Precision measurement of the Z boson to electron neutrino coupling at the future circular colliders

R. Aleksan; S. Jadach

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 31 references

Precision measurement of the Z boson to electron neutrino coupling at the future circular colliders

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that the Z boson's coupling to the electron neutrino can be measured at FCC-ee with about 1% statistical error using the skewness of the radiative-return photon spectrum.

desk verdict A serious, honest feasibility study for measuring the Z-nu_e coupling at FCC-ee via radiative-return photon skewness; the statistical reach looks real, but the unquantified Wt virtual-correction approximation keeps the 1% claim at the level of a projection. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06338 v3 pith:SZOY3AZ7 submitted 2019-08-17 hep-ph hep-ex

R. Aleksan , S. Jadach This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords ZbosonelectronneutrinoZ-neutrinocouplingradiativereturnt-channelWexchangeFCC-eeleptonflavoruniversalityphotonspectrumskewness

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 a future high-luminosity electron-positron collider such as FCC-ee can measure the Z boson's coupling to the electron neutrino, currently the least precisely known neutrino coupling, at the percent level. The proposed route is the radiative-return process $e^+e^- \to \nu_e \bar\nu_e \gamma$, where the $t$-channel $W$ exchange, present only for electron neutrinos, interferes with $s$-channel $Z$ production and slightly skews the photon spectrum around the $Z$ peak. Using the KKMC Monte Carlo at about $4\times 10^9$ events, the paper shows the skewness parameter $S$ changes linearly with a rescaling $\eta$ of the coupling, and that 10 $\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=161$ GeV yields a statistical error of about 1%, a factor of roughly 20 better than the present error. This would provide a direct test of lepton-flavor universality in neutrino couplings, a sector where the electron neutrino is currently the least constrained.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the skewness parameter $S$ (Eq. 5.1), a left-right asymmetry of the photon-energy spectrum around $v_Z=1-M_Z^2/s$. This single number isolates the asymmetric deformation of the $Z$ line shape caused by the $Z_s\otimes W_t$ interference; the $W$-exchange diagram exists only for the electron-neutrino final state, so comparing the $\nu_e$ and $\nu_{\mu/\tau}$ spectra identifies the effect of the $Z\nu_e$ coupling. The computation is carried out with the KKMC event generator, a multiphoton Monte Carlo for fermion-pair production in $e^+e^-$ collisions, whose matrix element for $e^+e^-\to\nu\bar\nu+n\gamma$ includes the $t$-channel $W$ exchange. The coupling-scaling parameter $\eta$ of Eq. (3.3) is what converts the measured $S$ into a direct determination of $g_{\nu_e Z}$ while leaving the total invisible width untouched.

