Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Future electron–positron colliders could discover the leptophilic gauge boson Z_l, reaching couplings as low as 10^-4 at low mass and masses up to about 3 TeV at high energy.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A parton-level projection shows FCC-ee and CEPC can discover a leptophilic Z' down to g_l about 10^-4, while ILC and CLIC extend the search to TeV-scale masses.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection First systematic collider comparison for leptophilic Z', but the signal normalization is unvalidated and the sensitivity contours should be treated as provisional. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.18496 v1 pith:QOVEBSRY submitted 2025-08-25 hep-ph

Searching for the Leptophilic Gauge Boson Z$_{l}$ at Future $e^{+}e^{-}$ Colliders

S. O. Kara This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords leptophilic photonZ_l gauge bosonfuture e+e− collidersdimuon final statediscovery reachinitial-state radiationbeamstrahlungbeyond Standard Model
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.

The reading

This paper asks whether a future electron–positron collider could discover the leptophilic photon Z_l, a hypothetical U'(1) gauge boson that couples to leptons but nearly not to quarks. Simulating e+e− → μ+μ− with initial-state radiation and beamstrahlung included, it maps the 5σ discovery and 3σ observation regions for the four major proposed machines: FCC-ee, CEPC, ILC, and CLIC. The central result is a complementarity: high-luminosity circular machines reach very small couplings, down to g_l ≈ 10^-4, for Z_l masses near 100–240 GeV, while high-energy linear colliders carry the search into the multi-hundred-GeV and TeV range, up to roughly 3 TeV at CLIC. The study argues this is the first systematic cross-machine comparison with realistic beam effects, and that the dimuon channel is the cleanest probe because the e+e− and τ+τ− channels are background-limited.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a leptophilic U'(1) gauge boson Z_l, if it exists with a mass below or near a future e+e− collider's energy, would appear as a sharp resonance in the e+e− → μ+μ− cross section, and that the four major proposed colliders have complementary discovery reaches. At FCC-ee and CEPC, running at 240 GeV with very high luminosity, the 5σ reach dips to couplings g_l ≈ 10^-4 for masses near 100–240 GeV. At ILC and CLIC, the reach shifts to larger masses: the 250/500 GeV ILC stages and the 380 GeV CLIC stage cover the sub-TeV region, and the 1.5 and 3 TeV CLIC stages extend sensitivity to Z_l masses up to about 1.5 and 3 TeV with g_l of order 10^-3. The significance is

What carries the argument

The central object is the Z_l boson, a new vector gauge boson associated with a U'(1)_l symmetry that gauges universal lepton number; its defining property is that it couples to e, μ, τ and their neutrinos with strength g_l but essentially not to quarks, so it evades the strong bounds from hadron colliders. The mass arises from a singlet Higgs field carrying lepton charge, and the model's parameter space is constrained by the relation M_Zl/g_l ≳ 7 TeV from precision electroweak data. The search mechanism is resonant production: in e+e− → μ+μ−, the Z_l appears as a peak when the centre-of-mass energy matches its mass; the sensitivity is set by counting dimuon events in a 10 GeV invariant-mass

Load-bearing premise

The reach curves assume the simulated effective collision-energy distribution from initial-state radiation and beamstrahlung, with the beam parameters in Table 1, matches the real machines' energy spread; the paper gives no benchmark validation for that simulation.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of e+e−→μ+μ− at off-resonance energies (e.g., √s = 240 GeV at FCC-ee) that disagrees with the paper's simulated Standard Model background by more than the quoted statistical error would invalidate the background model on which the 5σ contours rest.

