pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21590 · v1 · pith:2LKVM22Anew · submitted 2026-05-20 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Precision physics at the muon collider: m_W and CKM matrix elements

Ludovica Aperio Bella , Roberto Franceschini , Federico Meloni , Xing Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 09:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords W boson massCKM matrix elementsmuon colliderprecision measurementshadronic decayslepton colliderV_cbflavor tagging
0
0 comments X

The pith

A 10 TeV lepton collider can improve W boson mass precision beyond current 10 MeV levels and extract CKM matrix elements for heavy quarks more accurately by using hadronic decays.

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

The paper examines how a future 10 TeV lepton collider could measure the W boson mass and the strength of its couplings to quarks and leptons, expressed through CKM matrix elements. The dominant production mechanism at this energy is the effective gamma W to W process, which works at both opposite-sign and same-sign lepton colliders. The leptonic decay mode of the W lacks enough events to compete with existing measurements, but the hadronic decay mode offers a path to better mass precision provided detectors deliver high-resolution hadronic energy measurements. The same detector capabilities would allow CKM elements involving heavy quarks, such as V_cb, to be determined with precision that exceeds present results limited by uncertain hadronic matrix elements from low-energy processes.

Core claim

At a 10 TeV lepton collider the effective γW → W process dominates W production. The hadronic decay channel, supported by high-precision hadronic energy measurements and flavor tagging, can improve the current ≃10 MeV precision on the W mass while also determining CKM matrix elements involving heavy quarks at precisions that surpass current extractions limited by poorly known hadronic matrix elements.

What carries the argument

The effective γW → W process, which is the dominant W production mechanism at 10 TeV and enables measurements through hadronic decays with high energy resolution and flavor tagging.

If this is right

  • High-precision hadronic calorimetry and flavor tagging become design priorities for future lepton colliders.
  • CKM elements such as V_cb can be extracted independently of low-energy hadronic matrix element uncertainties.
  • Both opposite-sign and same-sign lepton colliders gain access to the same precision program via the effective γW → W channel.
  • The overall precision physics reach of a 10 TeV lepton collider expands into flavor physics through hadronic final states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This method could reduce dependence on lattice QCD calculations for CKM phenomenology involving heavy quarks.
  • Detector R&D focused on hadronic response would need to be validated against realistic beam and pile-up conditions.
  • If the projections hold, the same techniques might be applied to other precision measurements at high-energy lepton colliders.

Load-bearing premise

The detector can achieve the needed hadronic energy resolution and flavor tagging performance without introducing systematic uncertainties large enough to cancel the expected gains.