What would settle it

Complete the missing one-loop virtual corrections for the $t$-channel $W$ exchange and the $O(\alpha^2)$ electroweak corrections in the $e^+e^- \to \nu_e \bar\nu_e \gamma$ matrix element, and recompute the reference skewness $S(0)$; if it moves from $-0.15274$ by more than about $10^{-4}$, the claimed 1% statistical extraction is biased beyond its quoted error. A cheaper test at FCC-ee is to measure the same skewness in the $\nu_\mu$ channel, where the $W$-exchange diagram is absent, and require agreement with the Standard Model prediction at the $10^{-4}$ level; any larger discrepancy would show the QED subtraction is not under control.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $g_{\nu_e Z}$ can be extracted from the interference between the $s$-channel $Z$ exchange and the $t$-channel $W$ exchange in $e^+e^- \to \nu_e \bar\nu_e \gamma$, rather than from the total invisible $Z$ width. The paper defines the skewness of the radiative-return photon spectrum near the $Z$ peak, $S = [\sigma(v>v_Z)-\sigma(v<v_Z)]/[\sigma(v>v_Z)+\sigma(v<v_Z)]$ with $v=E_\gamma/E_{\mathrm{beam}}$, and shows that the Standard Model value is $S(0)=-0.15274\pm 0.00020$. Rescaling $g_{\nu_e Z}$ to $\sqrt{1+\eta}$ and $g_{\nu_\tau Z}$ to $\sqrt{1-\eta}$, keeping the well-measured total invisible width fixed, makes $S$ move linearly with $\eta$; the Monte Carlo sensitivity at 10 $\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ (161 GeV) and 13 $\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ (105 GeV) therefore translates directly into $\delta g_{\nu_e Z}/g \approx 1\%$ and $\approx 0.5\%$, respectively. With a realistic calorimeter resolution the 161 GeV result degrades to 1.4%, and the authors stress that subtracting the much larger QED skewness with a high-quality multiphoton Monte Carlo is the main condition for this to work.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes that the Monte Carlo's Standard Model prediction for the photon-spectrum skewness, $S(0)=-0.15274$, is accurate to about one part in ten thousand; this requires the $t$-channel $W$-exchange virtual corrections (currently only in a low-energy approximation) and the uncomputed $O(\alpha^2)$ electroweak corrections to be that small, and if they are not, the extracted coupling is biased by more than the quoted 1%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At FCC-ee with 10 $\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ at 161 GeV (or 13 $\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ at 105 GeV), the statistical error on $g_{\nu_e Z}$ would be about 1% (0.5% at the lower energy), roughly twenty times smaller than the current error.
With a homogeneous calorimeter of resolution $\sigma(E_\gamma)/E_\gamma = 0.05/\sqrt{E_\gamma} \oplus 0.002$, the 161 GeV sensitivity is 1.4%; even with a sampling calorimeter twice as poor, it degrades only to 2.4%.
Combined with an essentially negligible error on $N_\nu$ at FCC-ee and no new invisible particles coupling to $Z$, the same measurement yields $g_{\nu_\tau Z}$ with about 4.8% error, turning the tau-neutrino coupling into a test of lepton-flavor universality.
The linear dependence of $S$ on $\eta$ means the measured skewness can be mapped one-to-one onto $g_{\nu_e Z}$ without relying on the absolute $Z$ width measurement.
The precision is conditional on upgrading the Monte Carlo: complete $W_t$ virtual corrections, a cross-check of the QED lineshape deformation, $O(\alpha^2)$ electroweak corrections, and $O(\alpha^3)$ non-soft QED corrections all remain to be done.

Reading between the lines

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

A full maximum-likelihood fit of the $v=E_\gamma/E_{\mathrm{beam}}$ spectrum, rather than the single asymmetry $S$, would likely improve the sensitivity beyond 1%; the paper mentions such a fit only as a future option.
Because the $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ channels lack the $W$-exchange diagram, their measured skewness can serve as a data-driven control for the QED subtraction; agreement with the Standard Model prediction at the $10^{-4}$ level would validate the extraction in the $\nu_e$ channel.
The same technique should transfer to CEPC, which is designed for similar $Z$-pole and 161 GeV operation, with the same systematic caveats.
At low $v$ (high $M_{\nu\bar\nu}$), the $W$ exchange diagram dominates over the $Z$-resonant diagram rather than merely interfering with it; the paper notes this region needs quantitative study, so it is a plausible cross-check for the coupling.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a serious, honest feasibility study. It proposes to measure the badly known Z-nu_e coupling (currently 1.06 ± 0.18) by exploiting s-channel Z / t-channel W interference in e+e- -> nu_e nubar_e gamma at FCC-ee, using the skewness S of the radiative-return photon spectrum around the Z peak. The claim is about 1% statistical error at 161 GeV and about 0.5% at 105 GeV. The new content is the dedicated use of the skewness to isolate g_nu_e_Z. The interference itself was calculated before (Ref. [18]), and LEP used radiative return for the total invisible width, but nobody had proposed this specific observable for an individual neutrino coupling. The paper earns credit for being quantitative: 4 billion weighted events, quoted statistical errors, a detector-resolution study, and an explicit list of unresolved theoretical issues in Section 7.

The soft spots are real and the paper admits them. The most important: the signal is the Zs⊗Wt interference, and in the KKMC matrix element the one-loop EW corrections to the t-channel W exchange are implemented only in a low-energy approximation. The paper gives no estimate of the resulting error on S(0) or on the eta-dependence. Since the extraction is essentially a comparison of the measured S to the SM reference S(0) = -0.15274, an unquantified few-percent error on the Wt amplitude becomes a few-percent bias on g_nu_e_Z, larger than the quoted statistical error. The check they do run, switching off all EW+QCD corrections, shifts S(0) by 7e-4, which is above the statistical target; the argument that uncalculated O(alpha^2) corrections will be below 1e-4 is an expectation, not a calculation. The absence of an independent cross-check of S(0) matters for the same reason. These are not fatal to the idea, but they mean the 1% precision is a statistical projection, not an established measurement-level claim.

