Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Probing maximal flavor changing $Z'$ in $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ at $\mu$TRISTAN

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MuTRISTAN's same-sign muon and muon-electron collisions could probe a maximally flavor-changing Z' boson down to a gauge coupling of about 0.024, reaching parameter space that current muon g-2, tau decay, and neutrino trident experiments…

desk verdict Solid and readable collider study, but the benchmark point violates the model's own type-II seesaw neutrino mass constraint by nine orders of magnitude, so the headline sensitivity curves are not yet tied to a viable point. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04614 v1 pith:SNT2HU2Y submitted 2025-07-07 hep-ph

Fei Huang , Jin Sun This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords muTRISTANsame-signmuoncolliderflavor-changingZ'U(1)_{L_mu-L_tau}type-IIseesawtripletscalarsg-2chargedleptonflavorviolation
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

This paper argues that the proposed muTRISTAN collider, using same-sign muon and muon-electron collisions, could be the most sensitive near-term place to look for a 'maximal flavor-changing' Z' boson of the U(1)_{L_mu-L_tau} theory. In this model the Z' couples only to mu-tau pairs, not to same-flavor pairs, which is why opposite-sign muon colliders are comparatively blind. The paper shows that at muTRISTAN the processes mu+ mu+ -> mu+ tau+ Z'(-> tau+ mu-) and e- mu+ -> e- tau+ Z'(-> tau+ mu-) can probe the gauge coupling down to about 0.024 and 0.04 respectively for Z' masses below roughly 500 GeV, regions not excluded by current muon g-2, tau decay, and neutrino trident data. If correct, this would give a concrete physics case for building muTRISTAN and provide a test of the L_mu-L_tau flavor structure that low-energy experiments cannot reach.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the exchange symmetry that turns the flavor-diagonal L_mu-L_tau gauge interaction into a purely off-diagonal mu-tau coupling: under Z' -> -Z', H2 <-> H3, and Delta2 <-> Delta3, the rotation (mu, tau) = (e2 - e3, e2 + e3)/$\sqrt$(2) makes the Z' couple only to mu-tau pairs (Eq. 6), while the triplet scalars $\Delta$ carry flavor-conserving couplings. A second piece is the ratio between same-sign and opposite-sign muon-collider cross sections, which favors mu+mu+ when the dominant new-physics operator is left-handed. The triplet's flavor-conserving contributions interfere destructively with the Z' in (g-2)_mu and tau -> mu nu nubar, which is what keeps the benchmark point consistent with current bounds.