What would settle it

A full detector simulation or test-beam study that shows the hadronic energy resolution or flavor-tagging efficiency falls short of the level required to beat 10 MeV on m_W or to improve on current CKM precisions for heavy quarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21590 by Federico Meloni, Ludovica Aperio Bella, Roberto Franceschini, Xing Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative Feynman diagrams for the W production (a), non-resonant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The energy (left) and transverse momentum (right) distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (left) The parameter E ∗ obtained from the fit of the template eq. (15) versus the truth level mW . (right) The best fit mW from a fully numerical template fitting against the truth level mW . Both panels are for the muon channel. can easily diagnose the results from this method and anticipate what precision can be attained for a given luminosity. For our study we divide the energy distribution into 44 bin… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Expected precision on mW as function of the luminosity. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Eµ GeV −1.00 −0.75 −0.50 −0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 cos θ µ −10−1 −10−2 0 10−2 10−1 N(m W =80.06 GeV) − N(m W =80. GeV) √ N(m W =80 GeV) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The difference in the numbers of events N between mW = 80.06 GeV and mW = 80 GeV, in the 2D Eµ- cosθµ distribution, relative to the statistical fluctuation p N, at p s = 10 TeV with L = 10 ab−1 luminosity. 3.2 Beyond univariate lepton analysis The results from the study of 1D templates (analytical or numerical) demonstrates that the muon collider reach precision below 10−3 in the extraction of mW . Such pr… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution over inclusive jet pT and invariant mass of the jets from various QCD, QED and mixed QED-QCD sources of background to the electroweak produc￾tion of W and Z bosons as computed at LO with MG5_AMC@NLO. description of the QCD content of the muon [41, 43–46] can be included once available in public event generators. However, we expect our predictions to be sufficient to account for the main effect… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the expected di-jet invariant mass in 10 ab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of the generated mj j distribution and the corresponding two￾dimensional (mW ,∆scale) likelihood scan, shown for a detector response modelled by a double-sided Crystal Ball parameterisation with an mj j resolution of 8 GeV. a Distribution of mj j for signal and background after event selection. The lower panel illustrates the effect of a 25 MeV variation in mW , corresponding to a jet energy scale … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Projected 1-σ constraints on |Vi j| from single-W as a function of the flavor tagger systematics at 10 TeV muon collider for 10 ab−1 luminosity. Right: Projected 1-σ contours for simultaneous extraction of Vcs and Vcb from event counts binned according to (nc , ns , nb ). and extracting the 1-σ uncertainty from the curvature of −2 lnLprof or a constraint on multiple parameters by suitable slicing of … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We examine the potential for a 10~TeV lepton collider to carry out precision measurements of the W boson mass and W boson couplings strength, i.e. the CKM matrix elements. We consider the several W boson production mechanisms and focus on the most copious at 10~TeV, that is effective $\gamma W \to W$, a process viable at both opposite sign and same-sign leptonic colliders. We find that the leptonic W decay channel can hardly be competitive with present determinations, due to lack of rate. The hadronic channel has potential to improve over the current $\simeq$10~MeV from measurements at hadron colliders, motivating detector developments towards high-precision hadronic energy measurements. We find that the precision understanding of the detector response to hadrons can also lead to a determination of the CKM matrix elements. We expect determination of CKM matrix elements surpassing by far the present precision for couplings involving heavy quarks, notably $V_{cb}$, avoiding the present bottle-necks due to poor knowledge of hadronic matrix elements needed in low energy extractions of CKM matrix elements. Our findings motivate detector developments towards high-precision hadronic energy measurements and flavor tagging.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the potential for a 10 TeV lepton collider to perform precision measurements of the W boson mass and CKM matrix elements. It identifies the effective γW → W process as the dominant production mechanism at this energy and argues that the hadronic decay channel, enabled by high-precision hadronic energy measurements and flavor tagging, could improve upon the current ≃10 MeV precision on m_W from hadron colliders and yield superior determinations of CKM elements involving heavy quarks (e.g., V_cb) by circumventing uncertainties from hadronic matrix elements in low-energy extractions.

Significance. If the required detector performance can be realized, the projections would provide an important alternative pathway for electroweak and flavor precision physics at future lepton colliders, reducing dependence on hadronic uncertainties that currently limit CKM extractions. The work usefully highlights the physics case for advancing hadronic calorimetry and flavor-tagging capabilities, which could benefit broader programs at muon or other high-energy lepton colliders.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract (and the corresponding discussion of the hadronic channel): the claim that this channel 'has potential to improve over the current ≃10 MeV' precision on m_W is load-bearing for the central result, yet no explicit calculation, error budget, or simulation is provided for the required jet-energy resolution, background rejection factors, or the size of new systematics (e.g., from high-energy hadronization modeling or pile-up) that must be controlled to realize the gain.
  2. Abstract (and the discussion of CKM determinations): the assertion that flavor tagging plus hadronic energy measurements will allow CKM elements involving heavy quarks to surpass present extractions is presented without quantitative estimates of achievable tagging efficiencies, their systematic uncertainties, or direct comparison to current V_cb etc. precisions, leaving the superiority as an unquantified projection rather than a demonstrated result.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and main text would benefit from a brief table or paragraph summarizing the assumed detector performance parameters (energy resolution, tagging efficiency) used to reach the stated conclusions.
  2. Clarify whether the effective γW → W process is treated at leading order only or includes higher-order corrections that could affect rate and kinematics at 10 TeV.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our projections. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract (and the corresponding discussion of the hadronic channel): the claim that this channel 'has potential to improve over the current ≃10 MeV' precision on m_W is load-bearing for the central result, yet no explicit calculation, error budget, or simulation is provided for the required jet-energy resolution, background rejection factors, or the size of new systematics (e.g., from high-energy hadronization modeling or pile-up) that must be controlled to realize the gain.

    Authors: We agree that the original text presented the improvement as a qualitative projection based on the high rate of the effective γW → W process and the kinematic advantages at 10 TeV, without a full detector simulation or detailed error budget. This is a fair observation. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the hadronic channel section that specifies target jet-energy resolutions (scaling from current LHC performance to the multi-TeV regime), discusses the dominant potential systematics (high-energy hadronization modeling, pile-up at the muon collider, and background rejection via missing-energy and flavor-tagging requirements), and outlines how these could be controlled with future detector R&D. We explicitly state that a complete Monte Carlo study lies beyond the scope of the present work but is now clearly motivated as a follow-up. The claim is therefore softened from a guaranteed improvement to a well-motivated potential that depends on achieving the stated detector performance. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Abstract (and the discussion of CKM determinations): the assertion that flavor tagging plus hadronic energy measurements will allow CKM elements involving heavy quarks to surpass present extractions is presented without quantitative estimates of achievable tagging efficiencies, their systematic uncertainties, or direct comparison to current V_cb etc. precisions, leaving the superiority as an unquantified projection rather than a demonstrated result.