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

If this is right

  • FCC-ee and CEPC, running near 240 GeV, can discover a leptophilic Z_l with coupling as low as g_l ~ 10^-4, making them the most sensitive probes of weakly coupled leptophilic forces at low mass.
  • The high-energy CLIC stages (1.5 and 3 TeV) can extend the discovery reach to Z_l masses around 1.5–3 TeV at couplings of a few × 10^-3, territory inaccessible to the circular machines.
  • The combined reach of the four machines covers a wide, complementary swath of the (M_Zl, g_l) plane, from g_l ~ 10^-4 at 100 GeV to g_l ~ 10^-3 at 3 TeV.
  • Because the e+e− and τ+τ− modes are background-dominated (Bhabha scattering and missing-energy neutrinos, respectively), the μ+μ− final state is the decisive search channel for a leptophilic boson at e+e− colliders.
  • The adopted bound M_Zl/g_l ≳ 7 TeV implies that at a given mass the coupling cannot be arbitrarily large, so the regions plotted in the reach plots are the only regions colliders of these energies can hope to test.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same resonance-search logic should apply to other anomaly-free leptophilic combinations such as L_μ − L_τ; the reach curves here suggest that high-luminosity circular machines would probe their small couplings, while linear colliders would chase their heavy partners.
  • Since the 10 GeV invariant-mass window is much wider than the intrinsic width of a very weakly coupled Z_l, a narrower or adaptive window could push the g_l ~ 10^-4 limit further down, at the cost of larger background-systematic sensitivity.
  • If a Z_l were found, its leptophilic nature could be tested by comparing the μ+μ− and τ+τ− rates and by measuring the forward–backward asymmetry in the dimuon channel; those observables are not included in the present significance formula.
  • The paper's reach plots assume the ISR/beamstrahlung implementation reproduces the real machines' energy spread; a direct measurement of the effective luminosity spectrum at each collider (e.g., from Bhabha scattering) would provide the first concrete validation and could be used to convert the contours into actual run plans.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a Standard Model extension with a gauged universal lepton number U(1)_ℓ, whose gauge boson Z_ℓ couples to e, μ, τ and their neutrinos. The analysis is based on e+e− → μ+μ− at FCC-ee, CEPC, ILC, and CLIC, simulated in CalcHEP with initial-state radiation and beamstrahlung. The authors define a simple significance formula with a 10 GeV invariant-mass window and |η|<2, and present 3σ/5σ reach contours in the (M_Zℓ, g_ℓ) plane. The central claims are that circular colliders reach couplings down to g_ℓ ∼ 10^-4 at low masses and that high-energy linear colliders extend the reach into the TeV range.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question and, if correct, would provide a useful systematic comparison of future e+e− colliders for a leptophilic Z′. The model is explicit and the parameter scan is not circular: no parameter is fitted to data, and the electroweak precision bound is taken from external literature. The main weakness is the absolute normalization of the signal cross sections, which appears inconsistent with the Lagrangian; since the significance in Eq. (7) uses the absolute signal yield, the quoted reach contours are suspect. The model also lacks a discussion of gauge anomalies. These issues are concrete and testable, and they must be resolved before the numerical conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq. (3), Figs. 5 and 6] The plotted on-resonance cross sections are incompatible with the model's own Lagrangian. For a vector-like coupling g_ℓ to all leptons, Γ(Z_ℓ→ℓ+ℓ−) ≈ g_ℓ² M/(12π). For g_ℓ=0.03 and M=240 GeV the total width is of order 26–34 MeV (depending on neutrino chiralities), and the exact on-peak σ(e+e−→μ+μ−) is 12π Γ_ee Γ_μμ/(M² Γ_tot²) ≈ 20–30 pb, with further suppression after convolution with ISR/beamstrahlung. Yet the 'No(ISR+BS)' curve in Fig. 5 and the ISR+BS curve in Fig. 6 show values many orders of magnitude larger (up to 10^6–10^7 pb). This indicates that the width used in the CalcHEP implementation is not the g_ℓ-dependent width following from Eq. (3). Because Eq. (7) scales with the square root of the signal yield, an inflation by several orders of magnitude in cross section shifts the 5σ contours to substantially larger g_ℓ. The central claim of sensitivity down to g_ℓ ∼ 10^-4 is th
  2. [§2, Eqs. (3)–(5)] The model gauges U(1)_ℓ with only SM leptons charged. This Abelian symmetry is anomalous: the SM fermion content does not cancel U(1)_ℓ³, U(1)_ℓ × SU(2)², or U(1)_ℓ × U(1)_Y² anomalies. The singlet scalar Φ introduced in Eq. (3) does not cancel these anomalies. The authors should either add anomaly-cancelling fermions (which would modify the Z_ℓ couplings and width) or clearly state that this is a simplified effective model with the anomaly completion implicit. This is not merely a formal concern: the precision bound of Eq. (6) is borrowed from a specific Z′ framework, and the Z_ℓ width used in the simulation depends on the full particle content.
  3. [§3, Table 1, Figs. 9–12] The reach contours depend entirely on the effective collision-energy distribution produced by ISR and beamstrahlung, especially for a narrow resonance. No validation of the CalcHEP ISR/BS implementation is provided against known analytic results or independent Monte Carlo codes. The energy spread changes between the circular and linear machines, and small changes in this spread can alter the on-resonance luminosity by a large factor, moving the reach in g_ℓ by orders of magnitude for narrow Z_ℓ states. The authors should benchmark the ISR/BS spectra (e.g., reproduce the SM muon-pair invariant-mass distribution and demonstrate stability under beam-parameter uncertainties) before the claimed complementarity can be considered robust.
  4. [§3, Eq. (7)] The significance formula uses only statistical fluctuations of the SM background and ignores systematic uncertainties, detector efficiencies, and acceptance corrections beyond the simple |η|<2 and |M−M_Zℓ|<10 GeV cuts. At FCC-ee/CEPC luminosities of order 1 ab^-1, even sub-percent systematic uncertainties on a large μμ background can dominate the significance. This is acknowledged as a future extension in the conclusions, but for the central 5σ discovery claim the numerical reach contours should at least quantify how much they degrade under a plausible systematic uncertainty. This is a load-bearing limitation rather than a purely presentational one.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The entries in Table 2 are internally inconsistent with Eq. (6). For example, M_Zℓ=0.25 TeV gives g_ℓ ≤ 0.036, not 0.25; M_Zℓ=0.38 TeV gives 0.054, not 0.035; and '0.24' appears twice with different g_ℓ values. The table should be corrected (or regenerated) so that g_ℓ ≤ M_Zℓ/(7 TeV) is satisfied throughout.
  2. [Section numbering] The text jumps from Section 3 directly to Section 5 (Conclusions). The definitions of Eq. (7) and Figs. 9–12 belong to a missing Section 4. The section numbering should be fixed.
  3. [Figure captions] Some captions mix 'Z_l', 'Zℓ', and 'MZl'; they should use a single notation consistently (e.g., M_Zℓ or M_{Z_ℓ}). In addition, the x-axis of Fig. 6 is truncated at g_ℓ=10^-2 while the text discusses g_ℓ=0.03; the axis range should be extended or the discussion adjusted.
  4. [References] Reference [11] appears to have an incomplete author list ('J.W. Brockway' alone for a 2010 Phys. Lett. B paper) and reference [31] may be incomplete. The reference list should be checked against the published versions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: reach is computed from an explicit Lagrangian and parameter scan; self-citations are historical and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The model is defined by the explicit Lagrangian in Eqs. (1)-(5); signal and SM background cross sections are computed in CalcHEP from this Lagrangian, and the collider parameters in Table 1 are external machine specifications. No parameter is fitted to data that is then 'predicted'; couplings and masses are scanned freely. The precision bound M_Zl/g_l > 7 TeV (Eq. (6)) is imported from an external reference [34] and acts as an input constraint, not as a restatement of the reach. The significance formula (Eq. (7)) is a standard statistical estimator, not a tautological definition of the signal. The paper's self-citations [18]-[21] are historical attributions for the massive leptophilic gauge boson and do not carry any derivation step; there is no imported uniqueness theorem and no ansatz smuggled via citation. The acknowledged lack of detector simulation and systematic uncertainties (Conclusions) is a validation/correctness limitation, and the unvalidated normalization of the plotted resonance peaks is an internal consistency concern, but neither reduces the prediction to its inputs. Therefore no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central reach projections rest on scanned couplings and external beam parameters; the only ad hoc choices are the selection cuts. The model omits anomaly cancellation and kinetic mixing, and the reach calculation assumes no systematic uncertainties.