What would settle it

Compute the light neutrino mass matrix from Eq. (8) at the benchmark point y = 0.25, vDelta = 1 GeV, and ask whether any choice of the remaining parameters Y11, Y23 renders all three mass eigenvalues below about 0.1 eV while preserving the perturbativity assumptions; if no such choice exists, the benchmark and the projected sensitivities derived from it are not part of the viable model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that muTRISTAN, with its 2 TeV mu+mu+ and 346 GeV mu+e- collisions, can detect the maximally flavor-changing Z' of the U(1)_{L_mu-L_tau} model with triplet scalars in mass regions of hundreds of GeV, reaching gauge couplings down to about 0.024 (mu+mu+ -> mu+ tau+ Z' -> mu+ tau+ tau+ mu-) and about 0.04 (e- mu+ -> e- tau+ Z' -> e- tau+ tau+ mu-) for mZ' below 346 GeV, while the two-body channel mu+mu+ -> tau+tau+ reaches about 0.025. These reaches are not excluded by current (g-2)_mu, tau decay, and neutrino trident data, and the paper argues they are better than what opposite-sign muon colliders can achieve.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark point y = 0.25, mDelta = 500 GeV, vDelta = 1 GeV is assumed to lie in the viable type-II seesaw model, but the paper never checks whether the neutrino masses of order y vDelta ~ 0.25 GeV generated by Eq. (8) can be brought down to the observed sub-eV scale; if no such suppression exists, the plotted sensitivities are not part of the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a maximal flavor-changing Z' exists with mZ' near a few hundred GeV, muTRISTAN's mu+mu+ mode should observe on the order of 22 events for g~ = 0.05 and mZ' = 200 GeV with the assumed 12 fb^-1, well above the 3-event threshold used in the paper.
  • The same-sign two-body channel mu+mu+ -> tau+tau+ can probe the coupling down to about 0.025, roughly a factor of two better than the current bound from tau -> mu nu nubar.
  • The mu+e- mode at 346 GeV extends sensitivity to lower Z' masses, reaching g~ ~ 0.04 for mZ' below 346 GeV, but cannot produce on-shell Delta because its mass bound exceeds the center-of-mass energy.
  • Processes without on-shell intermediate states are less sensitive because the Z' and Delta amplitudes interfere destructively, so the on-shell Z' emission channels give the strongest reach.
  • Current low-energy constraints from (g-2)_mu and tau decay rule out part of the parameter space, but the collider searches cover the high-mass region those experiments cannot touch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The benchmark point y = 0.25, mDelta = 500 GeV, vDelta = 1 GeV yields neutrino masses of order y vDelta ~ 0.25 GeV in the type-II seesaw formula, far above the observed sub-eV scale; the paper imposes no neutrino-mass constraint and introduces no cancellation, so the plotted allowed regions may overstate the viable parameter space.
  • The same-sign muon collider advantage in Eq. (2) depends on the chirality structure of the new coupling; models with purely vector or right-handed flavor-changing currents would not receive the same enhancement, so the conclusion is specific to this L_mu-L_tau construction.
  • Because the Z' decays invisibly about two-thirds of the time, a missing-energy search channel at muTRISTAN might extend the reach beyond the fully visible charged-lepton final states considered in the paper.
  • A dedicated analysis including the Z' width effects near resonance, rather than the on-shell approximation, could sharpen or modify the quoted 0.024 sensitivity for masses close to the 2 TeV center-of-mass energy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the detection prospects of a $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ model with a maximally flavor-changing $Z'$ at the proposed $\mu$TRISTAN collider. The model uses three Higgs doublets plus an exchange symmetry to convert the $Z'$ coupling into off-diagonal $\mu$-$\tau$ interactions, and adds triplet scalars that generate opposite-sign contributions to muon $(g-2)_\mu$ and $\tau\to\mu\nu\bar\nu$, allowing cancellations that evade current bounds. The authors compute analytic cross sections and decay widths for $Z'$ and the doubly-charged triplet, analyze two-body processes ($\mu^+\mu^+\to W^+W^+$, $\mu^+\mu^+\to\mu^+\mu^+$, $\mu^+\mu^+\to\tau^+\tau^+$) and four-body processes using MadGraph/Pythia/DelPHES, and present projected sensitivities in the $m_{Z'}$--$\tilde g$ plane. They find that $\mu^+\mu^+\to\mu^+\tau^+ Z'(\to\tau^+\mu^-)$ can reach $\tilde g\sim 0.024$ for $m_{Z'}$ below about 500 GeV, probing regions not excluded by current constraints.