    Authors: We accept that the original discussion was largely qualitative and lacked explicit numbers for tagging performance or direct precision comparisons. The revised manuscript now includes a short subsection with order-of-magnitude estimates for b- and c-tagging efficiencies at 10 TeV, extrapolated from existing LHCb and ATLAS/CMS studies at lower energies, together with a table comparing the projected uncertainty on V_cb (and V_ub) to the current world averages from exclusive and inclusive B decays. We emphasize that the principal advantage remains the avoidance of hadronic matrix-element uncertainties that dominate low-energy extractions, while acknowledging that tagging systematics at these energies will require dedicated study. These additions make the superiority claim quantitative rather than purely projective. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward-looking collider projections are independent of fitted inputs

full rationale

The paper's central claims consist of phenomenological projections for m_W precision and CKM extractions via the hadronic channel at a 10 TeV lepton collider, based on the dominance of the effective γW → W process and assumptions about achievable detector resolution and flavor tagging. No equations or steps reduce a claimed result to its own inputs by construction, nor do any predictions arise from fitting parameters to a subset of the target data. The analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as current ~10 MeV m_W uncertainties and existing CKM determinations, without load-bearing self-citations, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results. The findings are presented as motivating future detector work rather than as tautological derivations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard collider-physics assumptions about parton distributions, electroweak couplings, and detector response modeling; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The effective γW → W process is the dominant W production mechanism at 10 TeV.
    Invoked to focus the analysis on this channel.
  • standard math Current m_W precision from hadron colliders is ≃10 MeV.
    Used as benchmark for improvement claim.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5750 in / 1348 out tokens · 26111 ms · 2026-05-22T09:00:01.544142+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

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 16 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Franceschini, A

    R. Franceschini, A. Strumia and A. Wulzer, The collider landscape: which collider for establishing the SM instability? , JHEP 08, 229 (2022), doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)229, [Erratum: JHEP 03, 167 (2023)], 2203.17197

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2022)229 2022

  2. [2]

    High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CMS experiment

    V. Chekhovsky et al., High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CMS experiment at the LHC (2024), 2412.13872

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Projections for Key Measurements in Heavy Flavour Physics (2025), 2503.24346

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    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, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations , JHEP 07, 079 (2014), doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, 1405.0301

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep07(2014)079 2014

  5. [5]

    Accettura et al., The Muon Collider (2025), 2504.21417

    C. Accettura et al., The Muon Collider (2025), 2504.21417

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Hamada, R

    Y. Hamada, R. Kitano, R. Matsudo, H. Takaura and M. Yoshida, TRISTAN , PTEP 2022(5), 053B02 (2022), doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac059, 2201.06664

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac059 2022

  7. [7]

    Chigusa, S

    S. Chigusa, S. Knapen, T. Opferkuch, I. Savoray, C. Scherb and W. L. Xu, Searches for electroweak states at future plasma wakefield colliders (2025), 2512.09995

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    CDF Collaboration and D0 Collaboration , Combination of CDF and D0 W-Boson Mass Measurements (2013), 1307.7627v2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    A. V. Kotwal, Model for the curvature response of the CDF II drift chamber , Phys. Rev. Res. 7(1), 013128 (2025), doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.013128

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7.013128 2025

  10. [10]

    High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector

    T. Aaltonen et al., High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector , Science 376(6589), 170 (2022), doi:10.1126/science.abk1781

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abk1781 2022

  11. [11]

    ATLAS Collaboration , Improved \(W\) boson Mass Measurement using \( s = 7\, TeV \) Proton--Proton Collisions with the ATLAS Detector , ATLAS-CONF-2023-004 (2023)

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    ATLAS Collaboration , Measurement of the W -boson mass in pp collisions at s =7 TeV with the ATLAS detector , ArXiv e-prints (2017), 1701.07240

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Andreetto et al., MUSIC: A Multi-Purpose Detector Concept for Physics at the 10 TeV Muon Collider (2025), 2511.23273

