Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 63 references

A future multi-TeV muon collider could probe lepton-flavour-violating four-lepton operators at effective couplings as small as (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻², beating current limits by up to tenfold and giving the first direct access to the e−μ oper

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:57 UTC pith:UPTJB5Z5

load-bearing objection Solid SMEFT projection with a genuinely new eµ-channel argument; the global chirality-resolved bounds, however, ride on ±80% longitudinal polarization that the cited accelerator references do not establish. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26020 v1 pith:UPTJB5Z5 submitted 2026-07-28 hep-ph hep-ex

Probing Lepton-Flavor-Violating Four-Lepton Operators at a Muon Collider

Sukanta Dutta , Purnath Unnikrishnan , Yashasvi This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords lepton flavor violationmuon colliderSMEFTfour-lepton operatorsbeam polarizationoptimal observablestau reconstructionWilson coefficients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that a future muon collider, colliding muon and anti-muon beams at 3, 10, and 14 TeV, is a uniquely powerful way to look for charged lepton flavour violation. It focuses on the three processes μ+μ− → e±τ∓, μ+μ− → μ±τ∓, and μ+μ− → e±μ∓, which would be generated by dimension-six four-lepton contact operators in the Standard Model effective field theory. By fitting the angular distributions of the final leptons with the optimal-observable technique — and by combining runs with different beam polarizations and energies — the paper projects 1σ sensitivities of C/Λ² ~ (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻², roughly an order of magnitude better than existing bounds. The key qualitative point is that the e±μ∓ operators have no tree-level constraint from low-energy experiments, so a muon collider would provide the first direct measurement of those couplings; the polarized beams are what allow the left- and right-handed operator contributions to be told apart.

Core claim

The central claim is that the cross sections for these LFV processes are cleanly quadratic in the Wilson coefficients: because the helicity amplitudes for the dimension-six four-lepton operators project onto distinct helicity configurations, the SM-EFT interference vanishes and the differential rate is a sum of squares with each coefficient controlling a specific angular shape. This lets an optimal-observable fit to the cosθ distribution isolate the three operator classes Cℓℓ, Cℓe, Cee. The paper shows that hadronic τ reconstruction plus a hard pT cut suppress Standard Model backgrounds by more than an order of magnitude while keeping most of the signal, and that the signal grows with energy

What carries the argument

The machinery is the set of dimension-six four-lepton SMEFT operators in the Warsaw basis — Oℓℓ, Oee, Oℓe — reduced via Fierz relations to a helicity-amplitude basis. The amplitudes are delta-function projections onto definite helicity configurations, so the cross section is a sum of squares with no linear interference. The optimal-observable technique, applied to binned cosθ distributions of the reconstructed charged lepton, provides statistically efficient coefficient extraction; beam polarization rotates the principal axes of the covariance ellipsoid, and the global combination of polarizations and energies shrinks the least-constrained direction from ±72.4 (unpolarized) to ±0.065 (global

Load-bearing premise

The claimed chirality resolution and per-coefficient bounds at (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻² assume that muon beams with longitudinal polarizations of ±30% and ±80% are available and well-controlled at 3–14 TeV collision points; with unpolarized beams the fit is nearly degenerate (ρ(Cℓℓ,Cee)=−0.99, condition number κ≈390) and the global per-coefficient numbers do not follow.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to perform the same global fit on unpolarized data from a 10 TeV run with 10 ab⁻¹: if the correlation ρ(Cℓℓ,Cee) stays near −0.99 and the condition number remains above ~300 rather than dropping to ~20 once the ±30% and ±80% runs are added, then the advertised polarization-based disentanglement is not real. Alternatively, if the accelerator program cannot demonstrate ≥80% longitudinal polarization of muon beams at multi-TeV energies, the quoted O(10⁻¹¹) GeV⁻² per-coefficient sensitivities are not achievable.