Significance. If the model-parameter consistency issue identified below is resolved, this would be a useful and original phenomenology paper. The construction of a maximal flavor-changing $Z'$ through an exchange symmetry is interesting, and the paper provides explicit analytic expressions for two-body cross sections and decay widths, as well as a full simulation chain with madgraph, pythia and delphes. The central idea that a same-sign muon collider can be advantageous for lepton-flavor-violating $Z'$ searches is timely given the current interest in muon colliders. The main weakness is that the benchmark parameter point used for the phenomenological analysis is not consistent with the type-II seesaw neutrino-mass mechanism that the model itself invokes; this requires a substantial revision of the benchmark and of the parts of the analysis that depend on $v_\Delta$.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (8); Section III.B benchmark] The benchmark point $y=0.25$, $v_\Delta=1\,\mathrm{GeV}$ is inconsistent with the type-II seesaw mass matrix in Eq. (8). For $\Delta_2=\Delta_3$ and $Y_{23}\ll Y_{22}$, the diagonal entries of $M^{(\Delta)}$ are of order $Y_{22}v_\Delta/\sqrt{2}\simeq 0.18\,\mathrm{GeV}$, which is about nine orders of magnitude above the observed sub-eV neutrino masses. Since the paper assumes $Y_{11},Y_{23}\ll Y_{22}$ and $\Delta_1$ suppressed, there is no term left in Eq. (8) that can cancel both diagonal entries down to sub-eV values. The paper never imposes the neutrino-mass constraint, despite stating in Section II that the triplet field is 'core of the famous type-II seesaw mechanism providing small neutrino masses.' This makes the yellow-star benchmark in Fig. 2 and the $v_\Delta$-dependent discussion of $\mu^+\mu^+\to W^+W^+$ and Fig. 3(a) internally inconsistent with the model's own seesaw sector. I note that the four-body projections in Fig. 4 and Table I depend only on $y$ and $m_\Delta$ and might survive if $v_\Delta$ were taken to be $\lesssim 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{GeV}$, but then the $W^+W^+$ process used to 'identify the triplet effects' in Section III.B would be unobservable. Please impose the seesaw relation, choose a consistent benchmark, and update all affected results, or explicitly provide a different neutrino-mass mechanism that decouples the triplet Yukawa couplings from neutrino masses.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusion] The claim that the $\mu^+\mu^+$ mode offers 'greater projected sensitivity than opposite-sign muon colliders' is not substantiated by a direct comparison in the paper. Equation (2) is a model-independent ratio for four-fermion operator coefficients and does not by itself establish the comparison for the resonant or four-body processes studied here; no opposite-sign $\mu^+\mu^-$ sensitivity curves are shown in Fig. 4 or in any other figure. Please add a quantitative comparison for the benchmark processes, or soften the claim to 'complementary' until such a comparison is shown.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A, Eq. (9)] The statement that $\mathrm{Br}(Z'\to\text{invisible})\approx 2/3$ is inconsistent with the widths in Eq. (9). With two charged channels ($Z'\to\mu^+\tau^-$ and $Z'\to\mu^-\tau^+$) and two neutrino channels, the invisible fraction is $1/3$ in the $m_\tau\to0$ limit, not $2/3$. If the notation $\Gamma(Z'\to\mu^\pm\tau^\mp)$ is meant to sum both charge states, the counting should be clarified.
  2. [Section III.B.2] The text says $\mu^+\mu^+\to\tau^+\tau^+$ involves 'lepton number violation.' Total lepton number is conserved in this process; what is violated is charged lepton flavor. Please correct this wording.
  3. [Section III.B.1] There is a duplicated citation of Ref. [26] in the sentence defining the integrated luminosity; one of the two '[26]' markers should be removed.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The Fig. 4 caption states the benchmark values as $y=0.25$ and $m_\Delta=500\,\mathrm{GeV}$ but does not list $v_\Delta$. Please specify the full benchmark, and state how the neutrino-mass constraint is satisfied for that point.
  5. [Table I] The layout of Table I is difficult to read: the four columns corresponding to $(\tilde g,\,m_{Z'})$ pairs are not clearly separated, and the row labels are easy to misalign. Please reformat the table with explicit column headings for each parameter pair.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the collider projections are computed from the stated Lagrangian and compared with independent external constraints, so the central claims do not reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The collider sensitivities in Figs. 2-4 and Table I are obtained by computing cross sections from the model Lagrangian (Eqs. 3-8) via analytic amplitudes (Eqs. 15 and 19) and MadGraph/FeynRules simulations, and then comparing with external constraints from (g-2)_mu, tau decay, neutrino trident, and triplet mass bounds (Eqs. 12-14). The parameters g~, mZ', y, mDelta, and vDelta are inputs, not fitted to the projected event counts; the benchmark y=0.25, mDelta=500 GeV, vDelta=1 GeV is selected using the Delta-only processes mu+mu+ -> W+W+ and mu+mu+ -> mu+mu+, which do not involve the Z', so the subsequent Z' 'predictions' are not statistically forced by the same observables. The model construction cites the authors' earlier works [51-54], but the present paper restates the Lagrangian and the constraint formulas explicitly, and those formulas are externally falsifiable against g-2, tau-decay, and trident data; this is real independent support, not a self-citation chain that replaces derivation. No uniqueness theorem or undisplayed ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. One internal-consistency issue is noted but is not circularity: the type-II seesaw neutrino mass matrix in Eq. (8), evaluated at the benchmark (y=0.25, vDelta=1 GeV), gives diagonal entries of order y*vDelta ~ 0.25 GeV, about nine orders of magnitude above the observed sub-eV neutrino masses, and the paper imposes no neutrino-mass constraint or cancellation mechanism. This is a model-viability risk for the benchmark point, not a reduction of the claimed predictions to their inputs, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central collider claim rests on the model parameters (g~, mZ', y, mDelta, vDelta) and on several structural assumptions taken from prior work. The most fragile item is the consistency of the benchmark with type-II seesaw neutrino masses, which is not verified.

