Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Testing the unitarity of the light neutrino mixing matrix

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that PMNS non-unitarity makes W-boson pair production grow with energy, converting existing LEP II data into a bound δ_e < 0.0135 and projecting future collider sensitivities down to δ ~ 3×10^-5.

desk verdict A physically sensible but idealized collider test of PMNS non-unitarity; the numbers need caveats, the mechanism is real. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.12385 v2 pith:FCXV2AHV submitted 2026-03-12 hep-ph hep-ex

E. Gabrielli , A. Lind , L. Marzola , K. Müürsepp , E. Nardi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords PMNSunitarityneutrinomixingnon-unitarityW-bosonpairproductioncolliderboundsseesawmodelsanomalousenergygrowthLEPIImuon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that if the light-neutrino mixing matrix (PMNS) is not exactly unitary—because the light neutrinos mix with heavier states—then the Standard Model cancellation between t-channel neutrino exchange and s-channel gauge-boson exchange in e+e− → W+W− fails. The failure is controlled by the row-deficit parameter δ_α, and it produces a cross-section correction that first slightly suppresses and then anomalously grows with energy, roughly as δ_α^2 s^2, as long as the collision energy stays below the mass of the new heavy neutrinos. Using LEP II measurements, the authors derive δ_e ≲ 0.0135 at 95% CL, and they project that future lepton and hadron colliders could reach δ values as low as ~3×10^-5, far below present electroweak-precision constraints in the electron and tau sectors. If correct, this gives a model-independent, high-energy window into the mechanism behind neutrino masses.

What carries the argument

The key object is the deficit δ_α in each row of the PMNS matrix. In the t-channel amplitude, the sum over the three light neutrino mass eigenstates gives a factor Σ|U_ν^{αi}|^2 = 1 − δ_α, so the unitarity-violating part survives and prevents the exact cancellation between t- and s-channel diagrams that gauge invariance would otherwise enforce. The surviving terms, Δ_1 and Δ_2, carry the energy-growing behavior and are the basis of all the collider bounds derived in the paper.

What would settle it

Measure the ratio σ(e+e− → W+W−)/σ_SM at two widely separated energies, for example at 350 GeV (FCC-ee) and 3 TeV (CLIC). The paper predicts that for δ_e ~ 0.01 this ratio first dips below 1 and then rises above 1 by an amount growing like δ^2 s^2. If the measured ratios match the SM at both energies within statistical errors, then δ_e is constrained below ~10^-4, refuting the claimed sensitivity for larger δ_e and the specific energy scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the flavor-diagonal non-unitarity parameters δ_α (defined by δ_α = 1 − Σ_i |U_ν^{αi}|^2 for α = e, μ, τ) make the squared amplitude for ℓ_α^+ ℓ_α^- → W+W− decompose as |M_α|^2 = |M_SM|^2 + δ_α Δ_1 + δ_α^2 Δ_2, with Δ_1 negative and roughly linear in s while Δ_2 is positive and grows like s^2/M_W^4. Consequently the total cross section first dips below the SM prediction and then rises steeply above it with increasing center-of-mass energy, a distinctive signature that persists until the heavy-neutrino threshold is reached. The authors use this mechanism to extract a LEP II bound δ_e < 0.0135 and to project sensitivities for FCC-ee, ILC, CLIC, a muon collider, HL-LHC,

