Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 46 references

FCC-hh ZZgamma production would constrain four anomalous quartic gauge couplings to a few times 10^-3 TeV^-4, improving LHC limits by factors of 33-78.

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

2026-08-01 01:03 UTC pith:VH64ZOVA

load-bearing objection Useful FCC-hh projection, but every quoted limit leans on an unvalidated quadratic-only extrapolation a factor ~10 below the smallest simulated couplings. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25935 v1 pith:VH64ZOVA submitted 2026-07-28 hep-ph

Probing the limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings via ZZγ production in the ellellννγ channel at FCC-hh

A. Yilmaz , A. Senol , H. Denizli , I. Turk Cakir , O. Cakir This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords anomalous quartic gauge couplingsdimension-8 operatorsZZgamma productionFCC-hheffective field theorymultivariate analysisunitarity boundmissing transverse energy
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 projects how tightly the proposed 100 TeV proton-proton collider FCC-hh could constrain four dimension-8 operators that generate anomalous quartic gauge couplings (aQGCs) in ZZgamma production. Using the lllnunugamma final state, a realistic detector simulation, and multivariate classifiers, the authors claim 95% CL limits on |fT0/Lambda^4|, |fT8/Lambda^4|, |fT9/Lambda^4|, |fM2/Lambda^4| of 2.83e-3, 1.65e-3, 3.81e-3, and 8.97e-3 TeV^-4 without background systematics. These would tighten the best LHC bounds by factors of roughly 33-78, and by 14-36 even with 5% systematic uncertainty. The key to the result is that anomalous amplitudes grow with energy, so a 100 TeV machine sees a much larger signal than the LHC in the high-energy tail, while a strict operator-dependent total-transverse-mass cut maintains unitarity. A sympathetic reader would treat the projected limits as a strong physics motivation for FCC-hh rather than as a measurement.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that FCC-hh with 30 inverse femtobarns can set tight constraints on four dimension-8 aQGC coefficients through pp -> ZZgamma -> lllnunugamma. With one coupling varied at a time and no systematics, the 95% CL limits in the combined electron+muon channel are 2.83e-3 TeV^-4 for fT0/Lambda^4, 1.65e-3 for fT8/Lambda^4, 3.81e-3 for fT9/Lambda^4, and 8.97e-3 for fM2/Lambda^4. These limits come from an independent testing sample, with the signal yield modelled as quadratic in the coupling and extrapolated about an order of magnitude below the smallest simulated coupling. The authors argue this is justified because the post-selection yield follows the expected slope of tw

What carries the argument

The central objects are four dimension-8 EFT operators — OT0, OT8, OT9, and OM2 — that generate the ZZgamma and ZZZgamma quartic vertices probed in pp -> ZZgamma production. The chosen final state is one Z decaying to a same-flavor opposite-sign lepton pair, the other Z decaying invisibly to neutrinos, plus a photon. The analysis is carried by two kinematic handles: the total transverse mass M_T^tot of the Zgamma-plus-missing-energy system, used both to impose an operator-dependent partial-wave unitarity bound and to separate signal from background, and 41 input variables fed to three multivariate classifiers, with the deep neural network giving the best separation. The signal yield is treat

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the signal yield stays purely quadratic in the coupling down to values about a factor of 10 below the smallest simulated coupling, so the linear SM-anomalous interference term can be neglected when extrapolating to the final limits.

What would settle it

Generate signal samples at couplings below the current scan range (for example fT8/Lambda^4 = 0.005, 0.01, and 0.02 TeV^-4) under the same selection and check whether the post-selection yield keeps slope 2 on a log-log plot; if the yield deviates from quadratic scaling, the extrapolated 95% limits would shift. Alternatively, compare limits obtained with the M_T^tot unitarity cut versus no cut to see how much of the quoted reach depends on the bound.