free parameters (5)
  • g~ (U(1)_Lmu-Ltau gauge coupling) = scanned; benchmark 0.25 in Fig. 4
    Controls Z' production and decay; not fitted to data, but is the primary parameter against which sensitivity curves are drawn.
  • mZ' (Z' mass) = scanned up to ~1000 GeV
    Free mass parameter of the model; sensitivity curves are shown in the mZ'-g~ plane.
  • y = Y22 (triplet Yukawa coupling) = 0.25 (benchmark); scanned in Fig. 2
    Determines triplet production and decays; value chosen to satisfy constraints and give observable event rates.
  • mDelta (triplet scalar mass) = 500 GeV (benchmark); scanned
    Set above the 420 GeV collider bound; chosen so that mu+mu+ -> tau+tau+ and four-body processes have sizeable rates.
  • vDelta (triplet VEV) = 1 GeV (benchmark); 0.03-3.5 GeV scanned
    Controls Delta++ -> W+W+ decay and the rho parameter; the benchmark is chosen to satisfy rho while keeping the WW decay subdominant.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The U(1)_Lmu-Ltau symmetry is spontaneously broken by a singlet S, giving mZ' = g~ vS.
    Invoked in Section II; not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Three Higgs doublets H1,H2,H3 with U(1) charges 0,+2,-2 and an exchange symmetry yield a maximal 45-degree mixing that converts the Z' interaction to flavor-changing form.
    Model construction taken from Refs. [51-54]; the paper does not verify the scalar potential minimum.
  • ad hoc to paper The triplet sector is simplified by Delta2=Delta3, Y11,Y23 << Y22, and mass degeneracy m_Delta++=m_Delta+=m_Delta0.
    Assumptions in Section II, chosen to make the analysis tractable; they suppress off-diagonal triplet couplings and define the benchmark.
  • ad hoc to paper Type-II seesaw with these triplet couplings can provide small neutrino masses while using y=0.25 and vDelta=1 GeV.
    This is the load-bearing viability assumption; it is not checked against neutrino mass data and is likely violated.
  • domain assumption The Standard Model background and detector response for the four-body channels are modeled by MadGraph, Pythia and Delphes with the stated basic cuts.
    Standard tool assumptions; no detector-specific efficiencies are provided.
invented entities (4)
  • Z' gauge boson with maximal mu-tau coupling independent evidence
    purpose: Mediates charged lepton flavor violation and the new collider signals; gives a positive contribution to (g-2)_mu.
    Predicts observable mu-tau final states at colliders and affects tau decay and neutrino trident, giving falsifiable handles.
  • Triplet scalars Delta++/+/0 independent evidence
    purpose: Generate neutrino masses via type-II seesaw, mediate flavor-conserving leptonic interactions, and cancel the Z' contribution to (g-2)_mu.
    The doubly charged component has direct collider searches and predicted decays to same-sign leptons and WW.
  • Additional Higgs doublets H2,H3 with U(1) charges +/-2
    purpose: Generate off-diagonal charged lepton mass entries so that the maximal rotation produces flavor-changing Z' couplings.
    No direct experimental handle is given in this paper; their only role is model-building.
  • Singlet scalar S
    purpose: Break U(1)_Lmu-Ltau and give the Z' its mass.
    Not directly observable in the processes studied here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing maximal flavor changing $Z'$ in $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ at $\mu$TRISTAN." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNT2HU2Y

@misc{pith2026250704614,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing maximal flavor changing $Z'$ in $U(1)_L_\mu-L_\tau$ at $\mu$TRISTAN},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNT2HU2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04614}
}
abstract