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

If this is right

  • If these projections are correct, a 3–14 TeV muon collider would push bounds on the eτ and μτ four-lepton operators to the 10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻² scale, improving on τ-decay constraints by up to an order of magnitude.
  • The μ+μ−→e±μ∓ channel would yield the first direct, tree-level constraints on the eμ four-lepton operators — operators that µ→eγ and µ→e conversion only touch at higher loops or through semileptonic mixing.
  • Polarized beams would allow disentanglement of the chiral structure: left-polarized beams probe Oℓℓ, right-polarized beams probe Oee, and Oℓe stays polarization-insensitive; combining them breaks the otherwise flat direction in coefficient space.
  • Because the signal cross section grows as (s/Λ²)² while backgrounds fall, higher collision energies multiply sensitivity: 10–14 TeV runs reach O(10⁻¹¹) GeV⁻² compared to O(10⁻¹⁰) at 3 TeV.
  • The quoted per-coefficient limits assume a 1% systematic uncertainty per angular bin; sensitivity improves only as the fourth root of integrated luminosity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the authors leave implicit: if ±80% longitudinal polarization is not achievable at the interaction point, the chirality separation and the global per-coefficient bounds quoted at (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻² would degrade; raw sensitivity to individual operators would survive, but the advertised decomposition would not.
  • A direct extension: the optimal-observable covariance framework is transferable to any polarized lepton collider; at an e+e− machine with polarized beams the same angular-distribution fits would resolve chiral operator mixtures, though the e±μ∓ four-lepton operators have no tree-level counterpart in e+e− collisions.
  • A testable projection: if the e±μ∓ channel yields a null result at 10 ab⁻¹, the resulting 1σ bound would be the first direct limit on those operators, complementing (rather than improving) the loop-level constraints from µ→eγ.
  • A methodological caveat with practical weight: since the RGE running between mτ and 14 TeV is small but non-zero, future global SMEFT fits should treat the fit coefficients as scale-dependent; at the 1% precision level claimed here, that O(few %) shift is no longer negligible.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies charged-lepton-flavour-violating (LFV) processes μ+μ− → e±τ∓, μ±τ∓, and e±μ∓ induced by dimension-six four-lepton SMEFT operators at a future multi-TeV muon collider. It translates existing τ-decay bounds into constraints on the Wilson coefficients, evolves them from the τ mass scale to collider energies with one-loop RGEs, and performs detector-level simulations with FeynRules/MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes, hadronic τ tagging, hard-pT selections, and an optimal-observable analysis of the angular distributions. Combining three centre-of-mass energies (3, 10, 14 TeV) and five muon-beam polarization configurations, the paper reports global 1σ sensitivities C/Λ² ∼ (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻² and claims that polarization and energy combination resolve the chiral correlations among the ℓℓ, ee, and ℓe operators.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful physics case: a multi-TeV muon collider would directly probe LFV four-lepton operators, including the eµ operators that have no tree-level low-energy constraint, with sensitivities well beyond current τ-decay limits. The manuscript has real strengths: the low-energy bound translation in Eq. (7) is explicitly checkable and reproduces Table II; the leading-order signal cross sections in Table III scale as s; the cut flow in Table IV is internally consistent; and the RGE treatment is documented. The central physics idea is interesting and the simulation chain is standard and reproducible.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. VI, Eqs. (23)–(27), Table V] The statistical definition of the quoted 1σ uncertainties is internally inconsistent. The cross-section depends quadratically on C (Eq. (21), with no SM–EFT interference), so the derivative of the event yield with respect to C vanishes at C=0. Equation (23) defines V^{-1} from products Nαα Nββ / (ΔN)²; this is the covariance of the squared coefficients yα = Cα², not of Cα. Nevertheless, Eq. (27) calls εα = √Vαα the projected 1σ uncertainty of the Wilson coefficient, and Table V and the abstract quote values such as C = ±0.0161 (i.e., 1.6×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻²) as bounds on C. If εα is really σ(Cα²), then the corresponding bound on C is √εα, which changes the quoted sensitivities by roughly an order of magnitude. The authors must either specify the reference point at which the covariance is evaluated and justify a linearized Fisher information for C, or consistently report uncertainties on C² and t