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

If this is right

  • If the projections hold, FCC-hh with 30 ab^-1 would set 95% CL bounds of a few times 10^-3 TeV^-4 on four dim-8 aQGCs, tightening current LHC limits by factors of 33-78.
  • Even with a 5% background systematic, the limits stay 14-36 times stronger than the best LHC bounds, showing the energy frontier matters more than systematics for this channel.
  • The deep neural network outperforms boosted decision trees, so the quoted limits represent the reach of the best of the three classifiers; combining e and mu channels improves limits by about 10-14% over either flavour alone.
  • Enforcing unitarity through an operator-dependent M_T^tot cut prevents the EFT limits from being set in a regime where the anomalous amplitude violates partial-wave unitarity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the quoted limits are extrapolated about a factor of 10 below the smallest simulated coupling; a future projection should generate samples at or below the projected limits to verify that the SM-anomalous interference term stays negligible at those values.
  • Inference: because the analysis bins only in M_T^tot after a hard cut, a shape-based fit over the full M_T^tot spectrum could extract additional sensitivity or diagnose the quadratic-scaling assumption.
  • Inference: the same final state could be combined with the fully leptonic 4l+gamma channel and with hadronic Z decays to improve coverage, and the residual pileup and background-modelling uncertainties from fast simulation could be tested with full simulation.
  • Inference: the hierarchy of limits (fT8 strongest, fM2 weakest) tracks the operator's cross-section growth, suggesting energy-frontier machines preferentially sharpen bounds on operators whose amplitudes grow fastest with energy.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper projects the sensitivity of a 100 TeV FCC-hh with 30 ab^-1 to four dimension-8 anomalous quartic gauge couplings (fT0, fT8, fT9, fM2) using the pp -> ZZ gamma -> l+l- nu nu gamma process. Signal and background events are generated with MadGraph5/Pythia, passed through the Delphes FCC-hh detector card, and analyzed with a CutLang preselection followed by BDT, BDTD, and DNN classifiers. Unitarity is enforced with an operator-dependent cut on the reconstructed total transverse mass M_T^tot, whose values are obtained from the VBFNLO form-factor utility. Median expected significances are computed in the Asimov approximation, and the signal yield is assumed to scale quadratically with the coupling. The central results are 95% C.L. limits in the combined e+mu channel without systematics of 2.83e-3, 1.65e-3, 3.81e-3, and 8.97e-3 TeV^-4 for |fT0/Lambda^4|, |fT8/Lambda^4|, |fT9/Lambda^4|, and |fM2/Lambda^4|, respectively, claimed to be 33-78 times stronger than current LHC limits.