We explore the potential to detect the $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ model featuring triplet scalars $\Delta$ at the $\mu$TRISTAN collider. The new gauge boson $Z'$, arising from the spontaneous breaking of $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$, can exhibit maximal flavor changing interactions under the exchange symmetry, while $\Delta$ mediates the flavor conserving interactions. The absence of muon $(g-2)_\mu$ can be explained by interference effects arising from opposite contributions of $Z'$ and $\Delta$, with similar interference patterns also manifesting in the tau decay process $\tau\to \mu\nu\bar\nu$. These counteracting effects render the model phenomenologically interesting and warrant further investigation. For the mass $m_{Z'}$ in the range of hundreds of GeV, we find that $\mu^+\mu^+$ and $\mu^+e^-$ collider at the $\mu$TRISTAN can probe many regions inaccessible to current experiments and offer greater projected sensitivity than opposite-sign muon colliders. This suggests that $\mu$TRISTAN can serve as complementary exploration to the $U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau}$ model, providing compelling motivation for the next generation of high-energy lepton colliders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04614 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The decay width as functions of mass in our model. Different decay channels are distinguished by distinct colors. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The allowed parameter space for the triplet scalars in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The cross section of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Current experimental bounds and future [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In the µ+µ+ → W +W + process, the mediation occurs exclusively via the s-channel exchange of the doubly-charged scalar ∆++

    Identify the triplet effects In order isolate the effects of the triplet scalar, we focus on processes solely mediated by it, specifically µ+µ+ → W +W + and µ+µ+ → µ+µ+. In the µ+µ+ → W +W + process, the mediation occurs exclusively via the s-channel exchange of the doubly-charged scalar ∆++. The corresponding cross section is computed as follows [37] σ(µ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This ∆ field is core of the famous type-II seesaw mechanism providing small neutrino masses [56–61] with ∆ = ∆+/ √ 2 ∆ ++ ∆0 −∆+/ √ 2 , ∆0 = v∆ + δ + iη√ 2

    with U (1)Lµ−Lτ charges (0, −2, 2) [53]. This ∆ field is core of the famous type-II seesaw mechanism providing small neutrino masses [56–61] with ∆ = ∆+/ √ 2 ∆ ++ ∆0 −∆+/ √ 2 , ∆0 = v∆ + δ + iη√ 2 . (7) Under the above exchange symmetry ∆ 1 ↔ ∆1, ∆2 ↔ ∆3 with v∆2 = v∆3, we use the transformation in Eq.(5) to obtain the Yukawa terms in terms of the compone...

    work page

  3. [3]

    This feature implies the absence of SM background contributions, rendering it a promising collider signature at the two- body level within our model

    µ+µ+ → τ +τ + For µ+µ+ → τ +τ +, it involves simultaneous charged lepton flavor violation and lepton number violation. This feature implies the absence of SM background contributions, rendering it a promising collider signature at the two- body level within our model. The flavor-changing Z ′ model incorporating a triplet scalar can contribute to this proc...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    T. Han, S. Li, S. Su, W. Su, and Y. Wu, BSM Higgs Production at a Muon Collider , in Snowmass 2021, 5, 2022. arXiv:2205.11730

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Azatov, F

    A. Azatov, F. Garosi, A. Greljo, D. Marzocca, J. Salko, and S. Trifinopoulos, New physics in b → sµµ: FCC-hh or a muon collider? , JHEP 10 (2022) 149, [ arXiv:2205.13552]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    P. M. Bredt, W. Kilian, J. Reuter, and P. Stienemeier, NLO electroweak corrections to multi-boson processes at a muon collider, JHEP 12 (2022) 138, [ arXiv:2208.09438]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Probing Muon $g-2$ at a Future Muon Collider

    J. Arakawa, A. Rajaraman, T. Sui, and T. M. P. Tait, Probing Muon g − 2 at a Future Muon Collider , SciPost Phys. 16 (2024), no. 3 072, [ arXiv:2208.14464]. 12

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Lv, X.-M

    G.-S. Lv, X.-M. Cui, Y.-Q. Li, and Y.-B. Liu, Pair production of the vectorlike top partner at future muon collider , Nucl. Phys. B 985 (2022) 116016

    work page 2022

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Reuter, T

    J. Reuter, T. Han, W. Kilian, N. Kreher, Y. Ma, T. Striegl, and K. Xie, Precision test of the muon-Higgs coupling at a high-energy muon collider , PoS ICHEP2022 (2022) 1239, [ arXiv:2212.01323]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    T. H. Kwok, L. Li, T. Liu, and A. Rock, Searching for heavy neutral leptons at a future muon collider , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 7 075009, [ arXiv:2301.05177]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    P. Li, Z. Liu, and K.-F. Lyu, Heavy neutral leptons at muon colliders , JHEP 03 (2023) 231, [ arXiv:2301.07117]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Li, C.-Y

