pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.27878 · v1 · pith:SZGLJYRAnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · ✦ hep-ph

Prospects for probing neutral vector-like leptons via pair production at muon collider

Chong-Xing Yue , Mei-Shu-Yu Wang , Xin-Yang Li , Si-Yu Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 04:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords vector-like leptonsmuon colliderbeyond standard modelpair productionneutral doubletcut-based analysisstatistical significance
0
0 comments X

The pith

A future 6 TeV muon collider can detect neutral doublet vector-like leptons with over 5 sigma significance across a wide mass range through specific decay signals.

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

The paper examines how a proposed 6 TeV muon collider could search for neutral vector-like leptons that extend the Standard Model. It focuses on pair production of these particles, using the vector-like muon as an example, and tracks their decays into W bosons plus muons. Two signal channels are studied in detail: one with four jets and two muons, the other with two leptons, two muons, and missing transverse energy. Monte Carlo simulations and a cut-based analysis show that the collider, with 4 ab inverse luminosity and chosen beam polarizations, reaches statistical significances above 5 sigma for masses from 1300 to 3000 GeV. This establishes that the muon collider offers strong sensitivity to these new particles in a general vector-like lepton framework.

Core claim

Within a general vector-like lepton framework, the neutral doublet VLL denoted N can be probed at the 6 TeV muon collider through its pair production followed by the decay N to W+ mu, yielding the 4j2mu and 2l2mu missing-ET final states. With 4 ab inverse integrated luminosity and beam polarizations of minus one and plus one, the cut-based analysis finds statistical significances exceeding 5 sigma over the mass range 1300 to 3000 GeV.

What carries the argument

Neutral doublet vector-like lepton N, produced in pairs at the muon collider and decaying via N to W+ mu, with the two representative final states 4j2mu and 2l2mu missing-ET after W decays.

If this is right

  • The 6 TeV muon collider would exclude or discover neutral doublet VLLs up to 3000 GeV in the chosen channels.
  • Both hadronic and leptonic W decay modes contribute to the overall search reach.
  • Beam polarization at (minus 1, plus 1) enhances the signal significance relative to unpolarized running.
  • The results apply within the general VLL framework with the assumed branching ratios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar reach might be expected for other vector-like lepton representations if their production cross sections and decay patterns are comparable.
  • Extending the mass range above 3000 GeV would require either higher collider energy or larger integrated luminosity to maintain 5 sigma sensitivity.
  • If backgrounds are underestimated in the Monte Carlo, the actual mass reach would shrink.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that Standard Model backgrounds are accurately modeled by the chosen Monte Carlo generators and that no additional new physics alters the signal or background rates.

What would settle it

If the observed event yields in the 4j2mu or 2l2mu missing-ET channels at 6 TeV with 4 ab inverse luminosity fall below the predicted 5 sigma excess for a given VLL mass in 1300-3000 GeV, the sensitivity claim is falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27878 by Chong-Xing Yue, Mei-Shu-Yu Wang, Si-Yu Zhang, Xin-Yang Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams for Signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Feynman diagrams for Signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The normalized distributions of the observables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The normalized distributions of the observables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows SS as a function of the neutral VLL mass MN for the 4j2µ and 2ℓ2µE/ signals after applying all selection cuts. In the mass range of 1300 − 2980 GeV, the SS shows 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Vector-like leptons (VLLs) are well-motivated candidates for physics beyond the Standard Model. We investigate the sensitivity of the $6$ TeV muon collider to the neutral doublet VLL (denoted as $N$) via its pair production within a general VLL framework. Taking vector-like muon as a case study, we study the subsequent decay $N\rightarrow W^+ \mu$ and analyze two representative signals, namely $4j2\mu$ and $2\ell2\mu E\mkern-10.5 mu/$, arising from the hadronic and leptonic decays of the $W$ boson, respectively. The signal and background events are simulated within a complete Monte Carlo framework, and a cut-based analysis is performed at the $6$ TeV muon collider with an integrated luminosity $\mathcal{L}=4$ ab$^{-1}$ and beam polarizations $(P_{\mu^+},P_{\mu^-})=(-1,1)$. We consider VLL masses in the range of $1300-3000$ GeV and evaluate the corresponding search sensitivity. Our results show that the future $6$ TeV muon collider can effectively probe neutral doublet VLLs through the $4j2\mu$ and $2\ell2\mu E\mkern-10.5 mu/$ signals, with statistical significances exceeding $5\sigma$ over a broad mass range. These results demonstrate that the future $6$ TeV muon collider has excellent potential to search neutral doublet VLLs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a Monte Carlo-based cut-and-count study of pair production of neutral doublet vector-like leptons (VLLs) at a proposed 6 TeV muon collider. Focusing on the vector-like muon case, it simulates the decays N → Wμ leading to the 4j2μ and 2ℓ2μ + E_T^miss final states, applies a set of kinematic cuts, and reports statistical significances exceeding 5σ for VLL masses 1300–3000 GeV at 4 ab^{-1} with beam polarizations (P_μ+, P_μ−) = (−1, 1).