Load-bearing premise

The entire derivation assumes that, below the heavy-neutrino mass threshold, the only effect of the heavy states is to reduce the light-neutrino t-channel sum by the factor (1−δ_α); if heavy-neutrino exchange or effective operators from integrating them out contribute at order δ_α, the predicted energy growth and all derived bounds would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing LEP II measurements already constrain the electron-sector non-unitarity to δ_e < 0.0135, a model-independent limit from a single process.
  • A future FCC-ee run at 350 GeV with 1.8 ab^-1 could reach δ_e < 1.6×10^-4, while ILC and CLIC push to ~1×10^-4.
  • A 10 TeV muon collider is projected to reach δ_μ < 3.1×10^-5, roughly an order of magnitude beyond current precision fits.
  • Hadron colliders can probe all flavors, including δ_τ, with HL-LHC reaching δ < 1×10^-3 and FCC-hh reaching δ < 4.4×10^-5.
  • For δ_α above ~0.01, the cross-section ratio σ/σ_SM shows a distinctive turn-on at high energies, providing a clear experimental signature.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same amplitude decomposition could be applied to other neutrino t-channel processes, such as single-W or Z production, where similar energy-growing unitarity-violating terms would appear and could serve as independent cross-checks.
  • If heavy neutrinos are kinematically accessible, the anomalous growth is expected to stop and turn over; tracing the energy where the deviation peaks could therefore give a direct handle on the heavy mass scale.
  • The method is complementary to low-energy searches for lepton-flavor violation: flavor-diagonal δ_α are hard to constrain at low energies, so high-energy colliders may offer the cleanest probe of these particular parameters.
  • The angular distribution, which is suppressed near cos Θ = 0 in the SM but enhanced by the new terms, suggests that angular cuts could be used to isolate the non-unitarity contribution at CLIC or FCC-ee.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a collider test of flavor-diagonal PMNS non-unitarity parameters δ_α (α=e,μ,τ) using W-pair production. In the presence of mixing with heavy neutral fermions, the t-channel light-neutrino sum is 1-δ_α, spoiling the standard gauge cancellation and producing an anomalous energy growth in the cross section. The authors decompose the squared amplitude as |M|^2 = |M_SM|^2 + δ_α Δ_1 + δ_α^2 Δ_2, with Δ_2 containing a term ∼ s^2/M_W^4. They use LEP II data to set δ_e ≲ 0.0135, and give projections for FCC-ee, ILC, CLIC, muon colliders, HL-LHC, and FCC-hh, claiming model-independent bounds on δ_α, including δ_τ.

Significance. The proposed mechanism is physically plausible and the tree-level derivation is clear, with explicit exact expressions collected in the appendices. If the method can be made robust, it would probe PMNS non-unitarity in a way complementary to electroweak precision fits, and it offers a rare handle on δ_τ. The paper is self-contained and cites the analogous CKM study. However, the central 'model-independent' claim is conditional on an unresolved heavy-neutrino-mass assumption, and the hadron-collider projections are signal-only estimates. The core idea is worth publishing after these points are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, before Eq. (26); Eqs. (5), (26); Table II] The entire method relies on the assumption that heavy-neutrino t-channel exchange is negligible below the mass threshold. The manuscript states this explicitly, but does not quantify the required mass scale. For finite M_N, the effective non-unitarity entering the amplitude is suppressed as δ_eff ≈ δ M_N^2/(|t|+M_N^2) (up to chiral factors). When √s approaches M_N, the predicted δ s and δ^2 s^2 growth is significantly reduced. Since the bounds in Table II and Eqs. (37),(39)-(41),(46),(47) are quoted as numerical numbers, they implicitly assume M_N^2 ≫ s at all probed energies. This is especially problematic because the low-scale seesaw models reviewed in Section II can have TeV-scale M_N, which is comparable to the highest energies at HL-LHC/FCC-hh and to the muon-collider benchmarks. The 'model-independent' wording in the abstract and conclusions is therefore too strong. The authors sho
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (36)] The LEP II χ² uses the measured cross sections themselves to rescale the tree-level SM prediction: the theoretical prediction is effectively σ_i × σ_e(s_i)/σSM(s_i). As a result, the SM point δ_e=0 gives χ²=0 by construction, and the analysis assumes that the fractional NLO/QED corrections, experimental cuts, and detector efficiencies are δ-independent and exactly equal to the ratio σ_i/σSM(s_i). This is an ad hoc assumption that is not derived from a full NLO calculation of the δ-dependent terms. The resulting bound δ_e ≲ 0.0135 (Eq. (37)) is therefore not robust. A dedicated NLO simulation, or at least an estimate of the systematic error introduced by this rescaling, is needed before this number is presented as a bound.
  3. [Section V, Eqs. (46)-(47); Table II] The hadron-collider projections neglect all backgrounds and detector effects. The authors acknowledge this limitation in the text, but still quote δα < 1.0×10^-3 (HL-LHC) and δα < 4.4×10^-5 (FCC-hh) as 95% CL bounds. In reality, the WW-fusion signal pp → ℓ+ℓ- jj is contaminated by Z+jets, top-pair, and W+jets backgrounds; without a background estimate these numbers represent an optimistic signal-only sensitivity, not a realistic projection. This is particularly important because the hadron-collider channel is the only proposed way to access δ_τ. The quoted limits should be labeled as upper bounds on sensitivity and re-derived with at least a minimal background simulation before being used to support the conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (36)] The printed formula for χ² is ambiguous: the fraction '(σ_i - σ_i σSM(s_i) σ_e(s_i))/ϵ_i' should be restructured, e.g., '[σ_i - σ_i (σ_e(s_i)/σSM(s_i))]^2/ϵ_i^2', to be readable.
  2. [Section IV, text after Eq. (40)] Typo: 'unitarity in the the quark mixing matrix' repeats 'the'.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (34) and Appendix A] Notation 's^2_Θ' and 'c^2_Θ' is easy to misread as powers of s; please use sin^2 Θ and cos^2 Θ explicitly.
  4. [Figs. 2 and 3] The captions should state explicitly that the curves correspond to δ_α = 0.01 and 0.1, and define what 'NP contribution' means in the figure.
  5. [Author list and affiliations] Several author names and grant identifiers appear garbled in the source (e.g., 'M¨ u¨ ursepp'); please check that the metadata is correctly encoded.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the PMNS non-unitarity derivation is self-contained and self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The non-unitarity parameter delta_alpha is introduced from the PMNS row norm in Eq. (5) and directly enters the t-channel amplitude via Eq. (26), where the sum over light neutrinos gives (1 - delta_alpha) times the common neutrino-exchange amplitude. The cross-section decomposition in Eq. (33) and the explicit forms of Delta_1 and Delta_2 in Eq. (34) and Appendices A-B are derived consequences of squaring this amplitude, not restatements of the input. The LEP II bound in Eq. (37) is obtained by a chi-square test against six measured cross sections, and the future projections in Eqs. (39)-(41), (46)-(47) use luminosity benchmarks; delta_alpha is scanned to set limits, not fitted to data and then relabeled as a prediction. The self-citations present in the paper (refs. [6], [8], [21]) are not load-bearing: ref. [8] is cited as the analogous CKM mechanism and as a source of an angular-cut strategy, but the PMNS calculation here is performed from the charged-current Lagrangian in Eq. (4) and does not import any unverified result from that paper; refs. [6] and [21] are supporting citations for existing bounds and model parametrization. The main physical approximation, that heavy-neutrino t-channel exchange is negligible below the mass threshold, is explicitly stated as a condition and qualifies the model-independence of the numerical bounds, but it is an assumption/limitation rather than a circular reduction. The paper also openly flags neglected backgrounds and statistical-error assumptions. No equation reduces to its input by construction, so the low score reflects only the presence of minor non-load-bearing self-citations, not actual circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper postulates no new particles; the δ_α parameters are the target observables, not fitted inputs. The load-bearing external inputs are the EFT assumption of decoupled heavy neutrinos, the absence of other NP, and the statistical-error dominance in projections.