  2. [Sec. V, Tables III–IV; Sec. VI.1, Eqs. (28)–(35)] The advertised per-coefficient sensitivities and the chiral-structure resolution depend on including Pµ− = ±80% longitudinal polarization. The covariance improvement from κ = 392.7 (unpolarized, Eq. (30)) to κ = 26.27 (polarization-combined, Eq. (32)) and finally κ = 20.15 (global, Eq. (35)) is driven by the ±80% configurations, which are the only ones in Table IV that strongly differentiate the Cℓℓ and Cee rates. The cited accelerator reports (refs. [47–51]) describe the muon-collider programme, detector card, and physics cases, but they do not demonstrate 80% longitudinal polarization at the interaction point through cooling, acceleration, and spin rotation at 3–14 TeV. If ±80% is not available, the ℓℓ–ee degeneracy is not resolved and the global per-coefficient bounds in Table V — including the claimed chiral decomposition — do not follow. The one-operator-at-a-time sensitivity for a
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table V] The correlation matrices are malformed in the printed text (e.g., “1.85−.95 / .85 1−.95 / −.95−.95 1”); the intended 3×3 matrices should be typeset correctly. Also, the text states ρ(Cℓℓ,Cee) ≃ 0.85 after the global combination, which should be contrasted with the negative correlation in Eq. (28) to avoid confusion.
  2. [Table IV caption] The caption mentions integrated luminosities (1 ab⁻¹ and 10 ab⁻¹), but the table lists cross sections in fb, not event yields. Please state explicitly that the cross sections are not luminosity-weighted and that the luminosities enter only through the significance calculation.
  3. [Eq. (25)] The notation in Eq. (25) should be clarified: as written, χ² is quartic in C, which is consistent with treating V as the covariance of C² but not with the interpretation of εα in Eq. (27). Please define the units of C, Nαβ, and V explicitly.
  4. [References] Reference [14] (Grzadkowski et al.) is missing the publication year/volume; several other references also lack full bibliographic data. Please standardize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the projected sensitivities are Monte-Carlo/optimal-observable extrapolations, and the low-energy constraints are inputs rather than fit outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Signal and background cross sections are obtained from explicit Monte Carlo simulation (FeynRules/MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes) with defined cuts, and the covariance and chi-square are built from the binned angular yields via Eqs. (21)-(27); the global combination is the sum of statistically independent chi-squares in Eqs. (31) and (34). No parameter is fitted to low-energy data and then repackaged as a collider prediction. The tau-decay limits in Table II enter only as RGE initial conditions (Sec. IV, Fig. 1) and as external benchmarks for comparison; they do not feed back into the collider covariance. The only self-citation, ref. [62] (Dutta, Hagiwara, Matsumoto), is a methodological citation for the optimal-observable technique and is not load-bearing for any sensitivity result. The assumption of ±80% longitudinal muon polarization is an external accelerator-physics modeling input; its feasibility is a correctness/robustness question, not a circular reduction. Likewise, the statement that µ→eγ vanishes at one loop for these operators is imported from an external reference and would be a physics-correctness concern, not a circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; invented_entities is empty. Its central claim rests on: (i) the Warsaw-basis four-lepton operator set with real coefficients; (ii) dominance of four-lepton over dipole/Higgs operators (cited to ref. [41]); (iii) the import from ref. [41] that µ→eγ receives no one-loop four-lepton contribution; (iv) unvalidated external inputs — ±80% beam polarization, negligible BIB after cuts, 1% per-bin systematics, Delphes-card tau-tagging at extreme pT; and (v) an assumed luminosity programme (1 ab⁻¹ at 3 TeV, 10 ab⁻¹ at 10/14 TeV). The free parameters are hand-chosen collider configurations, not fitted quantities.

