) 0 200 400 60...

    2000

  8. [8]

    Fukudaet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys

    Y. Fukudaet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1562 (1998), arXiv:hep- ex/9807003

    work page arXiv 1998

  9. [9]

    Q. R. Ahmadet al.(SNO), Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 011301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008

    work page arXiv 2002

  10. [10]

    Eguchiet al.(KamLAND), First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappearance, Phys

    K. Eguchiet al.(KamLAND), Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 021802 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0212021

    work page arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Akeret al.(KATRIN), Science388, adq9592 (2025), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

    M. Akeret al.(KATRIN), Science388, adq9592 (2025), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 1566 (1979)

    1979

  14. [14]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  15. [15]

    Complex Spinors and Unified Theories

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C790927, 315 (1979), arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1979

  16. [16]

    Yanagida, Prog

    T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys.64, 1103 (1980)

    1980

  17. [17]

    Pathways to naturally small neutrino masses,

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1171 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9805219

    work page arXiv 1998

  18. [18]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  19. [19]

    Magg and C

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B94, 61 (1980)

    1980

  20. [20]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D22, 2227 (1980)

    1980

  21. [21]

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Phys. Rev. D22, 2860 (1980)

    1980

  22. [22]

    R. Foot, H. Lew, X. G. He, and G. C. Joshi, Z. Phys. C44, 441 (1989)

    1989

  23. [23]

    J. F. Gunion, R. Vega, and J. Wudka, Phys. Rev. D42, 1673 (1990)

    1990

  24. [24]

    Hambye, E

    T. Hambye, E. Ma, and U. Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. B602, 23 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011192

    work page arXiv 2001

  25. [25]

    Arhrib, R

    A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, M. Chabab, G. Moultaka, M. C. Peyran` ere, L. Rahili, and J. Ramadan, Phys. Rev. D84, 095005 (2011), arXiv:1105.1925 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    A. G. Akeroyd and M. Aoki, Phys. Rev. D72, 035011 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0506176

    work page arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    Z.-L. Han, R. Ding, and Y. Liao, Phys. Rev. D91, 093006 (2015), arXiv:1502.05242 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

    Mitra, S

    M. Mitra, S. Niyogi, and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D95, 035042 (2017), arXiv:1611.09594 [hep-ph]. 32

    work page arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    Y. Du, A. Dunbrack, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and J.-H. Yu, JHEP01, 101 (2019), arXiv:1810.09450 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Li, JHEP09, 079 (2018), arXiv:1802.00945 [hep-ph]

    T. Li, JHEP09, 079 (2018), arXiv:1802.00945 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Apollinari, O

    G. Apollinari, O. Br¨ uning, T. Nakamoto, and L. Rossi, inHigh-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Preliminary Design Report, edited by G. Apollinari, I. B´ ejar Alonso, O. Br¨ uning, M. Lamont, and L. Rossi (CERN, Geneva, 2015) pp. 1–19, arXiv:1705.08830 [physics.acc-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Abadaet al.(FCC), Eur

    A. Abadaet al.(FCC), Eur. Phys. J. ST228, 755 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    B. Fuks, M. Nemevˇ sek, and R. Ruiz, Phys. Rev. D101, 075022 (2020), arXiv:1912.08975 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    P. F. Perez, T. Han, G.-Y. Huang, T. Li, and K. Wang, Phys. Rev. D78, 015018 (2008), arXiv:0805.3536 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2008

  35. [35]

    P. S. B. Dev, S. Khan, M. Mitra, and S. K. Rai, Phys. Rev. D99, 115015 (2019), arXiv:1903.01431 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Godfrey, P

    S. Godfrey, P. Kalyniak, and N. Romanenko, Phys. Lett. B545, 361 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0207240

    work page arXiv 2002

  37. [37]

    Agrawal, M

    P. Agrawal, M. Mitra, S. Niyogi, S. Shil, and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D98, 015024 (2018), arXiv:1803.00677 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    J. F. Gunion, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A11, 1551 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9510350

    work page arXiv 1996

  39. [39]

    Godfrey, P

    S. Godfrey, P. Kalyniak, and N. Romanenko, Phys. Rev. D65, 033009 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0108258

    work page arXiv 2002

  40. [40]

    Yue, X.-S

    C.-X. Yue, X.-S. Su, J. Zhang, and J. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys.56, 709 (2011), arXiv:1010.4633 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2011

  41. [41]

    Chakrabarti, D

    S. Chakrabarti, D. Choudhury, R. M. Godbole, and B. Mukhopadhyaya, Phys. Lett. B434, 347 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9804297

    work page arXiv 1998

  42. [42]

    A. Das, S. Mandal, and S. Shil, Phys. Rev. D108, 015022 (2023), arXiv:2304.06298 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - Project Implementation Plan