What the paper does well is also clear. It uses an established MC, checks against the published Born benchmarks from Ref. [18], quotes Monte Carlo statistical errors, and flags the Wt-correction issue in the summary, item (1). The detector resolution study gives a first idea of experimental systematics and shows graceful degradation (1.4% sensitivity with a good calorimeter). The citation pattern is normal for the subject; that one author is also a KKMC author is not itself a problem because the underlying matrix element is benchmarked, and the paper does that at Born level.

Who is this for? Anyone working on FCC-ee/CEPC physics cases, precision electroweak, or neutrino-coupling anomalies. I would bring it to our reading group and cite it in an FCC-ee prospects write-up. Recommendation on peer review: yes, send it out. It makes a novel, testable proposal, and the methodology is transparent enough that a referee can see exactly what is missing. It should be accepted as a feasibility study, with the caveat that the theory-error question needs further work before the precision claim can be taken at face value.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method to measure the Z boson coupling to the electron neutrino, g_nu_e_Z, at the future e+e- circular colliders FCC-ee and CEPC. The idea is to use the process e+e- -> nu_e anti-nu_e gamma, exploiting the interference between the s-channel Z exchange and the t-channel W exchange, which is sensitive to g_nu_e_Z. The observable is the skewness S of the radiative-return photon spectrum around the Z peak, defined in Eq. (5.1). Using KKMC Monte Carlo runs with about 4e9 weighted events at sqrt(s) = 105 GeV and 161 GeV, the authors find that S changes approximately linearly with the coupling rescaling parameter eta defined in Eq. (3.3), and they claim a statistical precision on g_nu_e_Z of about 1% at 161 GeV (with 10 ab^-1) and about 0.5% at 105 GeV (with 13 ab^-1), which would improve the current PDG error by about a factor of 20. A detector resolution study shows a degradation of the sensitivity to about 1.4% at 161 GeV for a homogeneous calorimeter. The paper explicitly lists unresolved theoretical issues, including incomplete virtual corrections to the Wt amplitude, the absence of an independent cross-check of the QED-deformed Z lineshape, and the need for complete O(alpha^2) electroweak corrections.

Significance. If the theoretical uncertainties can be brought under control, the proposed method is a novel and potentially powerful way to probe lepton-flavor universality in the neutrino sector, improving the knowledge of g_nu_e_Z by an order of magnitude. The paper benefits from very large, dedicated Monte Carlo statistics from the publicly available KKMC program, and it includes a cross-check of the Born-level implementation against ZFITTER. However, the claim of a ~1% measurement is currently a statistical-sensitivity projection: the theory errors on the SM reference value S(0) and on the slope dS/deta are not yet quantified to the required level, as acknowledged by the authors themselves. The significance of the result therefore hinges on completing or bounding the missing electroweak corrections.

major comments (3)

[Section 4 and Section 5, Eq. (5.1)] The paper states in Section 4 that the one-loop virtual corrections to the t-channel W contribution are implemented in KKMC only in a certain low-energy approximation and must be improved in the future, and Section 5 reiterates that DIZET virtual corrections are applied to the s-channel Zs exchange but not to the Wt contribution. Since the sensitivity to g_nu_e_Z in Eq. (5.1) and in Fig. 7 is driven by the Zs⊗Wt interference, an unquantified error in the Wt amplitude enters directly into the SM reference S(0) and into the slope dS/deta used for the extraction. If this error is at the few-percent level, as the historical 2-3% precision of earlier nu-nu-gamma calculations suggests, the resulting bias in g_nu_e_Z would exceed the quoted ~1% statistical error. The authors should either complete the Wt virtual corrections or provide a quantitative estimate of the induced shift in S(0) and in the extracted coupling.
[Section 5] The claim that unaccounted O(alpha^2) non-QED corrections to S(0) are below the 1e-4 level is an expectation, not a demonstrated bound. The only numerical test reported, switching off all O(alpha1) EW+QCD corrections in KKMC, produces a shift of S(0) by 0.0007, which is about seven times the stated statistical precision of S(0) and therefore does not by itself support the 1e-4 estimate. The authors should provide a more rigorous argument, for example an explicit two-loop estimate or a comparison with an independent electroweak library, to establish that the SM reference value S(0) is known to the accuracy required for the proposed measurement.
[Section 5] The reference value S(0) = -0.15274 ± 0.00020 is obtained from a single program, KKMC, and the paper lists as a future task a cross-check with an independent calculation. Because S(0) is the point against which the measured skewness is compared, an independent validation of the QED-deformed Z lineshape, including the multiphoton treatment and the treatment of the Wt interference, is necessary before a precision claim can be made. The agreement with ZFITTER for the Born cross sections reported in Section 3 is a useful but insufficient check for the full S(0) prediction.