free parameters (4)
  • Muon beam polarization settings P = {0, ±30%, ±80%} = 0%, ±30%, ±80%
    Chosen by hand as the collider configuration (Sec. V, Tables III–IV). Load-bearing for the chirality decomposition: unpolarized data alone give ρ(Cℓℓ,Cee) = −0.99 and a near-flat direction; κ drops from 393 to 26 only after combining polarizations (Eqs. 28–32).
  • Integrated luminosity programme = 1 ab⁻¹ (3 TeV), 10 ab⁻¹ (10 and 14 TeV)
    Taken from the proposed muon-collider programme (Table IV caption). Projected bounds scale as L^{−1/4}, so the headline (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ numbers include these assumed luminosities.
  • Per-bin systematic uncertainty ϵ = 1%
    Adopted in Eq. (24) and Sec. V.1. Not strongly load-bearing because background counts are low (statistics dominate), but it sets ΔN in the OOT covariance matrix.
  • Benchmark coupling for cross-section tables = C/Λ² = 10⁻⁹ GeV⁻²
    Used for Tables III–IV; illustrative only, does not enter the fitted 1σ bounds, which are extrapolated as C ∝ L^{−1/4}.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Four-lepton contact operators dominate; dipole and Higgs-mediated contributions are negligible via s-channel suppression.
    Sec. II, ¶3: 'their contribution to the LFV cross section... is smaller compared to the four-fermion operator [41]'. The argument is qualitative and inherited from ref. [41]; no numerical check is reproduced in the text.
  • domain assumption µ→eγ receives no one-loop contribution from the four-lepton operators, so the eµ operators have no tree-level low-energy probe.
    Sec. III, ¶3, citing [41]. The analogous three-body decays with two muons are kinematically forbidden, so the claim is plausible, but the one-loop vanishing is imported by citation.
  • domain assumption Beam-induced backgrounds are negligible after the hard pT cuts.
    Sec. V, ¶4: 'Qualitative studies... do not contribute significantly' — stated without simulation.
  • domain assumption Longitudinal muon-beam polarization of up to ±80% is available at the interaction point.
    Sec. V and Tables III–IV; no accelerator study establishing 80% polarization at 3–14 TeV is cited (refs. 47–51 are programme reports). This is the paper's weakest load-bearing premise.
  • domain assumption Wilson coefficients are real.
    Sec. II: 'assumed to be real to avoid additional CP-violating phases'. Standard simplification; affects interpretation of interference but not the projected bounds.
  • domain assumption One-loop RGE of the 3×3 four-lepton sub-sector (gauge + hypercharge terms only) captures the scale evolution; Yukawa terms are negligible.
    Sec. IV, Eqs. (12)–(17). Not load-bearing for the central claim: the reported allowed-volume shift between m_τ and 14 TeV is small.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21218 in / 64403 out tokens · 624795 ms · 2026-08-01T00:57:35.572491+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate charged lepton-flavour violation (LFV) induced by dimension-six four-lepton operators within the Standard Model Effective Field Theory at a proposed high-energy muon collider. We study the processes $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\to e^{\pm}\tau^{\mp}$, $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\to e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$, and $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\to \mu^{\pm}\tau^{\mp}$ at $\sqrt{s}=3$, $10$, and $14$~TeV, incorporating beam polarisation and hadronic $\tau$ reconstruction. Using an optimal-observable analysis of the angular distributions, we perform a global fit to the relevant set of four-lepton operators. Projected sensitivities reach $C/\Lambda^{2}\sim(0.6$-$1.6)\times10^{-11}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$, depending on the flavour and chiral structure of the operator, exceeding current limits by up to an order of magnitude. A combined analysis of multiple centre-of-mass energies and beam polarisations significantly improves the resolution of correlations among the Wilson coefficients. These results highlight the strong sensitivity of a future multi-TeV muon collider to charged lepton flavour violating four-lepton interactions, establishing it as a powerful probe of the SMEFT parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26020 by Purnath Unnikrishnan, Sukanta Dutta, Yashasvi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the renormalisation-group evolved values of the experimentally allowed Wilson coefficients at µRS = √ s = 14 TeV, obtained by evolving the low-energy constraints extracted from LFV τ decays at µRS = mτ . The initial points are generated on the ellipsoidal surface defined by the low-energy constraints and subsequently evolved using the one-loop SMEFT RGEs. Since the evolution includes operator mixing,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: compares the energy dependence of the LFV signal evaluated for a benchmark Wilson coefficient and the dominant SM background cross sections. As expected, the dominant SM background cross sections, arising primarily from the W+W− and τ +τ − production channels, decrease with increasing centre-of-mass energy owing to s-channel suppression. In contrast, the LFV signal, induced by dimension-six four-lepton con… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cheng and L.-F