    M. Aicheler, P. N. Burrows, N. Catalan Lasheras, R. Corsini, M. Draper, J. Osborne, D. Schulte, S. Stapnes, and M. J. Stuart, eds.,The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) – Project Implementation Plan, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, Vol. 4/2018 (CERN Publishing, Geneva, 2018) arXiv:1903.08655 [physics.acc-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    P. Dey, A. Kundu, and B. Mukhopadhyaya, J. Phys. G36, 025002 (2009), arXiv:0802.2510 33 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    N. Haba, H. Ishida, N. Okada, and Y. Yamaguchi, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 333 (2016), arXiv:1601.05217 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    P. S. B. Dev, C. M. Vila, and W. Rodejohann, Nucl. Phys. B921, 436 (2017), arXiv:1703.00828 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    E. J. Chun, H. M. Lee, and P. Sharma, JHEP11, 106 (2012), arXiv:1209.1303 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  48. [48]

    Bonilla, R

    C. Bonilla, R. M. Fonseca, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D92, 075028 (2015), arXiv:1508.02323 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Primulando, J

    R. Primulando, J. Julio, and P. Uttayarat, JHEP08, 024 (2019), arXiv:1903.02493 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Eur

    M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C78, 199 (2018), arXiv:1710.09748 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C83, 605 (2023), arXiv:2211.07505 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP06, 146 (2021), arXiv:2101.11961 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP06, 146 (2021), arXiv:2101.11961 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-HIG-16-036 (2017)

    2017

  55. [55]

    Bellgardtet al.(SINDRUM), Nucl

    U. Bellgardtet al.(SINDRUM), Nucl. Phys. B299, 1 (1988)

    1988

  56. [56]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 021802 (2010), arXiv:0908.2381 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2010

  57. [57]

    Amhiset al.(HFLAV), Eur

    Y. Amhiset al.(HFLAV), Eur. Phys. J. C77, 895 (2017), arXiv:1612.07233 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    Hanneke, S

    D. Hanneke, S. Fogwell, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 120801 (2008), arXiv:0801.1134 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page arXiv 2008

  59. [59]

    Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL

    G. Bennettet al.(Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. D73, 072003 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0602035

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  60. [60]

    Willmann, P

    L. Willmann, P. V. Schmidt, H. P. Wirtz, R. Abela, V. Baranov, J. Bagaturia, W. Bertl, R. Engfer, A. Grossmann, V. W. Hughes,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 49 (1999), arXiv:hep- ex/9807011

    work page arXiv 1999

  61. [61]

    Abdallahet al.(DELPHI), Eur

    J. Abdallahet al.(DELPHI), Eur. Phys. J. C45, 589 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0512012

    work page arXiv 2006

  62. [62]

    P. S. B. Dev and Y. Zhang, JHEP10, 199 (2018), arXiv:1808.00943 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  63. [63]

    I. F. Ginzburg, G. L. Kotkin, V. G. Serbo, and V. I. Telnov, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.205, 47 (1983)

    1983

  64. [64]

    Boudjema, Pramana51, 249 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9809220

    F. Boudjema, Pramana51, 249 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9809220

    work page arXiv 1998

  65. [65]

    High energy Photon Collider,

    I. F. Ginzburg and G. L. Kotkin, “High energy Photon Collider,” (2019), arXiv:1910.13961 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun. 34 185, 2250 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  67. [67]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H.-S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP07, 079 (2014), arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2014

  68. [68]

    Brunner, P

    O. Brunner, P. N. Burrows, S. Calatroni, N. Catalan Lasheras, R. Corsini, G. D’Auria, S. Doebert, A. Faus-Golfe, A. Grudiev, A. Latina,et al., “The CLIC project,” (2022), arXiv:2203.09186 [physics.acc-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  69. [69]

    Artoisenet, R

    P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk, JHEP03, 015 (2013), arXiv:1212.3460 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  70. [70]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3

    C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, N. Desai, L. Gellersen, I. Helenius, P. Ilten, L. L¨ onnblad, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. T. Preuss,et al., SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

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

    J. de Favereauet al.(DELPHES 3), JHEP02, 057 (2014), arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2014

  72. [72]

    A DELPHES card for the CLIC detector,

    E. Leogrande, P. Roloff, U. Schnoor, and M. Weber, “A DELPHES card for the CLIC detector,” (2019), arXiv:1909.12728 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  73. [73]

    FastJet user manual

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2012

  74. [74]

    A new jet reconstruction algorithm for lepton colliders

    M. Boronat, I. Garcia, and M. Vos, Phys. Lett. B750, 95 (2015), arXiv:1404.4294 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  75. [75]

    Jet reconstruction at high-energy lepton colliders

    M. Boronat, J. Fuster, I. Garcia, P. Roloff, R. Simoniello, and M. Vos, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 144 (2018), arXiv:1607.05039 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Fuks, and G. Serret, Comput. Phys. Commun.184, 222 (2013), arXiv:1206.1599 [hep-ph]. 35

    work page arXiv 2013