    T. Li, C.-Y. Yao, and M. Yuan, Revealing the origin of neutrino masses through the Type II Seesaw mechanism at high-energy muon colliders , JHEP 03 (2023) 137, [ arXiv:2301.07274]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. C. ˙Inan and A. V. Kisselev, Probe of a Randall–Sundrum-like model from muon pair production at a high-energy muon collider, J. Phys. G 52 (2025), no. 2 025004, [ arXiv:2301.08585]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    C.-T. Lu, X. Luo, and X. Wei, Exploring muonphilic ALPs at muon colliders , Chin. Phys. C 47 (2023), no. 10 103102, [arXiv:2303.03110]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. P. Maharathy and M. Mitra, Type-II see-saw at µ+µ− collider, Phys. Lett. B 844 (2023) 138105, [ arXiv:2304.08732]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Reuter, Precision test of the muon-Higgs coupling at a high-energy muon collider , PoS CORFU2022 (2023) 107, [arXiv:2305.12814]

    J. Reuter, Precision test of the muon-Higgs coupling at a high-energy muon collider , PoS CORFU2022 (2023) 107, [arXiv:2305.12814]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Amarkhail, S

    H. Amarkhail, S. C. Inan, and A. V. Kisselev, Probing anomalous γγγγ couplings at a future muon collider , Nucl. Phys. B 1005 (2024) 116592, [ arXiv:2306.03653]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Belyaev, R

    A. Belyaev, R. S. Chivukula, B. Fuks, E. H. Simmons, and X. Wang, Vectorlike top quark production via an electroweak dipole moment at a muon collider , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 3 035016, [ arXiv:2306.11097]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Yang, Y.-C

    J.-C. Yang, Y.-C. Guo, and Y.-F. Dong, Study of the gluonic quartic gauge couplings at muon colliders , Commun. Theor. Phys. 75 (2023), no. 11 115201, [ arXiv:2307.04207]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Belfkir, T

    M. Belfkir, T. A. Chowdhury, and S. Nasri, Doubly-charged scalars of the minimal left-right symmetric model at muon colliders, Phys. Lett. B 852 (2024) 138605, [ arXiv:2307.16111]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Forslund and P

    M. Forslund and P. Meade, Precision Higgs width and couplings with a high energy muon collider , JHEP 01 (2024) 182, [arXiv:2308.02633]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Loisa, Searching for the flavon at current and future colliders , PoS FPCP2023 (8, 2023) 066, [ arXiv:2308.05578]

    E. Loisa, Searching for the flavon at current and future colliders , PoS FPCP2023 (8, 2023) 066, [ arXiv:2308.05578]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Liu, K.-F

    Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, I. Mahbub, and L.-T. Wang, Top Yukawa coupling determination at high energy muon collider , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 3 035021, [ arXiv:2308.06323]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. Sun, F. Huang, and X.-G. He, Muon collider signatures for a Z’ with a maximal µ−τ coupling in U(1)L µ−Lτ , Phys. Lett. B 845 (2023) 138121

    2023

  17. [25]

    B. A. Ouazghour, A. Arhrib, K. Cheung, E.-s. Ghourmin, and L. Rahili, Comparison between µ-µ+ and e-e+ colliders for charged Higgs production in the 2HDM , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 11 115009, [ arXiv:2308.15664]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ghosh, S

    N. Ghosh, S. K. Rai, and T. Samui, Search for a leptoquark and vector-like lepton in a muon collider , Nucl. Phys. B 1004 (2024) 116564, [ arXiv:2309.07583]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mikulenko and M

    O. Mikulenko and M. Marinichenko, Measuring lepton number violation in heavy neutral lepton decays at the future muon collider, JHEP 01 (2024) 032, [ arXiv:2309.16837]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C. A. Heusch and F. Cuypers, Physics with like-sign muon beams in a TeV muon collider , AIP Conf. Proc. 352 (1996) 219–231, [hep-ph/9508230]

    1996 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hamada, R

    Y. Hamada, R. Kitano, R. Matsudo, H. Takaura, and M. Yoshida, µTRISTAN, PTEP 2022 (2022), no. 5 053B02, [arXiv:2201.06664]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Abe et al., A New Approach for Measuring the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and Electric Dipole Moment , PTEP 2019 (2019), no