Significance. If the background modeling proves robust, the projections would establish that a future muon collider can access a broad, currently unconstrained mass window for neutral VLLs. The work supplies concrete benchmark points and channel definitions that could guide detector design studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results and cut-based analysis (likely §4–5)] The significance values quoted in the results (presumably §5 and associated tables) are computed directly from raw simulated signal and background yields after cuts, with no systematic uncertainty assigned to the background normalization, jet-energy scale, or higher-order QCD corrections. A 10–20 % background uncertainty, typical for multi-jet + lepton final states at multi-TeV energies, would rescale the background yield and reduce several of the reported significances below 5σ.
  2. [Signal modeling and decay assumptions (likely §3)] The analysis fixes the N → Wμ branching ratio from the general VLL framework and assumes no additional decay modes or interference effects. Any deviation in the branching fraction or the presence of other new-physics contributions would alter the signal efficiency used in the same significance calculation, directly affecting the claimed mass reach.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typesetting artifact in the missing-transverse-energy symbol (E\mkern-10.5 mu/).
  2. [Simulation framework (likely §2)] The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of the Monte Carlo generator versions, parton-shower settings, and any validation against known SM processes at similar energies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important aspects of the analysis that we address below. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional discussion on systematic uncertainties and to clarify the model assumptions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The significance values quoted in the results (presumably §5 and associated tables) are computed directly from raw simulated signal and background yields after cuts, with no systematic uncertainty assigned to the background normalization, jet-energy scale, or higher-order QCD corrections. A 10–20 % background uncertainty, typical for multi-jet + lepton final states at multi-TeV energies, would rescale the background yield and reduce several of the reported significances below 5σ.

    Authors: We agree that systematic uncertainties were not included in the quoted significances. Our study is a cut-and-count Monte Carlo projection focused on statistical reach, which is standard for initial collider prospect papers. However, to address this point we will add a dedicated subsection in the revised manuscript estimating a conservative 15% systematic uncertainty on the background yields (covering normalization, jet scale, and QCD effects). We will recompute and tabulate the significances under this assumption, showing that the 5σ reach is reduced but remains viable up to approximately 2.5 TeV in the 4j2μ channel. This provides a more realistic projection without altering the core simulation framework. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The analysis fixes the N → Wμ branching ratio from the general VLL framework and assumes no additional decay modes or interference effects. Any deviation in the branching fraction or the presence of other new-physics contributions would alter the signal efficiency used in the same significance calculation, directly affecting the claimed mass reach.