minor comments (7)

[Abstract] There are several typos: "it will possible" should be "it will be possible"; "inverse atobarn" should be "inverse attobarn"; "neutrina" should be "neutrinos".
[Section 4] "a version on KKMC" should read "a version of KKMC", and "twoKKMC runs" in Section 5 should read "two KKMC runs".
[Figure 7] The RHS axis label "SMinvis. Γ/eνΓ= 3η0.1" is garbled; please clarify the labeling of Delta S = S(eta) - S(0) and the horizontal axis.
[Section 5, Eq. (5.1)] The integration interval over v used for sigma(v > v_Z) and sigma(v < v_Z) is not explicitly defined in the text; please specify whether the v_Z ± 0.02 window is used throughout, as suggested by the surrounding discussion.
[Section 3] "with t-channel Wt boson exchange" should read "with t-channel W boson exchange" or "with W_t exchange" for consistency.
[Summary] In the sentence "comparison of experimental data with high quality Monte Carlo even generator", "even generator" should be "event generator".
[Figure 4] The RHS caption "log of photon angle" should specify log(sin(theta_gamma)) to be precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the sensitivity estimate is computed from an externally benchmarked Monte Carlo, with no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to data and then rename the fit as a prediction. The observable S (Eq. 5.1) is a cross-section skewness, and the quoted values S(0) and S(eta) are Monte Carlo predictions obtained from KKMC, including the Zs-Wt interference. The eta dependence is introduced explicitly through Eq. (3.3) and implemented in the MC by rescaling the nu_e versus nu_mu distributions (footnote 9); this is a sensitivity calculation, not an input-output tautology. The central matrix element is taken from Ref. [18], whose authors overlap with the present paper, but the paper states that the Born cross sections and forward-backward asymmetries were checked against the benchmark Table 1 of Ref. [18], which itself was validated against ZFITTER; this external benchmark makes the cited support independent rather than load-bearing. The paper's explicit caveat that one-loop corrections to the Wt contribution in KKMC are incomplete is a systematic-theory limitation, not a circular step: it concerns the accuracy of S(0) and of the slope dS/deta, not whether the prediction reduces to the input by construction. No self-definitional, fitted-input, self-citation-chain, ansatz-smuggling, or renaming pattern is present in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no parameters to data; the central result is a Monte Carlo based sensitivity projection. The main axioms concern the reliability of the KKMC program and the assumed smallness of uncomputed radiative corrections, both of which are explicitly acknowledged as open points by the authors.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The Standard Model matrix element for e+e- to nu nu-bar gamma as implemented in KKMC 4.19, including the t-channel W exchange and its interference with the s-channel Z, is accurate for the radiative-return kinematics used here.
The entire sensitivity analysis is produced by this Monte Carlo program; the one-loop Wt virtual corrections are only in a low-energy approximation (Section 4).
domain assumption Uncomputed higher-order QED and electroweak corrections to the skewness S(0) are below about 1e-4, the estimated experimental precision.
The authors estimate this from the size of the O(alpha^1) corrections, which shift S(0) by 0.0007, but they do not calculate the O(alpha^2) terms (Section 5).
ad hoc to paper The rescaling in Eq. (3.3), with g_nu_e = sqrt(1+eta), g_nu_mu = 1, g_nu_tau = sqrt(1-eta), keeps the total invisible Z width fixed so that N_nu stays equal to 3.
This parametrization defines the sensitivity target S(eta) and converts the measured skewness into a value of g_nu_e_Z; it assumes no new invisible particles contribute to the Z width (Eq. 3.3, Section 3).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision measurement of the Z boson to electron neutrino coupling at the future circular colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZOY3AZ7