    M. Abe et al., A New Approach for Measuring the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and Electric Dipole Moment , PTEP 2019 (2019), no. 5 053C02, [ arXiv:1901.03047]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hamada, R

    Y. Hamada, R. Kitano, R. Matsudo, and H. Takaura, Precision µ+µ+ and µ+e− elastic scatterings, PTEP 2023 (2023), no. 1 013B07, [ arXiv:2210.11083]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Jiang, T

    R. Jiang, T. Yang, S. Qian, Y. Ban, J. Li, Z. You, and Q. Li, Searching for Majorana neutrinos at a same-sign muon collider, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 3 035020, [ arXiv:2304.04483]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Li, C.-Y

    T. Li, C.-Y. Yao, and M. Yuan, Searching for heavy neutral lepton and lepton number violation through VBS at high-energy muon colliders , JHEP 09 (2023) 131, [ arXiv:2306.17368]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Yang, C.-H

    J.-L. Yang, C.-H. Chang, and T.-F. Feng, Leptonic di-flavor and di-number violation processes at high energy colliders* , Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024), no. 4 043101, [ arXiv:2302.13247]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Fukuda, T

    H. Fukuda, T. Moroi, A. Niki, and S.-F. Wei, Search for WIMPs at future µ+µ+ colliders, JHEP 02 (2024) 214, [arXiv:2310.07162]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P. S. B. Dev, J. Heeck, and A. Thapa, Neutrino mass models at µTRISTAN, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), no. 2 148, [arXiv:2309.06463]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Goudelis, J

    A. Goudelis, J. Kriewald, E. Pinsard, and A. M. Teixeira, cLFV leptophilic Z ′ as a dark matter portal: prospects for colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), no. 8 804, [ arXiv:2312.14103]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Das and Y

    A. Das and Y. Orikasa, Z’ induced forward dominant processes in µTRISTAN experiment, Phys. Lett. B 851 (2024) 138577, [arXiv:2401.00696]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Lichtenstein, M

    G. Lichtenstein, M. A. Schmidt, G. Valencia, and R. R. Volkas, Complementarity of µTRISTAN and Belle II in searches for charged-lepton flavour violation , Phys. Lett. B 845 (2023) 138144, [ arXiv:2307.11369]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Fridell, R

    K. Fridell, R. Kitano, and R. Takai, Lepton flavor physics at µ+µ+ colliders, JHEP 06 (2023) 086, [ arXiv:2304.14020]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Abi et al., Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm , 13 Phys

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, B. Abi et al., Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm , 13 Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021), no. 14 141801, [ arXiv:2104.03281]

    2021

  34. [42]

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, D. P. Aguillard et al., Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.20 ppm , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023), no. 16 161802, [ arXiv:2308.06230]

    2023

  35. [43]

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, D. P. Aguillard et al., Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 127 ppb, arXiv:2506.03069

  36. [44]

    Aliberti et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update , arXiv:2505.21476

    R. Aliberti et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update , arXiv:2505.21476

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Godang, Search for Muonic Dark Forces at BABAR , EPJ Web Conf

    BABAR Collaboration, R. Godang, Search for Muonic Dark Forces at BABAR , EPJ Web Conf. 141 (2017) 02005, [arXiv:1611.07934]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Capdevilla, D

    R. Capdevilla, D. Curtin, Y. Kahn, and G. Krnjaic, Systematically testing singlet models for (g − 2)µ, JHEP 04 (2022) 129, [arXiv:2112.08377]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Chatrchyan et al., Observation of Z Decays to Four Leptons with the CMS Detector at the LHC , JHEP 12 (2012) 034, [ arXiv:1210.3844]

    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of Z Decays to Four Leptons with the CMS Detector at the LHC , JHEP 12 (2012) 034, [ arXiv:1210.3844]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov, and I. Yavin, Neutrino Trident Production: A Powerful Probe of New Physics with Neutrino Beams , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 091801, [ arXiv:1406.2332]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Search for an Lµ − Lτ gauge boson using Z → 4µ events in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 792 (2019) 345–368, [ arXiv:1808.03684]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kamada and H.-B

    A. Kamada and H.-B. Yu, Coherent Propagation of PeV Neutrinos and the Dip in the Neutrino Spectrum at IceCube , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015), no. 11 113004, [ arXiv:1504.00711]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gninenko and D