Significance. If the quoted limits are correct, they represent a substantial improvement in the projected reach for quartic gauge couplings at a future 100 TeV hadron collider, and the study would be a useful input to the FCC-hh physics program. The analysis pipeline is largely standard and reproducible: it uses public event generators, a public detector simulation card, and public MVA and statistical tools. The use of an independent test sample and a training-derived working point is a good practice that mitigates overtraining. The comparison of three multivariate methods is informative, and the DNN consistently outperforms the BDT variants. The main weakness, discussed below, is the extrapolation of the signal yield to couplings roughly an order of magnitude below the smallest simulated points, based on an unquantified assumption that the quadratic term dominates the SM-anomalous interference.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 5, Table 7, Figure 7] The quoted limits are obtained by extrapolating the post-selection signal yield S(f) = sigma_int f + sigma_quad f^2 from the smallest simulated couplings (0.03, 0.02, 0.03, 0.1 TeV^-4) to limits 8-12 times lower. The paper justifies this with the near-slope-2 trend in Fig. 7 and the statement in Sec. 2.1 that the quadratic term dominates. However, a log-log slope near 2 is insensitive to a modest linear term: at the smallest simulated point f_min, a fractional linear contribution r = |sigma_int|/(sigma_quad f_min) changes the local slope to about 2 - r, so r up to ~0.1 is visually compatible. At the extrapolated limit f_lim ~ f_min/10, the same linear term is amplified by f_min/f_lim ~ 10 and can become order one. Because the limits are quoted as symmetric ranges [−f,f], the analysis assumes S(f) is even; a non-negligible interference would break this symmetry and bias the limits. Please
  2. [Sec. 4, Table 4] The unitarity bound is derived for on-shell VV -> VV scattering and then applied as a cut on the reconstructed total transverse mass M_T^tot of the inclusive pp -> ZZ gamma system. This is an approximation: the process is not VBS, M_T^tot is a reconstructed quantity, and the bound is evaluated with a parton-level utility. The final limits depend on this cut, and the paper does not quantify the sensitivity of the results to the way the bound is translated from the parton-level VV scattering scale to the reconstructed event variable. The authors should state explicitly how this translation is performed and ideally show that the limits are stable under reasonable variations of the bound or under an alternative unitarization scheme.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'We have an order of magnitude improvement ... with the assumption of 5% systematic uncertainty' is ambiguous. The no-systematics limits improve by factors of 33-78; with 5% systematics the improvement is 14-36. Consider stating explicitly which numbers correspond to which systematic scenario.
  2. [Figures 2, 4, 7] Axis labels such as 'f=¤4' should be typeset as 'f/Λ^4' for readability.
  3. [Sec. 5] The paragraph beginning 'Table 7 lists the final limits...' appears twice in succession. Please remove the duplicate.
  4. [Table 4] The table gives the M_T^tot bound only for the smallest and largest simulated coupling for each operator. Clarify whether intermediate points are interpolated linearly or logarithmically, since the analysis uses several intermediate points.
  5. [Sec. 4.1] The text says the working point scan is performed 'jointly over all operators and all simulated coupling points' and then that a single ε*_B=0.005 is adopted. This is plausible, but a brief explanation of why a single working point is optimal despite different signal kinematics would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the FCC-hh sensitivity limits follow from forward simulation under a stated quadratic extrapolation, and the self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The dim-8 operator basis (Eqs. 5-8) and the quartic-vertex assignment in Table 1 are taken from external references [7,8]; the Lagrangian Eq. (9) is an input, not an output of this analysis. Event generation uses MadGraph5 with public FeynRules/UFO models, PYTHIA, Delphes with the FCC-hh card, CutLang, and TMVA; the statistical significance formulae (Eqs. 13-16) are the standard Asimov expressions of Cowan et al. The unitarity cut is computed with the external VBFNLO form-factor utility from partial-wave unitarity [33,34]. The final 95% C.L. limits are obtained by inverting the Asimov exclusion significance under the quadratic signal model of Eq. (11). The paper explicitly states that the quadratic term dominates at the scanned couplings and that the parametrization is extrapolated about an order of magnitude below the smallest simulated point. That extrapolation is a physics assumption and a soundness risk, but it is not circular: the quadratic scaling is derived from the EFT cross-section parametrization rather than from a fit to the quantity being predicted, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations [26-30] appear only as contextual references to earlier FCC-hh projections and are not load-bearing for the central limits. The comparison to LHC limits in Table 9 uses external ATLAS/CMS results, so the claimed improvement is not self-referential. Overall, I find no step in which a result reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The free parameter is the MVA working point, chosen to optimize the expected limit. The main load-bearing axioms are the dim-8 operator basis, one-at-a-time coupling variation, and the mapping of the partonic unitarity bound onto M_T^tot; the latter two carry the most risk.

free parameters (1)
  • MVA working point ε*_B = 0.005
    Chosen by scanning the ML cut to minimize the median expected 95% C.L. limit on the training sample (Sec. 4.1); adopted uniformly for all operators and methods; directly sets signal/background yields used for the limits.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Dimension-8 operators of the T and M classes (Refs [7,8]) parametrize the leading new-physics contribution to neutral quartic gauge couplings.
    Used to define the signal model; assumes no relevant dim-6 contributions to neutral quartic vertices.
  • domain assumption One anomalous coupling is varied at a time.
    All limits are obtained with all other couplings set to zero; correlated fits are not considered.
  • ad hoc to paper A cut on the reconstructed total transverse mass M_T^tot implements the partial-wave unitarity bound derived for on-shell VV→VV scattering.
    The unitarity constraint from VBFNLO applies to the partonic scattering energy, not directly to M_T^tot; the proxy mapping is not validated in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The interference term between SM and anomalous amplitudes is negligible relative to the quadratic term at the couplings scanned.
    Stated in Sec. 2.1 and used to extrapolate the yield as f^2 down to limits an order of magnitude below the simulated range; no interference coefficient is reported.
  • domain assumption Delphes fast simulation with the official FCC-hh card approximates the FCC-hh detector response.
    Used for all reconstructed objects; no closure tests against a full Geant-based simulation are provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19127 in / 14267 out tokens · 136147 ms · 2026-08-01T01:03:01.880283+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this study, the sensitivity to anomalous quartic gauge couplings (aQGCs) is projected via $pp \rightarrow ZZ\gamma$ production in the 100 TeV proton-proton Future Circular Collider - hadron-hadron (FCC-hh) for an integrated luminosity of 30 ab$^{-1}$. The $\ell\ell\nu\nu\gamma$ final state under consideration consists of a same-flavor, opposite-sign lepton pair (electrons or muons) from one $Z$ boson, the invisible decay of the other $Z$ boson into neutrinos, and an accompanying photon. The FCC-hh detector response and its effects on the reconstructed objects are included through a realistic detector simulation. Three multivariate techniques are employed to separate the signal from the relevant SM backgrounds. Unitarity is preserved by a strict, operator-dependent bound on the total transverse mass ($M_T^{tot}$) of the system. The median expected significances are calculated within the Asimov approximation for one anomalous coupling varied at a time and for background systematic uncertainties between 0\% and 10\%. The highest separation power is obtained with the deep neural network method. The resulting 95\% confidence level limits on $|f_{T0}/\Lambda^{4}|$, $|f_{T8}/\Lambda^{4}|$, $|f_{T9}/\Lambda^{4}|$ and $|f_{M2}/\Lambda^{4}|$ in the combined $e+\mu$ channel without systematic uncertainties are $2.83\times 10^{-3}$, $1.65\times 10^{-3}$, $3.81\times 10^{-3}$ and $8.97\times 10^{-3}$ TeV$^{-4}$, respectively. We have an order of magnitude improvement when compared to current LHC limits with the assumption of 5\% systematic uncertainty.