@misc{pith2026190806338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision measurement of the Z boson to electron neutrino coupling at the future circular colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZOY3AZ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06338}
}

abstract

At the high luminosity electron-positron circular colliders like FCC-ee in CERN and CEPC in China it will possible to measure very precisely $e^+e^-\to Z\gamma$ process with subsequent Z decay into particles invisible in the detector, that is into three neutrina of the Standard Model and possibly into other weakly coupled neutral particles. Apart from the measurement of the total invisible width (which is not the main subject of this work) this process may be used as a source of $Z$ coupling to electron neutrino -- known very poorly. This is possible due to the presence of the $t$-channel $W$ exchange in the $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e \gamma$ channel which deforms slightly spectrum of the photon. We are going to show experimental investigation of this effect, for $\sim 10$ inverse atobarn accumulated luminosity, which can provide measurement of the $Z-\nu_e$ coupling with statistical error of order 1\%. The estimation of the systematic experimental error will require more work, but most likely it will be of similar size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06338 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Production of flavor-tagged νe through the process e +e − → νeν¯eγ with W exchange. 3 The method The combined strength of couplings of Z boson to all particles contributing to Z invisible width was at LEP experiments conveniently parametrized [15] in terms the so called neutrino number parameter Nν, equal 3 in the SM. Two sensitive ways to measure Nν have been used in the past: 1. Precise determination of the Z 0 pr… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** These diagrams interfere with the ones in Figure 1. Therefore, observing this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The LHS plot shows σ Born(M2 νν¯ ) for e +e − → νν, ν ¯ = νe, νµ as function of variable v = 1 − M2 νν¯ /s, for s 1/2 = 161GeV, the same as in the following MC results for ZRR process. The RHS plot illustrates relative contribution of the t-channel W-exchange diagram i…

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The distributions of photon multiplicity and photon angle in the process e +e − → νν¯(N γ), ν = νe, νµ, ντ , (a) without restricting photons and (b) for ZRR subsample. v 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 −3 10 −2 10 −1 10 1 10 +νµ+ντ e -> νν+nγ , ν=ν - e + dσ/dv;…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The distributions of photon energy in the processes e +e − → νν¯(+nγ), ν = νe + νµ + ντ (a) without restricting photons and (b) for ZRR subsample. For completeness in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Examining difference of the ZRR photon spectrum for electron neutrino and muon neutrino channels due to t-channel W exchange. absent for two other SM neutrinos. As compared to Born curve of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Examining difference of the ZRR photon spectrum for electron neutrino and muon neutrino channels due to t-channel W exchange. FCC-ee integrated luminosity of 10ab−1 at 161GeV and 13ab−1 at 105GeV respectively7 . The LHS plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Experimental sensitivity of g νe Z . Detector resolution effect off (left plot) and on (right plot). A 50% degradation is observed but the sensitivity still remains very good. σ(Eγ) Eγ = √ 0.05 Eγ ⊕ 0.002 (6.1) The energy resolution of photons can be extracted experime…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[18]

Predictions for ${\bar \nu} \nu \gamma$ Production at LEP

D. Bardin, S. Jadach, T. Riemann, Z. Was, Predictions for anti-nu nu gamma pro- duction at LEP, Eur. Phys. J. C24 (2002) 373–383 (2002). arXiv:hep-ph/0110371, doi:10.1007/s100520200948

work page Pith review arXiv 2002
[1]

Lees, et al., [BaBar Collaboration], Phys

J. Lees, et al., [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D88 (2013). arXiv:1303.0571, doi:1103/PhysRevD.88.072012

arXiv 2013
[2]

Measurement of the B^0 -> D^*- pi^+ pi^- pi^+ branching fraction

J. Lees, et al., [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D94 (2016). arXiv:1609.06802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.091101

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[3]

Huschle, et al., [Belle Collaboration], Phys

M. Huschle, et al., [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D92 (2015). doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.92.072014

work page 2015
[4]

Aaij, et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Phys

R. Aaij, et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015). doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.115.111803

work page 2015
[5]

Aaij, et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Phys

R. Aaij, et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D97 (2018). arXiv:1711.02505, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.072013

arXiv 2018
[6]

Wei, et al., [Belle Collaboration], Phys

J.-T. Wei, et al., [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009). arXiv:0904. 0770, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.171801