free parameters (1)
  • δ_α (α=e,μ,τ) = δ_e ≲ 0.0135 (LEP II, 95% CL); projections δ_e ~ 10^-4, δ_μ ~ 3×10^-5, δ_τ ~ 4×10^-5
    The flavor-diagonal PMNS non-unitarity parameters are the target observables. They are scanned/constrained by the χ² tests, not predicted by the paper.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math The full (3+n)×(3+n) neutral-fermion mixing matrix U is unitary (Takagi factorization).
    Invoked in Section I, Eqs. (1)-(6), to define δ_α and ϵ_αβ as deviations from PMNS unitarity.
  • domain assumption Heavy neutral fermion masses lie above the process energy, so t-channel heavy-neutrino exchange is negligible.
    Stated in Section III: 'the t-channel diagrams involving their exchange are effectively negligible'; this is the key EFT cutoff assumption.
  • domain assumption The only new physics affecting WW production is the reduced light-neutrino coupling 1-δ_α; no other operators or backgrounds are present.
    Used in Sections III-V to translate measured cross sections into bounds on δ_α.
  • domain assumption Initial-state lepton masses and the Higgs s-channel contribution can be neglected.
    Section III: 'work in the limit where the corresponding masses vanish' and 'neglect the Higgs boson s-channel contribution.'
  • domain assumption Neutrino mass-square differences in the t-channel sum can be neglected, so M_t^i = M_t^ν.
    Section III, Eq. (26): 'once neutrino mass square differences are neglected.'
  • domain assumption NLO QED/EW corrections, cuts and detector efficiencies factorize as a δ-independent rescaling σ_i/σ_SM(s_i).
    Section IV, Eq. (36): the LEP χ² relies on this rescaling; no proof of δ-independence is given.
  • domain assumption The Effective Vector Boson Approximation and PDF4LHC21 PDFs give a reliable estimate of pp→ℓℓ jj.
    Section V, Eqs. (44)-(45) use EVBA luminosities from ref. [41] and PDF4LHC21 [47].
  • domain assumption For future colliders, statistical errors dominate over systematic and theoretical uncertainties.
    Sections IV-V: projections use χ² with statistical errors only; authors 'assume' systematics do not exceed statistical error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the unitarity of the light neutrino mixing matrix." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FCXV2AHV