free parameters (2)
  • Invariant mass window |M_mu+mu- - M_Zl| < 10 GeV = 10 GeV
    Hand-chosen cut stated in Section 3, Eq. (7) context; it sets the signal acceptance and background level for all reach contours.
  • Muon pseudorapidity acceptance |eta_mu| < 2 = 2
    Hand-chosen acceptance cut in Section 3; affects signal efficiency and background rejection.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Gauged universal lepton number U(1)_L with SM fermion content is a consistent gauge theory
    Section 2 introduces U'(1) with universal lepton charge and only SM leptons plus a scalar PHI; the SM U(1)_L is anomalous, and no anomaly-canceling fermions are added. This is unaddressed in the text.
  • domain assumption No kinetic mixing between U(1)_Y and U'(1)
    Equation (3) contains no B'-B mixing term; if present, quark couplings and different constraints would enter. The paper does not discuss this.
  • domain assumption The EWPT bound M_Zl/g_l > 7 TeV from Ref. [34] applies to this model
    Equation (6) adopts the bound without verifying it for a universal lepton number gauge boson as opposed to a generic Z'.
  • domain assumption Poisson statistics with negligible systematic uncertainties are adequate for significance
    Equation (7) uses s/sqrt(b) without detector efficiencies, systematic errors, or correlations; this is a generator-level approximation.
invented entities (1)
  • Complex scalar PHI carrying lepton charge no independent evidence
    purpose: Gives mass to Z_l after spontaneous symmetry breaking, Eq. (3)
    The scalar's mass, VEV, and other couplings are unspecified; it only exists to break U'(1). No independent falsifiable handle is provided.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for the Leptophilic Gauge Boson Z$_{l}$ at Future $e^{+}e^{-}$ Colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QOVEBSRY