    S. Gninenko and D. Gorbunov, Refining constraints from Borexino measurements on a light Z’-boson coupled to L µ-Lτ current, Phys. Lett. B 823 (2021) 136739, [ arXiv:2007.16098]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    NA64 Collaboration, Y. M. Andreev et al., First Results in the Search for Dark Sectors at NA64 with the CERN SPS High Energy Muon Beam , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024), no. 21 211803, [ arXiv:2401.01708]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J.-Y. Cen, Y. Cheng, X.-G. He, and J. Sun, Flavor specific U(1)Bq −Lµ gauge model for muon g −2 and b→sµ¯µ anomalies, Nucl. Phys. B 978 (2022) 115762, [ arXiv:2104.05006]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    X. G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, NEW Z-prime PHENOMENOLOGY , Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 22–24

    1991

  47. [55]

    R. Foot, X. G. He, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, Model for a light Z-prime boson , Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 4571–4580, [hep-ph/9401250]

    1994 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Cheng, X.-G

    Y. Cheng, X.-G. He, and J. Sun, Widening the U(1)L µ−Lτ Z’ mass range for resolving the muon g −2 anomaly , Phys. Lett. B 827 (2022) 136989, [ arXiv:2112.09920]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Huang and J

    F. Huang and J. Sun, Maximal flavor violating U(1)L µ-Lτ model with a singly charged scalar , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 11 115047, [ arXiv:2409.13249]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    X.-G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, Simplest Z-prime model , Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 2118–2132

    1991

  51. [59]

    Lazarides, Q

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model , Nucl. Phys. B 181 (1981) 287–300

    1981

  52. [60]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation , Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 165

    1981

  53. [61]

    Konetschny and W

    W. Konetschny and W. Kummer, Nonconservation of Total Lepton Number with Scalar Bosons , Phys. Lett. B 70 (1977) 433–435

    1977

  54. [62]

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2) x U(1) Models of Electroweak Interactions, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2860

    1980

  55. [63]

    Magg and C

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy , Phys. Lett. B 94 (1980) 61–64

    1980

  56. [64]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories , Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2227

    1980

  57. [65]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model, Science 360 (2018) 191, [ arXiv:1812.04130]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    A. Pich, I. Boyko, D. Dedovich, and I. I. Bigi, Tau decays, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24S1 (2009) 715–737

    2009

  59. [67]

    HFLA VCollaboration, Y. S. Amhis et al., Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ -lepton properties as of 2021 , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 5 052008, [ arXiv:2206.07501]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Corona, Tau and low multiplicity physics at Belle and Belle II , arXiv:2405.09974

    Belle-II Collaboration, L. Corona, Tau and low multiplicity physics at Belle and Belle II , arXiv:2405.09974

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Ashanujjaman and K

    S. Ashanujjaman and K. Ghosh, Revisiting type-II see-saw: present limits and future prospects at LHC , JHEP 03 (2022) 195, [arXiv:2108.10952]

    2022

  62. [70]

    Geiregat et al., First observation of neutrino trident production , Phys

    CHARM-II Collaboration, D. Geiregat et al., First observation of neutrino trident production , Phys. Lett. B 245 (1990) 271–275

    1990

  63. [71]

    CCFR Collaboration, S. R. Mishra et al., Neutrino Tridents and W Z Interference , Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 3117–3120

    1991

  64. [72]

    Adams et al., Evidence for diffractive charm production in muon-neutrino Fe and anti-muon-neutrino Fe scattering at the Tevatron , Phys

    NuT eVCollaboration, T. Adams et al., Evidence for diffractive charm production in muon-neutrino Fe and anti-muon-neutrino Fe scattering at the Tevatron , Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 092001, [ hep-ex/9909041]

    2000 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 030001

    2024

  66. [74]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, FeynCalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes? , Comput. Phys. Commun. 306 (2025) 109357, [ arXiv:2312.14089]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 2250–2300, [ arXiv:1310.1921]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer, and T. Reiter, UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output , Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 1201–1214, [ arXiv:1108.2040]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond , JHEP 06 (2011) 128, 14 [arXiv:1106.0522]

    2011 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, [ arXiv:1410.3012]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    de Favereau, C

    DELPHES 3 Collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi, DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment , JHEP 02 (2014) 057, [arXiv:1307.6346]

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.