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

46 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Aad, G.,et al.: Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard 10 Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detec- tor at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B716, 1– 29 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb. 2012.08.020 arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Chatrchyan, S.,et al.: Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B716, 30– 61 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb. 2012.08.021 arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Martin, S.P.: A Supersymmetry primer. Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 18, 1–98 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1142/ 9789812839657 0001 arXiv:hep-ph/9709356

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Bertone, G., Hooper, D., Silk, J.: Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints. Phys. Rept.405, 279–390 (2005) https://doi. org/10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 arXiv:hep- ph/0404175

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Hagiwara, K., Peccei, R.D., Zeppenfeld, D., Hikasa, K.: Probing the Weak Boson Sec- tor in e+ e- — > W+ W-. Nucl. Phys. B 282, 253–307 (1987) https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0550-3213(87)90685-7

    1987

  6. [6]

    Gounaris, G.J., Layssac, J., Renard, F.M.: Signatures of the anomalous Zγ and ZZ pro- duction at the lepton and hadron colliders. Phys. Rev. D61, 073013 (2000) https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.073013 arXiv:hep- ph/9910395

    arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    Eboli, O.J.P., Gonzalez-Garcia, M.C., Mizukoshi, J.K.: p p — > j j e+- mu+- nu nu and j j e+- mu-+ nu nu at O( alpha(em)**6) and O(alpha(em)**4 alpha(s)**2) for the study of the quartic electroweak gauge boson vertex at CERN LHC. Phys. Rev. D74, 073005 (2006) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.073005 arXiv:hep-ph/0606118

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    ´Eboli, O.J.P., Gonzalez-Garcia, M.C.: Classi- fying the bosonic quartic couplings. Phys. Rev. D93(9), 093013 (2016) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.93.093013 arXiv:1604.03555 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Evidence of ZZ$\gamma$ production and observation of $4\ell\gamma$ in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

    Hayrapetyan, A., et al.: Evidence of ZZ γ production and observation of 4 ℓγ in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV (2026) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604. 02594 arXiv:2604.02594 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604 2026

  10. [10]

    Chekhovsky, V.,et al.: Observation of WZγ production and constraints on new physics scenarios in proton-proton colli- sions at √s = 13 TeV. Phys. Rev. D 112(1), 012009 (2025) https://doi.org/10. 1103/cm24-665b arXiv:2503.21977 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Abada, A.,et al.: FCC Physics Opportu- nities: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1. Eur. Phys. J. C 79(6), 474 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjc/s10052-019-6904-3

    2019

  12. [12]

    Abada, A.,et al.: FCC-hh: The Hadron Col- lider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 3. Eur. Phys. J. ST 228(4), 755–1107 (2019) https://doi.org/10. 1140/epjst/e2019-900087-0

    2019

  13. [13]

    Annals Phys.335, 21–32 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2013.04