    P. Andreetto et al., MUSIC: A Multi-Purpose Detector Concept for Physics at the 10 TeV Muon Collider (2025), 2511.23273

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Bell et al., MAIA: A new detector concept for a 10 TeV muon collider (2025), 2502.00181

    C. Bell et al., MAIA: A new detector concept for a 10 TeV muon collider (2025), 2502.00181

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    C. F. von Weizsacker, Radiation emitted in collisions of very fast electrons , Z. Phys. 88, 612 (1934), doi:10.1007/BF01333110

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01333110 1934

  16. [16]

    E. J. Williams, Nature of the high-energy particles of penetrating radiation and status of ionization and radiation formulae , Phys. Rev. 45, 729 (1934), doi:10.1103/PhysRev.45.729

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.45.729 1934

  17. [17]

    Improving the Weizs\"acker-Williams Approximation in Electron-Proton Collisions

    S. Frixione, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, Improving the Weizsacker-Williams approximation in electron - proton collisions , Phys. Lett. B 319, 339 (1993), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90823-Z, hep-ph/9310350

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90823-z 1993

  18. [18]

    A simple, yet subtle "invariance" of two-body decay kinematics

    K. Agashe, R. Franceschini and D. Kim, Simple invariance of two-body decay kinematics , Phys. Rev. D 88(5), 057701 (2013), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.057701, 1209.0772

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.057701 2013

  19. [19]

    Energy spectra of massive two-body decay products and mass measurement

    K. Agashe, R. Franceschini, S. Hong and D. Kim, Energy spectra of massive two-body decay products and mass measurement , JHEP 04, 151 (2016), doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)151, 1512.02265

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep04(2016)151 2016

  20. [20]

    Study of Electroweak Interactions at the Energy Frontier

    M. Baak et al., Working Group Report: Precision Study of Electroweak Interactions , In Snowmass 2013 : Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013), 1310.6708

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Anguiano, Study of WW q q at ILC500 with ILD , In International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (2020), 2011.12451

    J. Anguiano, Study of WW q q at ILC500 with ILD , In International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (2020), 2011.12451

    work page arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    G. W. Wilson , Prospects for Precision m_W measurements at future e^+e^- colliders , MW days 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Podolanski and R

    J. Podolanski and R. Armenteros, III. Analysis of V-events , Phil. Mag. 45(360), 13 (1954), doi:10.1080/14786440108520416

    work page doi:10.1080/14786440108520416 1954

  24. [24]

    P. B. Rodr \' guez, V. Chobanova, X. C. Vidal, V. Gligorov, M. L. Mart \' nez, J. Markov, D. M. Santos and M. P. Casas \'u s, Calibration of the momentum scale of a particle physics detector using the Armenteros-Podolanski plot , JINST 16(06), P06036 (2021), doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/06/P06036, 2012.03620

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/06/p06036 2021

  25. [25]

    Agostinelli, et al., Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al., GEANT4 - A Simulation Toolkit , Nucl. Inst. & Meth. A506, 250 (2003), doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  26. [26]

    Bartosik et al., Full Detector Simulation with Unprecedented Background Occupancy at a Muon Collider , Comput

    N. Bartosik et al., Full Detector Simulation with Unprecedented Background Occupancy at a Muon Collider , Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 5(1), 21 (2021), doi:10.1007/s41781-021-00067-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s41781-021-00067-x 2021

  27. [27]

    Accettura et al., Towards a muon collider , Eur

    C. Accettura et al., Towards a muon collider , Eur. Phys. J. C 83(9), 864 (2023), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11889-x, [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 36 (2024)], 2303.08533

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11889-x 2023

  28. [28]

    Fernandez Declara et al., The Key4hep turnkey software stack for future colliders , PoS EPS-HEP2021, 844 (2022), doi:10.22323/1.398.0844

    P. Fernandez Declara et al., The Key4hep turnkey software stack for future colliders , PoS EPS-HEP2021, 844 (2022), doi:10.22323/1.398.0844

    work page doi:10.22323/1.398.0844 2022

  29. [29]

    A. Sailer et al., The Key4hep software stack: Beyond Future Higgs factories , In 21th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research : AI meets Reality (2023), 2312.08151

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Frank, F

    M. Frank, F. Gaede, C. Grefe and P. Mato, DD4hep: A Detector Description Toolkit for High Energy Physics Experiments , J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 513(2), 022010 (2013), doi:10.1088/1742-6596/513/2/022010