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.171801 2009
[7]

Lees, et al., [BaBar Collaboration], Phys

J. Lees, et al., [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D86 (2012). arXiv:1204.3933, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.032012

arXiv 2012

Show all 31 references

[8]

Aaij, et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Phys

R. Aaij, et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (2014). arXiv:1406.6482, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.151601

2014 arXiv
[9]

Tanabashi, et al., [Particle Data Group], Phys

M. Tanabashi, et al., [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D98 030001 (2018)

2018
[10]

Voutsinas, E

G. Voutsinas, E. Perez, M. Dam, P. Janot, Beam-beam eﬀects on the lu- minosity measurement at LEP and the number of light neutrino species, Physics Letters B 800 (2020) 135068 (2020). arXiv:1908.01704, doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135068. URL http://www.science...

2020 arXiv
[11]

Bicer, et al., First Look at the Physics Case of TLEP, JHEP 01 (2014) 164 (2014)

M. Bicer, et al., First Look at the Physics Case of TLEP, JHEP 01 (2014) 164 (2014). arXiv:1308.6176, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)164

2014 arXiv
[12]

Mangano, et al., Future Circular Collider, Vol

M. Mangano, et al., Future Circular Collider, Vol. 1: Physics opportunitiesSubmitted for publication to Eur.Phys.J.C. http://cds.cern.ch/record/2651294 (2018)

2018
[13]

Benedikt, et al., Future Circular Collider, Vol

M. Benedikt, et al., Future Circular Collider, Vol. 2: The Lepton Collider (FCC- ee)Submitted for publication to Eur.Phys.J.C. http://cds.cern.ch/record/2651299 (2019)

2019
[14]

Aharmim, et al., [SNO Collaboration], Phys

B. Aharmim, et al., [SNO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C72 (2005). arXiv:0502021, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.72.055502. 13

2005 doi
[15]

Schael, et al., Precision electroweak measurements on theZ resonance, Phys

S. Schael, et al., Precision electroweak measurements on theZ resonance, Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257–454 (2006). arXiv:hep-ex/0509008, doi:10.1016/j.physrep. 2005.12.006

2006 arXiv
[16]

Abbiendi, et al., Photonic events with missing energy ine+e− collisions at S**(1/2) = 189-GeV, Eur

G. Abbiendi, et al., Photonic events with missing energy ine+e− collisions at S**(1/2) = 189-GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C18 (2000) 253–272 (2000). arXiv:hep-ex/0005002, doi:10.1007/s100520000522

2000 arXiv
[17]

Jadach, M

S. Jadach, M. Skrzypek, QED challenges at FCC-ee precision measurements (2019). arXiv:1903.09895

2019 arXiv
[19]

Jadach, B

S. Jadach, B. F. L. Ward, Z. Was, The Precision Monte Carlo event generator KK for two fermion ﬁnal states in e+e− collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 130 (2000) 260–325 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/9912214, doi:10.1016/S0010-4655(00)00048-5

2000 arXiv
[20]

Carena, A

M. Carena, A. de Gouvea, A. Freitas, M. Schmitt, Invisible Z boson decays at e+ e- colliders, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 113007 (2003). arXiv:hep-ph/0308053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.113007

2003 arXiv
[21]

Ellis, S.-F

J. Ellis, S.-F. Ge, H.-J. He, R.-Q. Xiao, Probing the Scale of New Physics in the ZZγ Coupling at e+e− Colliders (2019). arXiv:1902.06631

2019 arXiv
[22]

M. Kobel, et al., Two-Fermion Production in Electron-Positron Collisions, in: Pro- ceedings, Monte Carlo Workshop: Report of the working groups on precision cal- culation for LEP-2 physics: CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, March 12-13, June 25- 26, October 12-13 Oct 1999, 2000 (2000...