    Authors: The analysis is performed strictly within the general vector-like lepton framework outlined in Section 2, where the branching ratio BR(N → Wμ) is determined by the model parameters (mixing angles and Yukawa couplings) and is fixed to the value used in the simulation. We explicitly assume this is the dominant decay mode with no additional beyond-Standard-Model contributions or interference. The results are therefore benchmark-specific to this setup. We will expand the text in Section 3 to state this assumption more explicitly and note that deviations would require a separate study. No change to the numerical results is needed, as they correspond to the stated framework. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard MC simulation projections with external tools

full rationale

The paper performs a cut-based analysis on Monte Carlo-simulated signal and background events for VLL pair production and decays at a 6 TeV muon collider. No equations, parameters, or central claims reduce by construction to quantities defined or fitted within the paper itself. Background modeling and branching ratios are taken from external generators and the general VLL framework; significances are computed directly from simulated yields. This is a forward projection study with no self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that vector-like leptons exist with the stated couplings and decay modes, that Standard Model backgrounds dominate and are correctly simulated, and that the proposed collider parameters (energy, luminosity, polarization) are realized; no new entities are postulated beyond the VLLs already motivated in the literature.

free parameters (2)
  • VLL mass
    Scanned over 1300-3000 GeV as input to the simulation; not fitted but chosen to define the search range.
  • Integrated luminosity
    Fixed at 4 ab^{-1} as the assumed running condition for the projection.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard Model backgrounds can be accurately modeled by Monte Carlo generators without significant missing higher-order effects or detector mis-modeling.
    Invoked when performing the cut-based analysis to separate signal from background.
  • domain assumption The neutral doublet VLL decays exclusively via N → W μ with branching ratios taken from the general VLL framework.
    Used to define the two representative signal channels.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5816 in / 1603 out tokens · 49966 ms · 2026-06-29T04:05:38.003406+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    VLCjetR05N2

    (10) In the doublet VLL model, bothEandNare present. However, since this work focuses on the production of the neutralN, we only present the expressions of its decay widths in the following. Γ(N→W +µ) = MN 32π (1−r W )2(2 + 1/rW )|gW + ¯µ† ¯N |2, (11) Γ(N→Zν) = Γ(N→hν) = 0, (12) 6 wherer X =M 2 X/M2 N withX=W, Z, h. As can be seen from the decay width for...

    2000

  2. [2]

    Salam, Conf

    A. Salam, Conf. Proc. C680519, 367 (1968)

    1968

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.19, 1264 (1967)

    1967

  4. [4]

    S. L. Glashow, Nucl. Phys.22, 579 (1961)

    1961

  5. [5]

    J. L. Feng, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63, 351 (2013), 1302.6587

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    L. D. Duffy and K. van Bibber, New J. Phys.11, 105008 (2009), 0904.3346

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Chadha-Day, J

    F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis, and D. J. E. Marsh, Sci. Adv.8, abj3618 (2022), 2105.01406

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Maltoni, Phys. Rept.460, 1 (2008), 0704.1800

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    Hiller, C

    G. Hiller, C. Hormigos-Feliu, D. F. Litim, and T. Steudtner, Phys. Rev. D102, 071901 (2020), 1910.14062

    arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Frank and I

    M. Frank and I. Saha, Phys. Rev. D102, 115034 (2020), 2008.11909

    arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Dermisek, K

    R. Dermisek, K. Hermanek, and N. McGinnis, Phys. Rev. D104, 055033 (2021), 2103.05645

    arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Brune, T

    T. Brune, T. W. Kephart, and H. P¨as, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1254 (2024), 2205.05566

    arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Guedes and P

    G. Guedes and P. Olgoso, JHEP09, 181 (2022), 2205.04480

    arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    He, Chin

    S.-P. He, Chin. Phys. C47, 043102 (2023), 2205.02088

    arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Kawamura and S

    J. Kawamura and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. D106, 035009 (2022), 2205.10480

    arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Belfatto, R

    B. Belfatto, R. Beradze, and Z. Berezhiani, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 149 (2020), 1906.02714

    arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Grossman, E

    Y . Grossman, E. Passemar, and S. Schacht, JHEP07, 068 (2020), 1911.07821

    arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Crivellin, F

    A. Crivellin, F. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, JHEP12, 166 (2020), 2008.01113

    arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Dagli, S

    B. Dagli, S. Sultansoy, and I. Toy (2026), 2603.05104

    arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D81, 035004 (2010), 0910.2732

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  21. [21]