@misc{pith2026250818496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for the Leptophilic Gauge Boson Z$_l$ at Future $e^+e^-$ Colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QOVEBSRY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18496}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We study the discovery prospects of the leptophilic photon Z\_l, a hypothetical gauge boson beyond the Standard Model, at future electron-positron colliders. Our analysis is based on the process e+e- -> mu+mu- and consistently includes realistic effects such as initial state radiation and beamstrahlung. Using the benchmark parameters of FCC-ee, CEPC, ILC, and CLIC, we demonstrate the complementarity of circular and linear colliders: circular machines achieve excellent sensitivity to very small couplings, down to g\_l ~ 10^{-4}, while high-energy linear colliders extend the search reach into the TeV domain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18496 by S. O. Kara.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cross section of e +e − → µ +µ − as a function of √ s for future colliders (FCC-ee, CEPC, ILC, and CLIC). 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 e - e + -> µ - µ + FCC-ee (240 GeV) CEPC (240 GeV) ILC (250 GeV) CLIC (380 GeV) ILC (500 GeV) σ(pb) MZl (GeV) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cross section of e +e − → µ +µ − as a function of MZℓ for different collider energies. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cross section of e +e − → µ +µ − at FCC-ee with √ s = 240 GeV as a function of MZℓ for different coupling values gℓ , compared with the SM background. 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 200 220 240 260 280 300 FCC-ee MZl =240 GeV σ(pb) √s (GeV) gl =1.10-1 gl =6.10-2 gl =3.10-2 gl =1.10-2 gl =5.10-3 SM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross section of e +e − → µ +µ − at FCC-ee for MZℓ = 240 GeV as a function of √ s, shown for different gℓ values. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross section of e +e − → µ +µ − at FCC-ee (√ s = 240 GeV, gℓ = 0.03), comparing signal with and without ISR+BS against the SM background. 103 104 105 106 107 108 10-4 10-3 10-2 FCC-ee √s = 240 GeV MZl = 240 GeV NO(ISR+BS) (ISR) (ISR+BS) σ(pb) gl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cross section of e +e − → µ +µ − at FCC-ee with √ s = 240 GeV and MZℓ = 240 GeV as a function of gℓ , with and without ISR and BS. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Differential cross section dσ/dMµ+µ− at FCC-ee (√ s = 240 GeV, gℓ = 0.03) for different MZℓ values, compared with the SM background. 10-4 10-2 100 102 104 106 0 50 100 150 200 FCC-ee √s = 240 GeV MZl =200 GeV d σ/dM µ +µ -(pb/GeV) Mµ +µ - (GeV) SM gl =0.06 gl =0.03 gl =0.01 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Differential cross section dσ/dMµ+µ− at FCC-ee (√ s = 240 GeV, MZℓ = 200 GeV) for different gℓ values, compared with the SM background. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Discovery (5σ) and observation (3σ) limits for Zℓ at FCC-ee (√ s = 240 GeV). 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 CEPC √s = 240 GeV 5σ 3σ gl MZl (GeV) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Discovery (5σ) and observation (3σ) limits for Zℓ at CEPC (√ s = 240 GeV). 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Discovery (5σ) and observation (3σ) limits for Zℓ at the ILC with (a) √ s = 250 GeV and (b) √ s = 500 GeV. 10-4 10-3 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 CLIC √s = 380 GeV gl MZl (GeV) 5σ 3σ (a) 10-4 10-3 600 800 1000 1200 1400 CLIC √s = 1500 GeV gl MZl (GeV) 5σ 3σ (b) 10-4 10-3 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 CLIC √s = 3000 GeV gl MZl (GeV) 5σ 3σ (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Discovery (5σ) and observation (3σ) limits for Zℓ at CLIC with (a) √ s = 380 GeV, (b) √ s = 1500 GeV, and (c) √ s = 3000 GeV. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗

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

42 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction Proton decay into an electron and a photon ( p → eγ) is strictly forbidden by baryon and lepton number conservation. The idea of gauging these conserved numbers, namely baryon and lepton numbers, in analogy with the electric charge in QED, was fir st suggested by Lee and Yang in 1955 [1] and by Okun in 1969 [2], respectively. This fascinat ing...

    work page 1955

  2. [2]

    With the experimental discovery of neutrino oscillations[33], it is no longer valid to conserve electron, muon, and ta u lepton numbers individually

    The Model To gauge the leptonic quantum number, we extend the Standard Mo del (SM) gauge group SUC(3) × SUW (2) × UY (1) by an additional abelian symmetry U ′ ℓ(1). With the experimental discovery of neutrino oscillations[33], it is no longer valid to conserve electron, muon, and ta u lepton numbers individually. Instead, we introduce a single universal l...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The leptophilic boson Zℓ, introduced through the additional U ′ ℓ(1) gauge symmetry, represents an intriguing candidate for new p hysics at these facilities

    Production of the Z l boson at the electron positron colliders Future e+e− colliders are designed to provide extremely high luminosities and precis ion measurements, not only for Standard Model (SM) particles such a s the Higgs boson but 4 also for exploring physics beyond the SM. The leptophilic boson Zℓ, introduced through the additional U ′ ℓ(1) gauge ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Okun, Phys

    L. Okun, Phys. Lett. B 382, 389 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/951 2436

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    The analysis was based on the process e+e− → µ+µ−, with Initial State Radiation (ISR) and Beamstrahlung (BS) consistently included through the CalcHEP framework

    Conclusions In this work, we have investigated the discovery potential of the le ptophilic gauge bo- son Zℓ at future electron–positron colliders, namely FCC-ee, CEPC, ILC, and CLIC. The analysis was based on the process e+e− → µ+µ−, with Initial State Radiation (ISR) and Beamstrahlung (BS) consistently included through the CalcHEP framework. Our results ...

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    T.D. Lee, C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 98 (1955) 1501

    work page 1955

  7. [7]

    Okun, Yad

    L.B. Okun, Yad. Fiz. 10 (1969) 358 [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 10 ( 1969) 206]

    work page 1969

  8. [8]

    C ¸ ift¸ ci, S

    A.K. C ¸ ift¸ ci, S. Sultansoy, S ¸. T¨ urk¨ oz, Phys. Lett. B355, 494 (1995)

    work page 1995

  9. [9]

    Okun, Mod

    L.B. Okun, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 11, 3041 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9611360

    work page arXiv 1996

  10. [10]

    Martemyanov, JETP Lett

    B.V. Martemyanov, JETP Lett. 66, 547 (1997)

    work page 1997

  11. [11]