2000 arXiv
[23]

Jadach, B

S. Jadach, B. F. L. Ward, Z. Was, The Monte Carlo program KORALZ, version 4.0, for the lepton or quark pair production at LEP / SLC energies, Comput. Phys. Commun. 79 (1994) 503–522 (1994). doi:10.1016/0010-4655(94)90190-2

1994 doi
[24]

Montagna, O

G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, F. Piccinini, NUNUGPV: A Monte Carlo event generator for e+ e- to nu anti-nu gamma (gamma) events at LEP, Comput. Phys. Commun. 98 (1996) 206–214 (1996). doi:10.1016/0010-4655(96)00081-1

1996 doi
[25]

Montagna, M

G. Montagna, M. Moretti, O. Nicrosini, F. Piccinini, Single photon and multiphoton ﬁnal states with missing energy at e+ e- colliders, Nucl. Phys. B541 (1999) 31–49 (1999). arXiv:hep-ph/9807465, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00795-0. 14

1999 arXiv
[26]

Fujimoto, T

J. Fujimoto, T. Ishikawa, T. Kaneko, K. Kato, S. Kawabata, Y. Kurihara, T. Mune- hisa, D. Perret-Gallix, Y. Shimizu, H. Tanaka, Grc4f v1.1: A Four fermion event generator for e+ e- collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 100 (1997) 128–156 (1997). arXiv:hep-ph/9605312, doi:10.1016/S...

1997 arXiv
[27]

Kurihara, J

Y. Kurihara, J. Fujimoto, T. Ishikawa, Y. Shimizu, T. Munehisa, (grc neutrino neu- trino gamma) Event generator for the single photon and double photon emission associated with neutrino pair production, Comput. Phys. Commun. 136 (2001) 250– 268 (2001). arXiv:hep-ph/9908422, do...

2001 arXiv
[28]

Colas, R

P. Colas, R. Miquel, Z. Was, The Neutrino Anti-neutrinoγ Cross-section and Invisible Width Measurement at LEP, Phys. Lett. B246 (1990) 541–545 (1990).doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(90)90646-N

1990
[29]

Igarashi, N

M. Igarashi, N. Nakazawa, QED radiative corrections to the neutrino counting reac- tion e+e, Nucl. Phys. B288 (1987) 301–331, [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B294,1180(1987)] (1987). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90217-3

1987 doi
[30]

D. Yu. Bardin, P. Christova, M. Jack, L. Kalinovskaya, A. Olchevski, S. Riemann, T. Riemann, ZFITTER v.6.21: A Semianalytical program for fermion pair production in e+e− annihilation, Comput. Phys. Commun. 133 (2001) 229–395 (2001). arXiv: hep-ph/9908433, doi:10.1016/S0010-465...

2001 arXiv
[31]

Was, Gauge invariance, infrared / collinear singularities and tree level matrix element for e+ e- → nu(e) anti-nu(e) gamma gamma, Eur

Z. Was, Gauge invariance, infrared / collinear singularities and tree level matrix element for e+ e- → nu(e) anti-nu(e) gamma gamma, Eur. Phys. J. C44 (2005) 489–503 (2005). arXiv:hep-ph/0406045, doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02381-y. 15

2005 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [18]

Predictions for ${\bar \nu} \nu \gamma$ Production at LEP

D. Bardin, S. Jadach, T. Riemann, Z. Was, Predictions for anti-nu nu gamma pro- duction at LEP, Eur. Phys. J. C24 (2002) 373–383 (2002). arXiv:hep-ph/0110371, doi:10.1007/s100520200948

work page Pith review arXiv 2002

[2] [1]

Lees, et al., [BaBar Collaboration], Phys

J. Lees, et al., [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D88 (2013). arXiv:1303.0571, doi:1103/PhysRevD.88.072012

arXiv 2013

[3] [2]

Measurement of the B^0 -> D^*- pi^+ pi^- pi^+ branching fraction

J. Lees, et al., [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D94 (2016). arXiv:1609.06802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.091101

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[4] [3]

Huschle, et al., [Belle Collaboration], Phys

M. Huschle, et al., [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D92 (2015). doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.92.072014

work page 2015

[5] [4]

Aaij, et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Phys

R. Aaij, et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015). doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.115.111803

work page 2015

[6] [5]

Aaij, et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Phys

R. Aaij, et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D97 (2018). arXiv:1711.02505, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.072013

arXiv 2018

[7] [6]

Wei, et al., [Belle Collaboration], Phys

J.-T. Wei, et al., [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009). arXiv:0904. 0770, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.171801

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.171801 2009

[8] [7]

Lees, et al., [BaBar Collaboration], Phys

J. Lees, et al., [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D86 (2012). arXiv:1204.3933, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.032012

arXiv 2012