    T.-P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Muon-number-nonconservation effects in a gauge theory withv+acurrents and heavy neutral leptons, Phys. Rev. D16, 1425 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    S. T. Petcov, The Processesµ→e+γ, µ→e+ e, ν′ →ν+γin the Weinberg-Salam Model with Neutrino Mixing, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.25, 340 (1977), [Erratum: Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 25, 698 (1977), Erratum: Yad.Fiz. 25, 1336 (1977)]

    1977

  3. [3]

    Ilakovac and A

    A. Ilakovac and A. Pilaftsis, Flavour-violating charged lepton decays in seesaw-type models, Nuclear Physics B437, 491–519 (1995)

    1995

  4. [4]

    Alonso, M

    R. Alonso, M. Dhen, M. B. Gavela, and T. Hambye, Muon conversion to electron in nuclei in type-i seesaw models, Journal of High Energy Physics2013, 10.1007/jhep01(2013)118 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2013)118 2013

  5. [5]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Theory and phenomenology of two- Higgs-doublet models, Phys. Rept.516, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Pich and P

    A. Pich and P. Tuzon, Yukawa Alignment in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model, Phys. Rev. D80, 091702 (2009), arXiv:0908.1554 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Langacker, The Physics of HeavyZ′ Gauge Bosons, Rev

    P. Langacker, The Physics of HeavyZ′ Gauge Bosons, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1199 (2009), arXiv:0801.1345 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Hisano, T

    J. Hisano, T. Moroi, K. Tobe, and M. Yamaguchi, Lepton-flavor violation via right-handed neutrino yukawa couplings in the supersymmetric standard model, Phys. Rev. D53, 2442 (1996)

    1996

  9. [9]

    Barbieri, L

    R. Barbieri, L. Hall, and A. Strumia, Violations of lepton flavour and cp in supersymmetric unified theories, Nuclear Physics B445, 219–251 (1995)

    1995

  10. [10]

    Barbieri and L

    R. Barbieri and L. Hall, Signals for supersymmetric unification, Physics Letters B338, 212–218 (1994)

    1994

  11. [11]

    Davidson, D

    S. Davidson, D. Bailey, and B. A. Campbell, Model independent constraints on leptoquarks from rare processes, Zeitschrift für Physik C: Particles and Fields61, 613–643 (1994)

    1994

  12. [12]

    Agashe, A

    K. Agashe, A. Azatov, and L. Zhu, Flavor Violation Tests of Warped/Composite SM in the Two-Site Approach, Phys. Rev. D79, 056006 (2009), arXiv:0810.1016 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  13. [13]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation, Nucl. Phys. B 268, 621 (1986)

    1986

  14. [14]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10, 085, arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    A. M. Baldiniet al.(MEG), Search for the lepton flavour violating decayµ+ →e +γwith the full dataset of the MEG experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 434 (2016), arXiv:1605.05081 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Bellgardtet al.(SINDRUM), Search for the Decayµ+ →e +e+e−, Nucl

    U. Bellgardtet al.(SINDRUM), Search for the Decayµ+ →e +e+e−, Nucl. Phys. B299, 1 (1988)

    1988

  17. [17]

    Kouet al., The belle ii physics book, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2019, 10.1093/ptep/ptz106 (2019)

    E. Kouet al., The belle ii physics book, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2019, 10.1093/ptep/ptz106 (2019)

    doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz106 2019

  18. [18]

    Hayasakaet al.(Belle), New Search for tau ->mu gamma and tau ->e gamma Decays at Belle, Phys