    Zheng, Eur

    S. Zheng, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 273 (2020), 1904.10145

    arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    K. Kong, S. C. Park, and T. G. Rizzo, JHEP07, 059 (2010), 1004.4635. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    M. Endo, K. Hamaguchi, S. Iwamoto, and N. Yokozaki, Phys. Rev. D84, 075017 (2011), 1108.3071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  24. [24]

    J. Y . Araz, S. Banerjee, M. Frank, B. Fuks, and A. Goudelis, Phys. Rev. D98, 115009 (2018), 1810.07224

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Anastasiou, E

    C. Anastasiou, E. Furlan, and J. Santiago, Phys. Rev. D79, 075003 (2009), 0901.2117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  26. [26]

    Gillioz, R

    M. Gillioz, R. Grober, C. Grojean, M. Muhlleitner, and E. Salvioni, JHEP10, 004 (2012), 1206.7120

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [27]

    Agashe, G

    K. Agashe, G. Perez, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D75, 015002 (2007), hep-ph/0606293

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  28. [28]

    Huang, K

    G.-Y . Huang, K. Kong, and S. C. Park, JHEP06, 099 (2012), 1204.0522

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    W.-Y . Tsai, L. L. Deraad, and K. A. Milton, Phys. Rev. D6, 1428 (1972), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 11, 703–703 (1975)]

    1972

  30. [30]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, Phys. Rev. D11, 2558 (1975)

    1975

  31. [31]

    Senjanovic and R

    G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D12, 1502 (1975)

    1975

  32. [32]

    R. N. Mohapatra, F. E. Paige, and D. P. Sidhu, Phys. Rev. D17, 2462 (1978)

    1978

  33. [33]

    Nevzorov, Phys

    R. Nevzorov, Phys. Rev. D87, 015029 (2013), 1205.5967

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    Dorsner, S

    I. Dorsner, S. Fajfer, and I. Mustac, Phys. Rev. D89, 115004 (2014), 1401.6870

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    Joglekar and J

    A. Joglekar and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D96, 015026 (2017), 1607.06900

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rept.1115, 570 (2025), 2405.17605

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    del Aguila, J

    F. del Aguila, J. de Blas, and M. Perez-Victoria, Phys. Rev. D78, 013010 (2008), 0803.4008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [38]

    Ishiwata and M

    K. Ishiwata and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D88, 055009 (2013), 1307.1112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    S. D. Thomas and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 34 (1998), hep-ph/9804359

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  40. [40]

    Achard et al

    P. Achard et al. (L3), Phys. Lett. B517, 75 (2001), hep-ex/0107015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  41. [41]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. D105, 112007 (2022), 2202.08676

    arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP05, 075 (2025), 2411.07143

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1335 (2025), 2503.22581

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Bahrami, M

    S. Bahrami, M. Frank, D. K. Ghosh, N. Ghosh, and I. Saha, Phys. Rev. D95, 095024 (2017), 1612.06334

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Mahmoud, J

    Y . Mahmoud, J. Kawamura, H. Abdallah, M. T. Hussein, and S. Elgammal, JHEP03, 001 (2025), 2411.08143

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Yue, Y .-Q

    C.-X. Yue, Y .-Q. Wang, X.-C. Sun, and X.-Y . Li, J. Phys. G52, 025003 (2025), 2412.07125. 18

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Yue, Y .-Q

    C.-X. Yue, Y .-Q. Wang, H. Wang, Y .-H. Wang, and S. Li, Nucl. Phys. B1000, 116482 (2024), 2402.02072

    arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Q.-H. Cao, J. Guo, J. Liu, Y . Luo, and X.-P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D110, 015029 (2024), 2311.12934

    arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Liu and S

    Y .-B. Liu and S. Moretti, Phys. Rev. D113, 055034 (2026), 2512.22490

    arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Yue, M.-S.-Y

    C.-X. Yue, M.-S.-Y . Wang, and X.-Y . Li, Nucl. Phys. B1020, 117143 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    P. W. Graham, A. Ismail, S. Rajendran, and P. Saraswat, Phys. Rev. D81, 055016 (2010), 0910.3020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  52. [52]