    Gninenko, Phys

    S.N. Gninenko, Phys. Lett. B 413, 365 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9708465

    work page arXiv 1997

  12. [12]

    Ilyin, L.B

    V.A. Ilyin, L.B. Okun, A.N. Rozanov, Nucl. Phys. B 525, 51 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9707479

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  13. [13]

    Vilain et al.), Phys

    CHARM II Collaboration (P. Vilain et al.), Phys. Lett. B 4 34, 200 (1998)

    work page 1998

  14. [14]

    Dolgov, Phys

    A.D. Dolgov, Phys. Rep. 320, 1 (1999)

    work page 1999

  15. [15]

    Brockway, Phys

    J.W. Brockway, Phys. Lett. B 682, 342 (2010)

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    A. J. Buras, A. Crivellin, F. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and M. M ontull, arXiv:2104.07680 [hep-ph] (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    K. Asai, T. Moroi, and A. Niki, arXiv:2104.00888 [hep-p h] (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Banerjee and S

    H. Banerjee and S. Roy, Phys. Rev. D 99, 055027 (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, J. Phy s. G 47, 010501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Madge and P

    E. Madge and P. Schwaller, JHEP 2018, 213 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Beacham et al., J

    J. Beacham et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 47, 01050 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    S.O. Kara, M. Sahin, S. Sultansoy and S. Turkoz, Journal of High Energy Physics JHEP08(2011) 072, 2011

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Akkoyun, S.O

    S. Akkoyun, S.O. Kara, Central European Journal of Phys ics, 11, 345, 2013

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    S.O. Kara, S. Akkoyun, T. Bayram, International Journa l of Modern Physics A, 29, 1450171, 2014

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    S.O. Kara, S. Akkoyun, Acta Physica Polonica B, 55,6-A4 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Evans et al

    L. Evans et al. [Linear Collider], arXiv:physics.acc- ph/1711.00568

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Baer et al., arXiv:1306.6352

    H. Baer et al., arXiv:1306.6352

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    M. J. Boland et al. [CLIC and CLICdp], CERN 004 (2016) arX iv:physics.acc-ph/1608.07537

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Charles et al

    T.K. Charles et al. (CLICdp, CLIC Collaborations), Rep ort No. CERN-2018-005-M, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Abada et al

    A. Abada et al. [FCC], Eur. Phys. J. C 79(2019) no.6, 474 14

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    [CEPC Study Group], arXiv:physics.acc-ph/1809.0028 5

    work page arXiv

  32. [32]

    Dong et al

    M. Dong et al. (CEPC Study Group Collaboration), arXiv: 1811.10545

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Belyaev, N

    A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phy s. Commun. 184 (2013) 1729-1769, arXiv:hep-ph/1207.6082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    Pukhov, arXiv:hep-ph/0412191

    A. Pukhov, arXiv:hep-ph/0412191

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Skrzypek and S

    M. Skrzypek and S. Jadach, Z. Phys. C 49 (1991) 557-584

    work page 1991

  36. [36]

    Pukhov et al.arXiv:hep-ph9908288

    A. Pukhov et al.arXiv:hep-ph9908288

    work page

  37. [37]

    Nakamura et al

    K. Nakamura et al. , (Particle Data Group) , J. Phys. G 37 ( 2010) 075021

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    Cacciapaglia, C

    G. Cacciapaglia, C. Cs´ aki, G. Marandella, A. Strumia, , Phys. Rev. D 74, 033011 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604111

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  39. [39]

    del Aguila, J

    F. del Aguila, J. de Blas, M. P´ erez-Victoria, J. High En ergy Phys. 2010, 033 (2010), arXiv:1005.3998 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [40]

    Agapov et al., arXiv:2203.08310

    I. Agapov et al., arXiv:2203.08310

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Bernardi et al., arXiv:2203.06520

    G. Bernardi et al., arXiv:2203.06520

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Suarez, B

    R.G. Suarez, B. Pattnaik and J. Zurita, Phys. Rev. D 111, 035029 (2025), arXiv:2410.12903 [hep-ph]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.