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/513/2/022010 2013

  31. [31]

    Petric, M

    M. Petric, M. Frank, F. Gaede, S. Lu, N. Nikiforou and A. Sailer, Detector simulations with dd4hep, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 898(4), 042015 (2016), doi:10.1088/1742-6596/898/4/042015

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/898/4/042015 2016

  32. [32]

    Battistoni, T

    G. Battistoni, T. Boehlen, F. Cerutti, P. W. Chin, L. S. Esposito, A. Fassò, A. Ferrari, A. Lechner, A. Empl, A. Mairani, A. Mereghetti, P. G. Ortega et al., Overview of the fluka code, Annals of Nuclear Energy 82, 10 (2015), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.11.007, Joint International Conference on Supercomputing in Nuclear Applications and Mon...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2014.11.007 2015

  33. [33]

    Ahdida, D

    C. Ahdida, D. Bozzato, D. Calzolari, F. Cerutti, N. Charitonidis, A. Cimmino, A. Coronetti, G. L. D’Alessandro, A. Donadon Servelle, L. S. Esposito, R. Froeschl, R. García Alía et al., New capabilities of the fluka multi-purpose code, Frontiers in Physics 9 (2022), doi:10.3389/fphy.2021.788253

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2021.788253 2022

  34. [34]

    Schulte, Study of Electromagnetic and Hadronic Background in the Interaction Region of the TESLA Collider , Ph.D

    D. Schulte, Study of Electromagnetic and Hadronic Background in the Interaction Region of the TESLA Collider , Ph.D. thesis, Hamburg U. (1997)

    work page 1997

  35. [35]

    Ai et al., A Common Tracking Software Project , Comput

    X. Ai et al., A Common Tracking Software Project , Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 6(1), 8 (2022), doi:10.1007/s41781-021-00078-8, 2106.13593

    work page doi:10.1007/s41781-021-00078-8 2022

  36. [36]

    A new jet reconstruction algorithm for lepton colliders

    M. Boronat, J. Fuster, I. Garcia, E. Ros and M. Vos, A robust jet reconstruction algorithm for high-energy lepton colliders , Phys. Lett. B 750, 95 (2015), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.08.055, 1404.4294

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.08.055 2015

  37. [37]

    FastJet user manual

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual , Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2, 1111.6097

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 2012

  38. [38]

    J. S. Marshall, A. M \"u nnich and M. A. Thomson, Performance of Particle Flow Calorimetry at CLIC , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 700, 153 (2013), doi:10.1016/j.nima.2012.10.038, 1209.4039

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nima.2012.10.038 2013

  39. [39]

    J. S. Marshall and M. A. Thomson, The pandora software development kit for particle flow calorimetry, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 396(2), 022034 (2012), doi:10.1088/1742-6596/396/2/022034

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/396/2/022034 2012

  40. [40]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3

    C. Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 , SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022, 8 (2022), doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8, 2203.11601

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.8 2022

  41. [41]

    Garosi, D

    F. Garosi, D. Marzocca and S. Trifinopoulos, LePDF: Standard Model PDFs for high-energy lepton colliders , JHEP 09, 107 (2023), doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)107, 2303.16964

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2023)107 2023

  42. [42]

    LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr \"o m, B. Page, M. R \"u fenacht, M. Sch \"o nherr and G. Watt, LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era , Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3318-8, 1412.7420

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3318-8 2015

  43. [43]

    C. W. Bauer, N. Ferland and B. R. Webber, Standard Model Parton Distributions at Very High Energies , JHEP 08, 036 (2017), doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2017)036, 1703.08562

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep08(2017)036 2017

  44. [44]

    T. Han, Y. Ma and K. Xie, High energy leptonic collisions and electroweak parton distribution functions , Phys. Rev. D 103(3), L031301 (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L031301, 2007.14300

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.l031301 2021

  45. [45]

    T. Han, Y. Ma and K. Xie, Quark and gluon contents of a lepton at high energies , JHEP 02, 154 (2022), doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2022)154, 2103.09844

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2022)154 2022

  46. [46]

    Frixione and G

    S. Frixione and G. Stagnitto, The muon parton distribution functions , JHEP 12, 170 (2023), doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2023)170, 2309.07516

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2023)170 2023

  47. [47]

    Bedeschi, L

    F. Bedeschi, L. Gouskos and M. Selvaggi, Jet flavour tagging for future colliders with fast simulation , Eur. Phys. J. C 82(7), 646 (2022), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10609-1, 2202.03285

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10609-1 2022

  48. [48]

    de Blas et al., Focus topics for the ECFA study on Higgs / Top / EW factories (2024), 2401.07564

    J. de Blas et al., Focus topics for the ECFA study on Higgs / Top / EW factories (2024), 2401.07564

    work page arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Blekman, F

    F. Blekman, F. Canelli, A. De Moor, K. Gautam, A. Ilg, A. Macchiolo and E. Ploerer, Tagging more quark jet flavours at FCC-ee at 91 GeV with a transformer-based neural network , Eur. Phys. J. C 85(2), 165 (2025), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13785-y, 2406.08590

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13785-y 2025

  50. [50]

    Abidi et al., ECFA Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study , vol

    H. Abidi et al., ECFA Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study , vol. 5/2025 of CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, ISBN 978-92-9083-700-8, 978-92-9083-701-5, doi:10.23731/CYRM-2025-005 (2025), 2506.15390

    work page doi:10.23731/cyrm-2025-005 2025

  51. [51]

    ATLAS Collaboration , ATLAS flavour-tagging algorithms for the LHC Run 2 \(pp\) collision dataset , Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 681 (2023), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11699-1, 2211.16345

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11699-1 2023

  52. [52]

    ATLAS Collaboration , Transforming jet flavour tagging at ATLAS (2025), 2505.19689

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    ATLAS Collaboration , Measurement of the \(c\)-jet mistagging efficiency in \(t t \) events using \(pp\) collision data at \( s = 13\, TeV \) collected with the ATLAS detector , Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 95 (2022), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09843-w, 2109.10627

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09843-w 2022

  54. [54]

    Qu and L

    H. Qu and L. Gouskos, ParticleNet: Jet Tagging via Particle Clouds , Phys. Rev. D 101(5), 056019 (2020), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.056019, 1902.08570

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.056019 2020

  55. [55]

    CMS Collaboration , A unified approach for jet tagging in Run 3 at \( s = 13.6 TeV \) in CMS , CMS‑DP‑2024‑066 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    CMS Collaboration , Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at \( s = 13 TeV \) , CMS-PAS-BTV-22-001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Averages of $b$-hadron, $c$-hadron, and $\tau$-lepton properties as of 2023

    S. Banerjee et al., Averages of b -hadron, c -hadron, and -lepton properties as of 2023 (2024), 2411.18639

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    The $V_{cb}$ puzzle: an update

    P. Gambino, M. Jung and S. Schacht, The V_ cb puzzle: An update , Phys. Lett. B 795, 386 (2019), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.039, 1905.08209

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.039 2019

  59. [59]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti and D. J. Robinson, N = 5, 6, 7, 8: Nested hypothesis tests and truncation dependence of |V_ cb | , Phys. Rev. D 100(1), 013005 (2019), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.013005, 1902.09553

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.013005 2019

  60. [60]

    Marzocca, M

    D. Marzocca, M. Szewc and M. Tammaro, Direct CKM determination from W decays at future lepton colliders , JHEP 11, 017 (2024), doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2024)017, 2405.08880

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2024)017 2024

  61. [61]

    Liang, L

    H. Liang, L. Li, Y. Zhu, X. Shen and M. Ruan, Measurement of CKM element |V _ cb | from W boson decays at the future Higgs factories , JHEP 12, 071 (2024), doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)071, 2406.01675

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2024)071 2024

  62. [62]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110(3), 030001 (2024), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  63. [63]

    Marzocca, F

    D. Marzocca, F. Montagno, M. Morales-Alvarado and A. Wulzer, Quark mixing from muon collider neutrinos (2025), 2511.23288

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Agashe, S

    K. Agashe, S. Airen, R. Franceschini, D. Kim, A. V. Kotwal, L. Ricci and D. Sathyan, A new purpose for the W-boson mass measurement: Searching for New Physics in lepton+MET , Phys. Lett. B 855, 138774 (2024), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138774, 2310.13687

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138774 2024

  65. [65]

    Agashe, S

    K. Agashe, S. Airen, R. Franceschini, D. Kim, A. V. Kotwal, L. Ricci and D. Sathyan, Unification of BSM searches and SM measurements: the case of lepton+[inline-graphic not available: see fulltext] and m _ W , JHEP 02, 139 (2025), doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2025)139, 2404.17574

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2025)139 2025

  66. [66]

    ATLAS Collaboration , Measurement of the |V_ cb | element of the CKM matrix in t t decays with the ATLAS detector (2026), 2603.16414

    work page arXiv 2026