    Bernreuther and B

    E. Bernreuther and B. A. Dobrescu, JHEP07, 079 (2023), 2304.08509

    arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    M. Endo, K. Hamaguchi, S. Iwamoto, and N. Yokozaki, Phys. Rev. D85, 095012 (2012), 1112.5653

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  54. [54]

    S. A. R. Ellis, R. M. Godbole, S. Gopalakrishna, and J. D. Wells, JHEP09, 130 (2014), 1404.4398

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  55. [55]

    Kumar and S

    N. Kumar and S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D92, 115018 (2015), 1510.03456

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    F.-Z. Xu, W. Zhang, J. Li, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. D98, 115033 (2018), 1809.01472

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [57]

    Dermisek, E

    R. Dermisek, E. Lunghi, and S. Shin, JHEP02, 119 (2016), 1509.04292

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    Dermisek, J

    R. Dermisek, J. P. Hall, E. Lunghi, and S. Shin, JHEP12, 013 (2014), 1408.3123

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  59. [59]

    Dermisek and A

    R. Dermisek and A. Raval, Phys. Rev. D88, 013017 (2013), 1305.3522

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  60. [60]

    F. F. Freitas, J. Gonc ¸alves, A. P. Morais, and R. Pasechnik, JHEP01, 076 (2021), 2010.01307

    arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    P. H. Frampton, P. Q. Hung, and M. Sher, Phys. Rept.330, 263 (2000), hep-ph/9903387

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  62. [62]

    Falkowski, D

    A. Falkowski, D. M. Straub, and A. Vicente, JHEP05, 092 (2014), 1312.5329

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    Guedes and J

    G. Guedes and J. Santiago, JHEP01, 111 (2022), 2107.03429

    arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    P. N. Bhattiprolu and S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D100, 015033 (2019), 1905.00498

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    Sher, Phys

    M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D52, 3136 (1995), hep-ph/9504257

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  66. [66]

    Q. Guo, L. Gao, Y . Mao, and Q. Li, Chin. Phys. C47, 103106 (2023), 2304.01885

    arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    A. P. Morais, A. Onofre, F. F. Freitas, J. Gonc ¸alves, R. Pasechnik, and R. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 232 (2023), 2108.03926

    arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Ghosh, S

    N. Ghosh, S. K. Rai, and T. Samui, Nucl. Phys. B1004, 116564 (2024), 2309.07583

    arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Tewary, S

    K. Tewary, S. Biswas, and S. Verma (2025), 2511.00578

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Greco, T

    M. Greco, T. Han, and Z. Liu, Phys. Lett. B763, 409 (2016), 1607.03210

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  71. [71]

    J. P. Delahaye, M. Diemoz, K. Long, B. Mansouli´e, N. Pastrone, L. Rivkin, D. Schulte, A. Skrinsky, and A. Wulzer (2019), 1901.06150. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  72. [72]

    K. Long, D. Lucchesi, M. Palmer, N. Pastrone, D. Schulte, and V . Shiltsev, Nature Phys.17, 289 (2021), 2007.15684

    arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    de Blas et al

    J. de Blas et al. (Muon Collider) (2022), 2203.07261

    arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    Accettura et al., Eur

    C. Accettura et al., Eur. Phys. J. C83, 864 (2023), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 36 (2024)], 2303.08533

    arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    Accettura et al

    C. Accettura et al. (International Muon Collider), CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2/2024, 176 (2024), 2407.12450

    arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    K. M. Black et al., JINST19, T02015 (2024), 2209.01318

    arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    T. Han, Y . Ma, and K. Xie, Phys. Rev. D103, L031301 (2021), 2007.14300

    arXiv 2021

  78. [78]

    Costantini, F

    A. Costantini, F. De Lillo, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, O. Mattelaer, R. Ruiz, and X. Zhao, JHEP09, 080 (2020), 2005.10289

    arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    K. Y . Cingiloglu and M. Frank, Phys. Rev. D111, 016025 (2025), 2408.10898

    arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Adhikary, M

    A. Adhikary, M. Olechowski, J. Rosiek, and M. Ryczkowski, Phys. Rev. D110, 075029 (2024), 2406.16050

    arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.