@misc{pith2026260312385,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the unitarity of the light neutrino mixing matrix},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FCXV2AHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.12385}
}
abstract

We propose a novel test of the unitarity of the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) mixing matrix at collider experiments. Our approach exploits the incomplete cancellation between $t$-channel neutrino exchange and $s$-channel gauge-boson contributions that arises in the presence of violation of the flavor-diagonal PMNS unitarity conditions in weak boson pair production, leading to an anomalous growth of the cross section with energy. Such effects are generic in extensions of the Standard Model in which light neutrinos mix with heavier states, and can manifest at colliders as long as the characteristic energy of the process remains below the mass threshold of the new degrees of freedom. After briefly reviewing these scenarios, we employ our strategy to derive model-independent bounds on flavor diagonal unitarity-violating effects using LEP~II data. We then present sensitivity projections for future lepton and hadron colliders, demonstrating that they are well suited to probe the unitarity of the neutrino mixing matrix with this method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.12385 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Tree level Feynman diagrams for the processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The ratio of the total cross section including the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The angular distribution of the differential cross sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Tree level Feynman diagrams for the processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Neutrino t-channels at Colliders: When Light Neutrinos Matter

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The same-sign WW→ℓℓ t-channel signal for heavy Majorana neutrinos is cancelled by light-neutrino contributions in the seesaw model; the opposite-sign eµjj channel is a better probe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 23 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Inverse Beta Processes and Nonconservation of Lepton Charge,

    B. Pontecorvo, “Inverse Beta Processes and Nonconservation of Lepton Charge,”Sov. Phys. JETP 7(1958) 172–173

    1958

  2. [2]

    Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles,

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, “Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles,”Prog. Theor. Phys.28(1962) 870–880

    1962

  3. [3]

    Lepton flavor violation and non-unitary lepton mixing in low-scale type-I seesaw,

    D. V. Forero, S. Morisi, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “Lepton flavor violation and non-unitary lepton mixing in low-scale type-I seesaw,”JHEP09(2011) 142, arXiv:1107.6009 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Precision tests of unitarity in leptonic mixing,

    L. Basso, O. Fischer, and J. J. van der Bij, “Precision tests of unitarity in leptonic mixing,”EPL105no. 1, (2014) 11001,arXiv:1310.2057 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Non-unitarity of the leptonic mixing matrix: Present bounds and future sensitivities,

    S. Antusch and O. Fischer, “Non-unitarity of the leptonic mixing matrix: Present bounds and future sensitivities,”JHEP10(2014) 094,arXiv:1407.6607 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Limits on neutrino mixing with new heavy particles,

    E. Nardi, E. Roulet, and D. Tommasini, “Limits on neutrino mixing with new heavy particles,”Phys. Lett. B327(1994) 319–326,arXiv:hep-ph/9402224

    arXiv 1994

  7. [7]

    Unitarity of the Leptonic Mixing Matrix,

    S. Antusch, C. Biggio, E. Fernandez-Martinez, M. B. Gavela, and J. Lopez-Pavon, “Unitarity of the Leptonic Mixing Matrix,”JHEP10(2006) 084, arXiv:hep-ph/0607020

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Testing the CKM unitarity at high energy via the W+W− production at the LHC and future colliders,

    E. Gabrielli, L. Marzola, and K. M¨ u¨ ursepp, “Testing the CKM unitarity at high energy via the W+W− production at the LHC and future colliders,”Phys. Lett. B859(2024) 139106,arXiv:2405.14585 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,

    P. Minkowski, “µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,”Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 421–428

    1977

  2. [10]

    Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,

    T. Yanagida, “Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,”Conf. Proc. C7902131(1979) 95–99

    1979

  3. [11]

    Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

  4. [12]

    Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, “Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,”Conf. Proc. C790927 (1979) 315–321,arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    1979 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Large mixing angle MSW and atmospheric neutrinos from single right-handed neutrino dominance and U(1) family symmetry,

    S. F. King, “Large mixing angle MSW and atmospheric neutrinos from single right-handed neutrino dominance and U(1) family symmetry,”Nucl. Phys. B576(2000) 85–105,arXiv:hep-ph/9912492

    2000 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Constructing the large mixing angle MNS matrix in seesaw models with right-handed neutrino dominance,

    S. F. King, “Constructing the large mixing angle MNS matrix in seesaw models with right-handed neutrino dominance,”JHEP09(2002) 011, arXiv:hep-ph/0204360

    2002 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Cosmological sign of neutrino CP violation,

    P. H. Frampton, S. L. Glashow, and T. Yanagida, “Cosmological sign of neutrino CP violation,”Phys. Lett. B548(2002) 119–121,arXiv:hep-ph/0208157

    2002 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Oscillating neutrinos and µ→e, γ,

    J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra, “Oscillating neutrinos and µ→e, γ,”Nucl. Phys. B618(2001) 171–204, arXiv:hep-ph/0103065

    2001 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Constraints on neutrino masses from leptogenesis models,

    T. Hambye, Y. Lin, A. Notari, M. Papucci, and A. Strumia, “Constraints on neutrino masses from leptogenesis models,”Nucl. Phys. B695(2004) 169–191,arXiv:hep-ph/0312203

    2004 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Low Energy Signatures of the TeV Scale See-Saw Mechanism,

    A. Ibarra, E. Molinaro, and S. T. Petcov, “Low Energy Signatures of the TeV Scale See-Saw Mechanism,”Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 013005,arXiv:1103.6217 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Neutrino Mass and Baryon Number Nonconservation in Superstring Models,

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Mass and Baryon Number Nonconservation in Superstring Models,”Phys. Rev. D34(1986) 1642

    1986

  12. [20]

    Mechanism for Understanding Small Neutrino Mass in Superstring Theories,

    R. N. Mohapatra, “Mechanism for Understanding Small Neutrino Mass in Superstring Theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett.56(1986) 561–563

    1986

  13. [21]

    Quasi-Dirac neutrinos at the LHC,

    G. Anamiati, M. Hirsch, and E. Nardi, “Quasi-Dirac neutrinos at the LHC,”JHEP10(2016) 010, arXiv:1607.05641 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Left-right symmetry breaking in NJL approach,

    E. K. Akhmedov, M. Lindner, E. Schnapka, and J. W. F. Valle, “Left-right symmetry breaking in NJL approach,”Phys. Lett. B368(1996) 270–280, arXiv:hep-ph/9507275

    1996 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dynamical left-right symmetry breaking,

    E. K. Akhmedov, M. Lindner, E. Schnapka, and J. W. F. Valle, “Dynamical left-right symmetry breaking,”Phys. Rev. D53(1996) 2752–2780, arXiv:hep-ph/9509255

    1996 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Minimal Majorana neutrino mass models,

    A. Herrero-Brocal and A. Vicente, “Minimal Majorana neutrino mass models,”arXiv:2510.00113 [hep-ph]

  17. [25]

    The Generalised Casas-Ibarra Parametrisation for Majorana Neutrino Masses,

    J. H. Garc ´ ıa, S. Marciano, J. Racker, and D. Vatsyayan, “The Generalised Casas-Ibarra Parametrisation for Majorana Neutrino Masses,”arXiv:2510.18962 [hep-ph]

  18. [26]

    Phenomenological Consequences of sub-leading Terms in See-Saw Formulas,

    H. Hettmansperger, M. Lindner, and W. Rodejohann, “Phenomenological Consequences of sub-leading Terms in See-Saw Formulas,”JHEP04(2011) 123, arXiv:1102.3432 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    W Boson Production in e+ e- Collisions in the Weinberg-Salam Model,

    W. Alles, C. Boyer, and A. J. Buras, “W Boson Production in e+ e- Collisions in the Weinberg-Salam Model,”Nucl. Phys. B119(1977) 125–140

    1977

  20. [28]

    Radiative Corrections to e+ e- —>W+ W- in the Weinberg Model,

    M. Lemoine and M. J. G. Veltman, “Radiative Corrections to e+ e- —>W+ W- in the Weinberg Model,”Nucl. Phys. B164(1980) 445–483

    1980

  21. [29]

    W- Pair Production in Electron - Positron Annihilation,

    R. Philippe, “W- Pair Production in Electron - Positron Annihilation,”Phys. Rev. D26(1982) 1588

    1982

  22. [30]

    Electroweak Radiative Corrections to e+ e- —>W+ W-,

    M. Bohm, A. Denner, T. Sack, W. Beenakker, F. A. Berends, and H. Kuijf, “Electroweak Radiative Corrections to e+ e- —>W+ W-,”Nucl. Phys. B304 (1988) 463–499

    1988

  23. [31]

    W WandZZproduction at LEP,

    F. Behner, “W WandZZproduction at LEP,”PoS silafae-III(2000) 003. [32]FCCCollaboration, A. Abadaet al., “FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,”Eur. Phys. J. ST228no. 2, (2019) 261–623. [33]FCCCollaboration, M. Benediktet al., ...

    2000 arXiv

  24. [35]

    The International Linear Collider: A Global Project,

    P. Bambadeet al., “The International Linear Collider: A Global Project,”arXiv:1903.01629 [hep-ex]. [36]ILC International Development T eam Collaboration, A. Aryshevet al., “The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021,” arXiv:2203.07622 [physics.acc-ph]

    1903 arXiv

  25. [36]

    Heavy Fermion Production in the EffectiveWApproximation,

    S. Dawson and S. S. D. Willenbrock, “Heavy Fermion Production in the EffectiveWApproximation,”Nucl. Phys. B284(1987) 449

    1987

  26. [37]

    Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report,

    “Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report,”arXiv:1202.5940 [physics.ins-det]. [38]CLICCollaboration, J. de Blaset al., “The CLIC Potential for New Physics,”CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.3(2018) 1–282,arXiv:1812.02093 [hep-ph]. 11

    2018 arXiv

  27. [39]

    The CLIC project,

    O. Brunneret al., “The CLIC project,” arXiv:2203.09186 [physics.acc-ph]. [40]International Muon ColliderCollaboration, C. Accetturaet al., “Interim report for the International Muon Collider Collaboration (IMCC),” CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2/2024(2024) 176, arXiv:2407.12450 [phy...

    2024 arXiv

  28. [41]

    Foundations of the Universe

    and the quark luminosities are given by LLL(a) =− αW 4π 2 1 a [(1 +a) loga+ 2(1−a)], LT T(a) =− αW 8π 2 1 a 2(1−a)(3 +a) + (2 +a) 2 loga log m2 ℓℓ a M2 W 2 , LLT (a) = αW 8π 2 1 a −7 + 6a+a 2 −4(1 +a) loga log m2 ℓℓ a M2 W , Lq1q2 (z) = 4 r z S Z 1 z dx x fq1 (x)fq2 z x ,(45) ...

  29. [42]

    Exact Calculation of Heavy Lepton Production FromW WFusion,

    D. A. Dicus, “Exact Calculation of Heavy Lepton Production FromW WFusion,”Nucl. Phys. B287 (1987) 397–401

    1987

  30. [43]

    W +W − →ZZscattering at the LHC,

    D. Green, “W +W − →ZZscattering at the LHC,” arXiv:hep-ex/0309031

    arXiv

  31. [44]

    I. B. Alonso, O. Br¨ uning, P. Fessia, M. Lamont, and L. Rossi, eds.,High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical Design Report. CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs. 2020

    2020

  32. [45]

    O. B. et al.,LHC Design Report. CERN, 2004

    2004

  33. [46]

    Detecting the standard model Higgs boson in the WW decay channel using forward proton tagging at the LHC,

    B. E. Cox, A. De Roeck, V. A. Khoze, T. Pierzchala, M. G. Ryskin, I. Nasteva, W. J. Stirling, and M. Tasevsky, “Detecting the standard model Higgs boson in the WW decay channel using forward proton tagging at the LHC,”Eur. Phys. J. C45(2006) 401–407,arXiv:hep-ph/0505240. [47]P...

    2006 arXiv

  34. [48]

    Physics at the FCC-hh, a 100 TeV pp collider,

    “Physics at the FCC-hh, a 100 TeV pp collider,” arXiv:1710.06353 [hep-ph]. [49]FCCCollaboration, A. Abadaet al., “FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1,”Eur. Phys. J. C79no. 6, (2019) 474

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.