    K. Hayasakaet al.(Belle), New Search for tau ->mu gamma and tau ->e gamma Decays at Belle, Phys. Lett. B666, 16 (2008), arXiv:0705.0650 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    Aubertet al.(BABAR Collaboration), Searches for lepton flavor violation in the decaysτ± →e ±γandτ ± →µ ±γ, Phys

    B. Aubertet al.(BABAR Collaboration), Searches for lepton flavor violation in the decaysτ± →e ±γandτ ± →µ ±γ, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 021802 (2010)

    2010

  20. [20]

    K.Hayasakaet al.,SearchforLeptonFlavorViolatingTauDecaysintoThreeLeptonswith719MillionProducedTau+Tau- Pairs, Phys. Lett. B687, 139 (2010), arXiv:1001.3221 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  21. [21]

    W. H. Bertlet al.(SINDRUM II), A Search for muon to electron conversion in muonic gold, Eur. Phys. J. C47, 337 (2006)

    2006

  22. [22]

    Bartoszeket al.(R.Group),Mu2e Technical Design Report, Tech

    L. Bartoszeket al.(R.Group),Mu2e Technical Design Report, Tech. Rep. (2015) comments: compressed file, 888 pages, 621 figures, 126 tables; full resolution available at http://mu2e.fnal.gov, arXiv:1501.05241

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Abramishviliet al.(The COMET Collaboration), Comet phase-i technical design report, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2020, 10.1093/ptep/ptz125 (2020)

    R. Abramishviliet al.(The COMET Collaboration), Comet phase-i technical design report, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2020, 10.1093/ptep/ptz125 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz125 2020

  24. [24]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Search for the lepton flavour violating decayB + →K +µ−τ + usingB ∗0 s2 decays, JHEP06, 129, arXiv:2003.04352 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Search for the lepton flavour violating decayB + →K +µ−τ + usingB ∗0 s2 decays, JHEP06, 129, arXiv:2003.04352 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2003

  25. [25]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Search for Lepton-Flavor Violating DecaysB+ →K +µ±e∓, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Search for Lepton-Flavor Violating DecaysB+ →K +µ±e∓, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 241802 (2019), arXiv:1909.01010 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Abreuet al.(DELPHI), A Search for lepton flavor violation in Z0 decays, Phys

    P. Abreuet al.(DELPHI), A Search for lepton flavor violation in Z0 decays, Phys. Lett. B298, 247 (1993)

    1993

  27. [27]

    Adrianiet al.(L3), Search for lepton flavor violation in Z decays, Phys

    O. Adrianiet al.(L3), Search for lepton flavor violation in Z decays, Phys. Lett. B316, 427 (1993)

    1993

  28. [28]

    Calibbi and G

    L. Calibbi and G. Signorelli, Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An Experimental and Theoretical Introduction, Riv. Nuovo Cim.41, 71 (2018), arXiv:1709.00294 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Banerjee, B

    S. Banerjee, B. Bhattacherjee, M. Mitra, and M. Spannowsky, The Lepton Flavour Violating Higgs Decays at the HL-LHC and the ILC, JHEP07, 059, arXiv:1603.05952 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    A. K. Barik, A. Dey, and T. Samui, Search for lepton flavor violating signals at the future electron-proton colliders, Physics Letters B872, 140048 (2026)

    2026

  31. [31]

    Calibbi, X

    L. Calibbi, X. Marcano, and J. Roy, Z lepton flavour violation as a probe for new physics at futuree+e− colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1054 (2021), arXiv:2107.10273 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators I: Formalism and lambda Dependence, JHEP10, 087, arXiv:1308.2627 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence, JHEP01, 035, arXiv:1310.4838 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    R.Alonso, E.E.Jenkins, A.V.Manohar,andM.Trott,RenormalizationGroupEvolutionoftheStandardModelDimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology, JHEP04, 159, arXiv:1312.2014 [hep-ph]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    Casarsa (Muon Collider), Prospects of a future multi-TeV muon collider, SciPost Phys

    M. Casarsa (Muon Collider), Prospects of a future multi-TeV muon collider, SciPost Phys. Proc.8, 061 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    T. Han, D. Liu, I. Low, and X. Wang, Electroweak couplings of the higgs boson at a multi-tev muon collider, Phys. Rev. D103, 013002 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Buttazzo, D