    Degrande, C., Greiner, N., Kilian, W., Mat- telaer, O., Mebane, H., Stelzer, T., Wil- lenbrock, S., Zhang, C.: Effective Field Theory: A Modern Approach to Anoma- lous Couplings. Annals Phys.335, 21–32 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2013.04. 016 arXiv:1205.4231 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    Brivio, I., Trott, M.: The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory. Phys. Rept.793, 1– 98 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep. 2018.11.002 arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    JHEP06, 082 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP06(2023)082 arXiv:2208.12741 [hep-ex]

    Aad, G.,et al.: Measurement of electroweak Z (νν) γjj production and limits on anoma- lous quartic gauge couplings in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. JHEP06, 082 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP06(2023)082 arXiv:2208.12741 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    JHEP03, 022 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP03(2026)022 arXiv:2510.00118 [hep-ex] 11

    Hayrapetyan, A.,et al.: Vector boson scat- tering and anomalous quartic couplings in final states with ℓνqq or ℓℓqq plus jets using proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV. JHEP03, 022 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP03(2026)022 arXiv:2510.00118 [hep-ex] 11

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Aad, G.,et al.: Electroweak diboson pro- duction in association with a high-mass dijet system in semileptonic final states from pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 86(4), 433 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjc/s10052-025-15217-3 arXiv:2503.17461 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    JHEP06, 106 (2017) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/JHEP06(2017)106 arXiv:1612.09256 [hep-ex]

    Khachatryan, V.,et al.: Measurement of electroweak-induced production of W γ with two jets in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge cou- plings. JHEP06, 106 (2017) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/JHEP06(2017)106 arXiv:1612.09256 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Aad, G.,et al.: Measurements of Zγ and Zγγ production in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D93(11), 112002 (2016) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.93.112002 arXiv:1604.05232 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    JHEP10, 174 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP10(2021)174 arXiv:2105.12780 [hep-ex]

    Tumasyan, A.,et al.: Measurements of the pp → W±γγ and pp → Zγγ cross sections at √s = 13 TeV and lim- its on anomalous quartic gauge couplings. JHEP10, 174 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP10(2021)174 arXiv:2105.12780 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Aad, G.,et al.: Measurement of Zγγ pro- duction in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 83(6), 539 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjc/s10052-023-11579-8 arXiv:2211.14171 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Aad, G.,et al.: Observation of W+W- γ pro- duction in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector and constraints on anoma- lous quartic gauge-boson couplings. Phys. Lett. B873, 140050 (2026) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.physletb.2025.140050 arXiv:2509.14070 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Aaboud, M.,et al.: Measurement of W ±W ± vector-boson scattering and limits on anoma- lous quartic gauge couplings with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D96(1), 012007 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96. 012007 arXiv:1611.02428 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Sirunyan, A.M.,et al.: Observation of elec- troweak production of same-sign W boson pairs in the two jet and two same-sign lep- ton final state in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV. Phys. Rev. Lett.120(8), 081801 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 120.081801 arXiv:1709.05822 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Aaboud, M.,et al.: Observation of elec- troweak production of a same-sign W boson pair in association with two jets in pp col- lisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. Lett.123(16), 161801 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 123.161801 arXiv:1906.03203 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Senol, A., Denizli, H., Yilmaz, A., Turk Cakir, I., Oyulmaz, K.Y., Karadeniz, O., Cakir, O.: Probing the Effects of Dimension- eight Operators Describing Anomalous Neu- tral Triple Gauge Boson Interactions at FCC-hh. Nucl. Phys. B935, 365–376 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb. 2018.08.018 arXiv:1805.03475 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Yilmaz, A., Senol, A., Denizli, H., Turk Cakir, I., Cakir, O.: Sensitivity on Anomalous Neu- tral Triple Gauge Couplings via ZZ Pro- duction at FCC-hh. Eur. Phys. J. C80(2), 173 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-020-7731-2 arXiv:1906.03911 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Senol, A., Denizli, H., Yilmaz, A., Turk Cakir, I., Cakir, O.: The projections on ZZγ and Zγγ couplings via ν ¯νγ production in HL-LHC and HE-LHC. Phys. Lett. B 802, 135255 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. physletb.2020.135255 arXiv:1910.03843 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Yilmaz, A.: Search for the limits on anomalous neutral triple gauge couplings via ZZ production in the ℓℓνν channel at FCC-hh. Nucl. Phys. B969, 115471 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb. 2021.115471 arXiv:2102.01989 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Acta Phys

    Senol, A., Denizli, H., Yilmaz, A., Turk Cakir, I., Cakir, O.: Study on Anomalous Neu- tral Triple Gauge Boson Couplings from Dimension-eight Operators at the HL- LHC. Acta Phys. Polon. B50, 1597 12 (2019) https://doi.org/10.5506/APhysPolB. 50.1597 arXiv:1906.04589 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Gutierrez-Rodrıguez, A., Cetinkaya, V., Koksal, M., Gurkanli, E., Ari, V., Hernandez- Ruız, M.A.: The future muon collider for the research of the anomalous neutral quar- tic Zγγγ , ZZγγ , and ZZZγ couplings. Eur. Phys. J. Plus140, 5 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-025-06400-2 arXiv:2312.06329 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Bozzi, G., Campanario, F., Hankele, V., Zep- penfeld, D.: NLO QCD corrections to W+W- gamma and Z Z gamma production with leptonic decays. Phys. Rev. D81, 094030 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81. 094030 arXiv:0911.0438 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    Habilitation thesis, KIT (2016) arXiv:1610.08420 [hep-ph]

    Rauch, M.: Vector-Boson Fusion and Vector- Boson Scattering. Habilitation thesis, KIT (2016) arXiv:1610.08420 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Covarelli, R., Pellen, M., Zaro, M.: Vector- Boson scattering at the LHC: Unraveling the electroweak sector. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A36(16), 2130009 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 1142/S0217751X2130009X arXiv:2102.10991 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    JHEP07, 079 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP07(2014)079 arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Alwall, J., Frederix, R., Frixione, S., Hirschi, V., Maltoni, F., Mattelaer, O., Shao, H.- S., Stelzer, T., Torrielli, P., Zaro, M.: The automated computation of tree-level and next- to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations. JHEP07, 079 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP07(2014)079 arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Alloul, A., Christensen, N.D., Degrande, C., Duhr, C., Fuks, B.: FeynRules 2.0 - A com- plete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology. Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2250–2300 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04. 012 arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    Degrande, C., Duhr, C., Fuks, B., Grellscheid, D., Mattelaer, O., Reiter, T.: UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output. Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 1201–1214 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022 arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  38. [38]

    Ball, R.D.,et al.: Parton distributions with LHC data. Nucl. Phys. B867, 244–289 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb. 2012.10.003 arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    Sj¨ ostrand, T., Ask, S., Christiansen, J.R., Corke, R., Desai, N., Ilten, P., Mrenna, S., Prestel, S., Rasmussen, C.O., Skands, P.Z.: An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2. Comput. Phys. Commun.191, 159–177 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01. 024 arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    JHEP02, 057 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057 arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    Favereau, J., Delaere, C., Demin, P., Giammanco, A., Lema ˆ ıtre, V., Mertens, A., Selvaggi, M.: DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment. JHEP02, 057 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057 arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Unel, G., Sekmen, S., Toon, A.M., Gok- turk, B., Orgen, B., Paul, A., Ravel, N., Setpal, J.: CutLang v2: Advances in a Runtime-Interpreted Analysis Description Language for HEP Data. Front. Big Data4, 659986 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata. 2021.659986 arXiv:2101.09031 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Arnold, K.,et al.: VBFNLO: A Parton level Monte Carlo for processes with elec- troweak bosons. Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 1661–1670 (2009) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cpc.2009.03.006 arXiv:0811.4559 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [43]

    Baglio, J., et al.: Release Note - VBFNLO 2.7.0 (2014) arXiv:1404.3940 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    PoSACA T, 040 (2007) arXiv:physics/0703039

    Hocker, A.,et al.: TMV A - Toolkit for Multi- variate Data Analysis. PoSACA T, 040 (2007) arXiv:physics/0703039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  45. [45]

    Cowan, G., Cranmer, K., Gross, E., Vitells, O.: Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics. Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011) https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0 arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  46. [46]

    Read, A.L.: Presentation of search results: 13 The CL s technique. J. Phys. G28, 2693–2704 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/28/ 10/313 14

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/ 2002