    D. Buttazzo, D. Redigolo, F. Sala, and A. Tesi, Fusing Vectors into Scalars at High Energy Lepton Colliders, JHEP11, 144, arXiv:1807.04743 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Abadaet al.(FCC), FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2, Eur

    A. Abadaet al.(FCC), FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2, Eur. Phys. J. ST228, 261 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    J. F. Kamenik, A. Korajac, M. Szewc, M. Tammaro, and J. Zupan, Flavor-violating Higgs and Z boson decays at a future circular lepton collider, Phys. Rev. D109, L011301 (2024), arXiv:2306.17520 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Altmannshofer, P

    W. Altmannshofer, P. Munbodh, and T. Oh, Probing lepton flavor violation at Circular Electron-Positron Colliders, JHEP 08, 026, arXiv:2305.03869 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Jahedi and A

    S. Jahedi and A. Sarkar, Exploring optimal sensitivity of lepton flavor violating effective couplings at the e+e- colliders, Phys. Rev. D110, 095021 (2024), arXiv:2408.00190 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Davidson,µ→eγand matching atm W, Eur

    S. Davidson,µ→eγand matching atm W, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 370 (2016), arXiv:1601.07166 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    M. Ardu, S. Davidson, and M. Gorbahn, The sensitivity ofµ→eprocesses toτflavour change, Phys. Rev. D105, 096040 (2022), arXiv:2202.09246 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), A search for lepton-flavor-violating decays of theZboson into aτ-lepton and a light lepton with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), A search for lepton-flavor-violating decays of theZboson into aτ-lepton and a light lepton with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D98, 092010 (2018), arXiv:1804.09568 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    N.V.MokhovandS.I.Striganov,DetectorBackgroundatMuonColliders,Phys.Procedia37,2015(2012),arXiv:1204.6721 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    J. P. Delahayeet al., Muon Colliders (2019), arXiv:1901.06150 [physics.acc-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    K. M. Blacket al., Muon Collider Forum report, JINST19(02), T02015, arXiv:2209.01318 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    K. Long, D. Lucchesi, M. Palmer, N. Pastrone, D. Schulte, and V. Shiltsev, Muon colliders to expand frontiers of particle physics, Nature Phys.17, 289 (2021), arXiv:2007.15684 [physics.acc-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    T. Han, Y. Ma, and K. Xie, High energy leptonic collisions and electroweak parton distribution functions, Phys. Rev. D 103, L031301 (2021), arXiv:2007.14300 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Aimeet al.,Muon Collider Physics Summary, Tech

    C. Aimeet al.,Muon Collider Physics Summary, Tech. Rep. (IMCC, 2022) 21 pages, 7 figures; Contribution to Snowmass 2021, arXiv:2203.07256

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    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, 2250 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond, JHEP06, 128, arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, 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, 159 (2015), arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [55]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3), DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP02, 057, arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    Lucchesi and D

    D. Lucchesi and D. Zuliani, Release of simplified detector performance model (delphes card or/and similar format) (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Delphes Collaboration, Muon collider detector delphes card (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  59. [59]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  60. [60]

    Diehl and O

    M. Diehl and O. Nachtmann, Optimal observables for the measurement of three gauge boson couplings in e+ e- —>W+ W-, Z. Phys. C62, 397 (1994)

    1994

  61. [61]

    J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and S. Dawson,The Higgs Hunter’s Guide, Vol. 80 (Front.Phys., 2000)

    2000

  62. [62]

    Dutta, K

    S. Dutta, K. Hagiwara, and Y. Matsumoto, Measuring the higgs-vector boson couplings at lineare+e− collider, Phys. Rev. D78, 115016 (2008)

    2008

  63. [63]

    Bhattacharya, S

    S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, S. Nandi, and A. Sarkar, Probing flavor constrained SMEFT operators through tc production at the muon collider, JHEP07, 061, arXiv:2312.14872 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv