Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 85 references

A scalar singlet leptoquark that explains B-meson anomalies leaves a −0.7% imprint in Z→τ+τ−, within reach of future Z factories.

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

2026-08-02 17:04 UTC pith:YFM5ZQFM

load-bearing objection Solid, incremental NLO EW calculation of scalar singlet leptoquark effects in Z→τ+τ−; worth refereeing if the authors disclose the renormalization setup. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.29125 v2 pith:YFM5ZQFM submitted 2026-03-31 hep-ph

The effects of a scalar singlet Leptoquark at the Z factory

Dazhuang He , Yu Zhang , Hao Sun This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords leptoquarkscalar singlet leptoquarkZ factoryZ→τ+τ−NLO electroweak correctionscharged-current anomalieslepton flavor universalitytau-pair production
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether a scalar singlet leptoquark built to explain the B-meson charged-current anomalies leaves a measurable trace in Z-boson decays and e+e− collisions at the Z pole. It finds that the tau-pair channel receives a next-to-leading-order correction of up to about −0.7% for leptoquark masses of 1 and 2 TeV, while the muon-pair channel is essentially unchanged. The effect is driven almost entirely by the left-handed coupling of the leptoquark to the bottom quark and tau lepton, so a precision Z factory could directly constrain that coupling. The paper also provides a simple analytic fit to the correction as a function of mass and coupling, making the prediction easy to test.

Core claim

In the minimal scalar singlet leptoquark model built to explain the b→cτν anomalies, where only λ1L_bτ and λ1R_cτ are non-zero, the paper finds that one-loop electroweak corrections shift Z→τ+τ− by up to about −0.7% for both 1 TeV and 2 TeV leptoquark masses. The shift grows quadratically with λ1L_bτ, is almost independent of λ1R_cτ, and is identical for e+e−→τ+τ− at the Z pole. Muon-pair final states receive only negligible corrections. The paper provides an analytic fit, δ_fitted(λ1L_bτ, MS1), and uses it to translate projected 0.1–0.3% Z-factory precisions into limits on λ1L_bτ.

What carries the argument

The scalar singlet leptoquark S1 — a color-triplet scalar coupling a quark to a lepton — enters the Z→τ+τ− amplitude at one loop through vector-boson self-energies, the tau self-energy, and the Zττ vertex. The paper's quantitative handle is the observable δ: the S1-induced NLO shift divided by the leading-order Standard Model rate or width. The effect is controlled by λ1L_bτ, with the fit function δ_fitted(λ1L_bτ, MS1) = (λ1L_bτ)^2 [K2/(MS1+Kd)^2 + K1/(MS1+Kd)] and fitted constants K2 = −0.5919, K1 = −0.03947, Kd = 0.4188.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the automated one-loop electroweak calculation is correct — the renormalization scheme, the Zττ vertex, and the quark masses in the loops — and the paper's remark that the vertex is 'sensitive to the top quark mass' conflicts with its own non-zero couplings to charm and bottom, leaving the loop content not fully pinned down.

What would settle it

An independent one-loop renormalization of Z→τ+τ− in the same two-coupling S1 model would settle the numerics: if the correction is not quadratic in λ1L_bτ, or not capped near −0.7% at the allowed couplings, the central claim fails. On the experimental side, measuring Γ(Z→τ+τ−)/Γ(Z→µ+µ−) at 0.1% precision at a future Z factory would expose a −0.7% tau-width shift if the scenario is right; a null result would rule it out.

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

If this is right

  • If Z factories reach 0.1–0.2% precision on tau-pair observables, they will probe the currently allowed λ1L_bτ region for S1 masses up to at least 2 TeV.
  • The equality of the Z-decay and e+e− collision effects at the Z pole means the same calculation can be compared with both lineshape and forward–backward asymmetry measurements.
  • Muon-pair channels will look exactly like the Standard Model, so they will not constrain the scalar leptoquark in this scenario.
  • The effect's stability across pT, rapidity, and cosθ means integrated rate measurements, not just differential shapes, can capture the full signal.
  • The dominance of λ1L_bτ means the tau-pair channel is a direct handle on the left-handed coupling responsible for the B anomalies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same loops that shift Z→τ+τ− should also generate S1 corrections to Z→bb and Z→cc (or b/c-pair production at the Z pole), giving an independent experimental cross-check the paper does not compute.
  • The paper's remark that the vertex is 'sensitive to the top quark mass' does not match its stated λ1R_cτ and λ1L_bτ couplings to charm and bottom; if the internal quark is charm or bottom rather than top, the mass-sensitivity and the fitted coefficients could shift.
  • Because the correction is essentially independent of λ1R_cτ, a tau-pair precision measurement would not bound the right-handed coupling; combining with B-decay measurements would be needed to separate the two couplings.
  • The fitted analytic function turns any future measurement of the tau-to-muon width ratio into a direct bound on λ1L_bτ across S1 masses, effectively making the Z factory a parameter-light tester of the B-anomaly explanation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the one-loop electroweak corrections to Z->tau+tau-, Z->mu+mu-, and e+e- -> tau+tau-/mu+mu- induced by the scalar singlet leptoquark S1 in the minimal scenario with only lambda1L_btautau and lambda1R_ctautau non-zero. Using the SloopS automated framework, it finds that the mu-pair channel is negligible (O(10^-6)% ), while the tau-pair channel receives a correction of up to about -0.7%, governed mainly by lambda1L_btautau, for both 1 TeV and 2 TeV leptoquark masses. The paper also provides a fitted analytic function (Eq. 3.1), maps current and expected Z-factory constraints into the coupling plane, and argues that the e+e- result at the Z pole is essentially identical to the Z-decay result. The central phenomenological message is that a leptoquark addressing the charged-current B anomalies may be visible in Z->tau+tau- at a future Z factory despite the loop suppression.

Significance. If the numerical result is correct, the paper presents a useful and non-obvious target: a leptoquark motivated by B-physics anomalies can produce an observable ~0.1%-0.7% shift in Z->tau+tau- at FCC-ee/CEPC, with the large allowed left-handed coupling compensating the TeV-scale mass suppression. The paper's strengths include a genuine one-loop calculation rather than a leading-order effective-operator estimate, a clear parameter scan with current constraints, a convenient fitting formula for the coupling-mass dependence, and explicit numerical tables for the Z-pole collider. The main weakness is that the central result rests entirely on the SloopS automated implementation, with no renormalization conditions, no explicit UV-finiteness check, and no independent numerical cross-check; this makes the -0.7% claim currently impossible to verify from the manuscript alone.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 2 and 3, Eq. (2.1)-(2.3)] The central numerical result, delta ~ -0.7%, is obtained solely from the SloopS automated one-loop implementation. The manuscript does not state the renormalization scheme or counterterm structure for the S1 model, does not demonstrate that the one-loop result is UV-finite after renormalization, and provides no independent cross-check. Since delta is itself a one-loop quantity, an error in the counterterms, the gamma5 scheme, or the treatment of the colored scalar could shift the result by its full size. Please provide the renormalization conditions, show the cancellation of UV poles or the residual scale dependence, and, if possible, compare at least one benchmark against an independent calculation or against the SMEFT one-loop matching of Ref. [26].
  2. [Eq. (3.1), Fig. 5, Fig. 3] Eq. (3.1) is a fit to the same numerical points that are used to obtain the delta values; using this fitted function to interpret the future Z-factory precision in Fig. 3 is an interpolation-based inversion, not an independent analytic prediction. The fit quality and the validity range in (lambda1L_btautau, MS1) should be reported, and the function should not be used for extrapolation beyond the scanned region. The current presentation of Eq. (3.1) as an 'analytic function to quantify the LQ effects' is over-stated.
  3. [Table 3 and Eq. (2.3)] There is a sign inconsistency in the central numerical output. Eq. (2.3) defines delta = (sigma_NLO_S1 - sigma_NLO_SM)/sigma_LO, so for negative Delta_sigma_NLO_S1 the value of delta should be negative. In Table 3, however, Delta_sigma_NLO_S1 is negative while delta_BP0 and delta_BP1 are quoted as positive percentages. Figures 3 and 7 also use positive-looking color/axis scales while the text and abstract state a maximum deviation of about -0.7%. If the plotted/tabulated quantity is |delta|, this must be stated explicitly; otherwise the signs should be corrected. This is not merely cosmetic, because the sign of the shift is physically relevant for asymmetry observables.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (4.1)] Eq. (4.1) states that the Z-pole collider correction equals the Z-decay correction. This ignores the fact that a shift in Gamma_tau_tau also shifts the total width Gamma_Z entering sigma_peak = 12 pi Gamma_ee Gamma_ff/(M_Z^2 Gamma_Z^2). The collider delta differs from the decay delta by an approximate factor (1 - 2 Gamma_ff/Gamma_Z) ~ 0.93 for f=tau. The manuscript should either present the exact expression or state this approximation and its numerical impact. This may partly explain why the quoted peak values (0.60-0.63% in Table 3) are slightly below the maximum -0.7% quoted for the decay.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 2] The sentence 'The latter effects would be sensitive to the top quark mass by introducing the internal top quark in triangle loop' is unexplained. A top-quark loop is indeed expected because lambda1L_btautau is the (3,3) element of the left-handed coupling matrix and gives a t-tau vertex, but this should be stated explicitly so the loop-fermion content is clear.
  2. [Eq. (3.1)] The fit parameters K2, K1, Kd are given without units or statistical errors. State the units (e.g., TeV for masses) and the fit range/residuals so the formula can be used reliably.
  3. [Throughout] The manuscript mixes positive and negative signs for delta between the text, figures, and tables. If the intended quantity is the absolute value (as the color bars in Figs. 3 and 7 suggest), label it |delta| and make the convention uniform.
  4. [Minor text] There are several typos: 'Bellec' and 'LHCba' in Table 1, 'the 2th-generation leptons' in Section 3, and 'Combin' in Ref. [14]. Also, the reference for the SloopS-based Higgs-strahlung paper [65] should include the final publication details if available.
  5. [Section 4, Fig. 8] The figure caption says 'angular of final tau+' but the text says 'final state tau-'. Please make this consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central NLO result is a genuine one-loop calculation, and Eq. 3.1 is explicitly a fit rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central result, the ~ -0.7% deviation in Z -> tau+tau-, is obtained by computing NLO electroweak corrections in the SloopS framework, with model parameters fixed by external B-anomaly data and independent one-loop SMEFT matching (Ref. [26]). This is a genuine calculation, not an input recycled as an output. The analytic expression in Eq. 3.1 is explicitly introduced by the text as a fitted function ('we fit a analytic function delta_fitted'), and the curves are described as 'predictions of the fitted function'; this is informal language for an interpolation of the computed points, and it is not used to generate the central -0.7% claim, which comes from the parameter scans. The self-citations to Ref. [65] and to SloopS-related papers are methodological: SloopS is an established external automated tool with a large independent literature, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or renormalization condition is imported from the authors' own prior work. The negligible mu-pair contribution follows from the model's coupling structure (no second-generation lepton couplings) rather than from a circular definition. The absence of explicit renormalization conditions and numerical cross-checks is a reproducibility and validation concern, but it does not reduce any derived quantity to its own input by construction. Therefore the derivation chain is not circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; the scalar singlet leptoquark S1 is a known BSM state. The main inputs are the fitted model couplings (fixed by B anomalies) and the three fitted constants in the analytic function. The computational toolchain is a black-box assumption, and the two-coupling truncation is an ad hoc model choice.

free parameters (2)
  • K2, K1, Kd (Eq. 3.1) = K2 = -0.5919, K1 = -0.03947, Kd = 0.4188
    Fit constants used to reproduce the computed δ as a function of λ1L_bτ and MS1 in Eq. 3.1.
  • λ1L_bτ, λ1R_cτ (benchmark points) = BP0: λ1L_bτ=1.4, λ1R_cτ=-0.1; BP1: λ1L_bτ=2.3, λ1R_cτ=-0.4
    Model couplings fixed from B-anomaly fits (R(D*), Bc, |gτ/gμ|, collider constraints); they set the size of the NP effect at the Z factory.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The S1 Lagrangian in Eq. 2.1 is the correct effective interaction for the scalar singlet leptoquark.
    The paper adopts the standard minimal S1 model to address charged-current B anomalies.
  • ad hoc to paper Only λ1L_bτ and λ1R_cτ are non-zero.
    A minimal framework chosen to address the CC anomalies; the authors explicitly restrict the parameter space to these two couplings.
  • domain assumption The SloopS/LanHEP/FFL toolchain correctly computes NLO EW corrections with the chosen renormalization scheme.
    The numerical results rely entirely on this automated framework; no independent verification or scheme details are given.
  • standard math The one-loop SMEFT matching results of Ref. [26] are valid for deriving low-energy constraints.
    Used to impose R(D*) and related constraints on the LQ couplings.
  • standard math The relation in Eq. 4.1 between the Z-pole cross section and the decay width holds.
    Narrow-width approximation valid near the Z pole.
  • standard math Standard Model input parameters (MZ, ΓZ, etc.) are taken from established references.
    The paper uses standard electroweak inputs for the numerical evaluation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13137 in / 12202 out tokens · 124685 ms · 2026-08-02T17:04:04.526343+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We evaluate the observability of the effects of a scalar singlet leptoquark (LQ) in $\mu$ and $\tau$-pair productions at the $Z$ factory. In the scenario addressing the charged-current anomalies, the LQ contributions to $\mu$-pair final state are negligible. In contrast, a sizable contribution arises in the $\tau$-pair production, which is identical in both $Z$ decay and $e^+e^-$ collider at $Z$ pole. These effects are mainly sensitive to left-handed interaction, showing a maximum deviation of about $-0.7\%$ for both 1\,TeV and 2\,TeV LQ. The suppression of new physics effects from the heavy LQ can be compensated by the enlarged couplings parameter space. For the $\tau$-pair production channel, we further specify the coupling constraints corresponding to the expected measurement precision at the future $Z$ factory. Moreover, we provide an analytic function in terms of the LQ mass and couplings to quantify the LQ effects. The differential distributions in the collision process indicate that the LQ effects remain stable throughout the kinematic region. Meanwhile, the measurement sensitivity of the $\tau$-pair final state at the future $Z$ factory is expected to impose further constraints on the LQ theory.

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

85 extracted references · 75 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1–29, [arXiv:1207.7214]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC , Phys

    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30–61, [arXiv:1207.7235]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Evidence for an excess of ¯B → D(∗)τ − ¯ντ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 101802, [ arXiv:1205.5442]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Measurement of an Excess of ¯B → D(∗)τ − ¯ντ Decays and Implications for Charged Higgs Bosons , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), no. 7 072012, [arXiv:1303.0571]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Aaij et al., Test of lepton universality with B0 → K ∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays, JHEP 08 (2017) 055, [ arXiv:1705.05802]

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Test of lepton universality with B0 → K ∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays, JHEP 08 (2017) 055, [ arXiv:1705.05802]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Aaij et al., Measurement of the ratio of the B0 → D∗−τ +ντ and B0 → D∗−µ+νµ branching fractions using three-prong τ -lepton decays, Phys

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the ratio of the B0 → D∗−τ +ντ and B0 → D∗−µ+νµ branching fractions using three-prong τ -lepton decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018), no. 17 171802, [ arXiv:1708.08856]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Aaij et al., Test of Lepton Flavor Universality by the measurement of the B0 → D∗−τ +ντ branching fraction using three-prong τ decays, Phys

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Test of Lepton Flavor Universality by the measurement of the B0 → D∗−τ +ντ branching fraction using three-prong τ decays, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018), no. 7 072013, [ arXiv:1711.02505]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Caria et al., Measurement of R(D) and R(D∗) with a semileptonic tagging method, Phys

    Belle Collaboration, G. Caria et al., Measurement of R(D) and R(D∗) with a semileptonic tagging method, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020), no. 16 161803, [ arXiv:1910.05864]. – 10 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Aaij et al., Search for lepton-universality violation in B+ → K +ℓ+ℓ− decays, Phys

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for lepton-universality violation in B+ → K +ℓ+ℓ− decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019), no. 19 191801, [ arXiv:1903.09252]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Abdesselam et al., Test of Lepton-Flavor Universality in B → K ∗ℓ+ℓ− Decays at Belle , Phys

    Belle Collaboration, A. Abdesselam et al., Test of Lepton-Flavor Universality in B → K ∗ℓ+ℓ− Decays at Belle , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021), no. 16 161801, [arXiv:1904.02440]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Choudhury et al., Test of lepton flavor universality and search for lepton flavor violation in B → Kℓℓ decays, JHEP 03 (2021) 105, [ arXiv:1908.01848]

    BELLE Collaboration, S. Choudhury et al., Test of lepton flavor universality and search for lepton flavor violation in B → Kℓℓ decays, JHEP 03 (2021) 105, [ arXiv:1908.01848]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Aaij et al., Test of lepton universality in beauty-quark decays , Nature Phys

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Test of lepton universality in beauty-quark decays , Nature Phys. 18 (2022), no. 3 277–282, [ arXiv:2103.11769]. [Addendum: Nature Phys. 19, (2023)]

    arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Adachi et al., Test of lepton flavor universality with a measurement of R(D*) using hadronic B tagging at the Belle II experiment , Phys

    Belle-II Collaboration, I. Adachi et al., Test of lepton flavor universality with a measurement of R(D*) using hadronic B tagging at the Belle II experiment , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 7 072020, [ arXiv:2401.02840]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Aaij et al., Test of lepton flavor universality using B0 →D*-τ +ντ decays with hadronic τ channels, Phys

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Test of lepton flavor universality using B0 →D*-τ +ντ decays with hadronic τ channels, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 1 012018, [arXiv:2305.01463]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 109, 119902 (2024)]

    arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Aaij et al., Measurement of the ratios of branching fractions R(D∗) and R(D0), Phys

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the ratios of branching fractions R(D∗) and R(D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 111802, [ arXiv:2302.02886]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Dorˇ sner, S

    I. Dorˇ sner, S. Fajfer, N. Koˇ snik, and I. Niˇ sandˇ zi´ c,Minimally flavored colored scalar in ¯B → D(∗)τ ¯ν and the mass matrices constraints , JHEP 11 (2013) 084, [ arXiv:1306.6493]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    Sakaki, M

    Y. Sakaki, M. Tanaka, A. Tayduganov, and R. Watanabe, Testing leptoquark models in ¯B → D(∗)τ ¯ν, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), no. 9 094012, [ arXiv:1309.0301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    Bauer and M

    M. Bauer and M. Neubert, Minimal Leptoquark Explanation for the RD(∗) , RK , and (g − 2)µ Anomalies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016), no. 14 141802, [ arXiv:1511.01900]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, A. Pattori, and F. Senia, Anomalies in B-decays and U (2) flavour symmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016), no. 2 67, [ arXiv:1512.01560]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Mandal, S

    T. Mandal, S. Mitra, and S. Raz, RD(∗) motivated S1 leptoquark scenarios: Impact of interference on the exclusion limits from LHC data , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 5 055028, [arXiv:1811.03561]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Crivellin, D

    A. Crivellin, D. M¨ uller, and L. Schnell, Combined constraints on first generation leptoquarks , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021), no. 11 115023, [ arXiv:2104.06417]. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 104, 055020 (2021)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, M. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and L. Schnell, First-generation new physics in simplified models: from low-energy parity violation to the LHC , JHEP 10 (2021) 221, [arXiv:2107.13569]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Borschensky, B

    C. Borschensky, B. Fuks, A. Jueid, and A. Kulesza, Scalar leptoquarks at the LHC and flavour anomalies: a comparison of pair-production modes at NLO-QCD , JHEP 11 (2022) 006, [arXiv:2207.02879]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Buttazzo, A

    D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, G. Isidori, and D. Marzocca, B-physics anomalies: a guide to combined explanations, JHEP 11 (2017) 044, [ arXiv:1706.07808]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Marzocca, Addressing the B-physics anomalies in a fundamental Composite Higgs Model , JHEP 07 (2018) 121, [ arXiv:1803.10972]

    D. Marzocca, Addressing the B-physics anomalies in a fundamental Composite Higgs Model , JHEP 07 (2018) 121, [ arXiv:1803.10972]. – 11 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Gherardi, D

    V. Gherardi, D. Marzocca, and E. Venturini, Low-energy phenomenology of scalar leptoquarks at one-loop accuracy , JHEP 01 (2021) 138, [ arXiv:2008.09548]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Bhaskar, A

    A. Bhaskar, A. Das, T. Mandal, S. Mitra, and R. Sharma, A fresh look at the LHC limits on scalar leptoquarks, arXiv:2312.09855

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Vignaroli, Seeking leptoquarks in the t¯t plus missing energy channel at the high-luminosity LHC, Phys

    N. Vignaroli, Seeking leptoquarks in the t¯t plus missing energy channel at the high-luminosity LHC, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 3 035021, [ arXiv:1808.10309]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Greljo and D

    A. Greljo and D. Marzocca, High-pT dilepton tails and flavor physics , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017), no. 8 548, [ arXiv:1704.09015]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    d. He, Y. Zhang, and H. Sun, Full next-to-leading order calculations for dark matter pair production in the leptoquarks plus dark matter model* , Chin. Phys. C 49 (2025), no. 6 063101

    2025

  31. [31]

    Alvarez and M

    E. Alvarez and M. Szewc, Nonresonant leptoquark with multigeneration couplings for µµjj and µνjj at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 9 095004, [ arXiv:1811.05944]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Haisch, L

    U. Haisch, L. Schnell, and S. Schulte, Drell-Yan production in third-generation gauge vector leptoquark models at NLO+PS in QCD , arXiv:2209.12780

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Haisch, L

    U. Haisch, L. Schnell, and S. Schulte, On Drell-Yan production of scalar leptoquarks coupling to heavy-quark flavours , arXiv:2207.00356

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Buonocore, U

    L. Buonocore, U. Haisch, P. Nason, F. Tramontano, and G. Zanderighi, Lepton-Quark Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020), no. 23 231804, [arXiv:2005.06475]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Raj, Anticipating nonresonant new physics in dilepton angular spectra at the LHC , Phys

    N. Raj, Anticipating nonresonant new physics in dilepton angular spectra at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017), no. 1 015011, [ arXiv:1610.03795]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, FeynRules - Feynman rules made easy , Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1614–1641, [ arXiv:0806.4194]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  37. [37]

    Crivellin and L

    A. Crivellin and L. Schnell, Complete Lagrangian and set of Feynman rules for scalar leptoquarks, Comput. Phys. Commun. 271 (2022) 108188, [ arXiv:2105.04844]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Kramer, T

    M. Kramer, T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Pair production of scalar leptoquarks at the Tevatron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 341–344, [ hep-ph/9704322]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  39. [39]

    Kramer, T

    M. Kramer, T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Pair production of scalar leptoquarks at the CERN LHC , Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 057503, [ hep-ph/0411038]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    Ghosh, P

    A. Ghosh, P. Konar, D. Saha, and S. Seth, Precise probing and discrimination of third-generation scalar leptoquarks, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 3 035030, [arXiv:2304.02890]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Borschensky, B

    C. Borschensky, B. Fuks, A. Kulesza, and D. Schwartl¨ ander,Precision predictions for scalar leptoquark pair production at the LHC , PoS EPS-HEP2021 (2022) 637, [arXiv:2110.15324]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Borschensky, B

    C. Borschensky, B. Fuks, A. Kulesza, and D. Schwartl¨ ander,Scalar leptoquark pair production at the LHC: precision predictions in the era of flavour anomalies , JHEP 02 (2022) 157, [ arXiv:2108.11404]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Borschensky, B

    C. Borschensky, B. Fuks, A. Kulesza, and D. Schwartl¨ ander,Scalar leptoquark pair production at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 11 115017, [ arXiv:2002.08971]. – 12 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Dorˇ sner and A

    I. Dorˇ sner and A. Greljo,Leptoquark toolbox for precision collider studies , JHEP 05 (2018) 126, [arXiv:1801.07641]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    Mandal, S

    T. Mandal, S. Mitra, and S. Seth, Pair Production of Scalar Leptoquarks at the LHC to NLO Parton Shower Accuracy, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016), no. 3 035018, [ arXiv:1506.07369]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    MILC Collaboration, J. A. Bailey et al., B→Dℓν form factors at nonzero recoil and —V cb— from 2+1-flavor lattice QCD , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015), no. 3 034506, [ arXiv:1503.07237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    HPQCD Collaboration, H. Na, C. M. Bouchard, G. P. Lepage, C. Monahan, and J. Shigemitsu, B → Dlν form factors at nonzero recoil and extraction of |Vcb|, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015), no. 5 054510, [ arXiv:1505.03925]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 93, 119906 (2016)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  48. [48]

    Banerjee et al., Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ -lepton properties as of 2023 , arXiv:2411.18639

    Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLA V)Collaboration, S. Banerjee et al., Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ -lepton properties as of 2023 , arXiv:2411.18639

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Abada et al., FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2 , Eur

    FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al., FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2 , Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019), no. 2 261–623

    2019

  50. [50]

    Abada et al., FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1 , Eur

    FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al., FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1 , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019), no. 6 474

    2019

  51. [51]

    Blondel and P

    A. Blondel and P. Janot, FCC-ee overview: new opportunities create new challenges , Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (2022), no. 1 92, [ arXiv:2106.13885]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Agapov et al., Future Circular Lepton Collider FCC-ee: Overview and Status , in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022

    I. Agapov et al., Future Circular Lepton Collider FCC-ee: Overview and Status , in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.08310

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Abdallah et al., CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator, Radiat

    CEPC Study Group Collaboration, W. Abdallah et al., CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator, Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 8 (2024), no. 1 1–1105, [ arXiv:2312.14363]. [Erratum: Radiat.Detect.Technol.Methods 9, 184–192 (2025)]

    arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Dong et al., CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector , arXiv:1811.10545

    CEPC Study Group Collaboration, M. Dong et al., CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector , arXiv:1811.10545

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    C. S. Group, CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 1 - Accelerator , arXiv:1809.00285

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    Accomando et al., Physics at the CLIC multi-TeV linear collider, in 11th International Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, 6, 2004

    CLIC Physics W orking GroupCollaboration, E. Accomando et al., Physics at the CLIC multi-TeV linear collider, in 11th International Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, 6, 2004. hep-ph/0412251

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  57. [57]

    CLICdp, CLIC Collaboration, T. K. Charles et al., The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report , arXiv:1812.06018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    de Blas et al., The CLIC Potential for New Physics , arXiv:1812.02093

    CLIC Collaboration, J. de Blas et al., The CLIC Potential for New Physics , arXiv:1812.02093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    Fujii et al., Tests of the Standard Model at the International Linear Collider , arXiv:1908.11299

    LCC Physics W orking GroupCollaboration, K. Fujii et al., Tests of the Standard Model at the International Linear Collider , arXiv:1908.11299

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1908

  60. [60]

    Saad, Combined explanations of (g − 2)µ, RD(∗) , RK(∗) anomalies in a two-loop radiative neutrino mass model , Phys

    S. Saad, Combined explanations of (g − 2)µ, RD(∗) , RK(∗) anomalies in a two-loop radiative neutrino mass model , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), no. 1 015019, [ arXiv:2005.04352]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    A. G. Akeroyd and C.-H. Chen, Constraint on the branching ratio of Bc → τ ¯ν from LEP1 and consequences for R(D(∗)) anomaly, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 7 075011, [arXiv:1708.04072]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    Ai et al., Flavor physics at the CEPC: a general perspective* , Chin

    X. Ai et al., Flavor physics at the CEPC: a general perspective* , Chin. Phys. 49 (2025), no. 10 103003, [ arXiv:2412.19743]. – 13 –

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Allwicher, D

    L. Allwicher, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo, O. Sumensari, and F. Wilsch, HighPT: A tool for high- pT Drell-Yan tails beyond the standard model , Comput. Phys. Commun. 289 (2023) 108749, [arXiv:2207.10756]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Allwicher, D

    L. Allwicher, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo, O. Sumensari, and F. Wilsch, Drell-Yan tails beyond the Standard Model , JHEP 03 (2023) 064, [ arXiv:2207.10714]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    D. He, Y. Zhang, B. Fawzi, and H. Sun, Higgs-strahlung at the LHC in the inert doublet model, arXiv:2402.11506

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [66]

    Boudjema, A

    F. Boudjema, A. Semenov, and D. Temes, Self-annihilation of the neutralino dark matter into two photons or a Z and a photon in the MSSM , Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 055024, [hep-ph/0507127]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  67. [67]

    N. Baro, F. Boudjema, and A. Semenov, Full one-loop corrections to the relic density in the MSSM: A Few examples , Phys. Lett. B 660 (2008) 550–560, [ arXiv:0710.1821]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  68. [68]

    N. Baro, F. Boudjema, and A. Semenov, Automatised full one-loop renormalisation of the MSSM. I. The Higgs sector, the issue of tan(beta) and gauge invariance , Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 115003, [ arXiv:0807.4668]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  69. [69]

    Boudjema, L

    F. Boudjema, L. D. Ninh, S. Hao, and M. M. Weber, NLO corrections to e+e- — > WWZ and e+e- — > ZZZ, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 073007, [ arXiv:0912.4234]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  70. [70]

    N. Baro, F. Boudjema, G. Chalons, and S. Hao, Relic density at one-loop with gauge boson pair production, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 015005, [ arXiv:0910.3293]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  71. [71]

    Boudjema, G

    F. Boudjema, G. Drieu La Rochelle, and S. Kulkarni, One-loop corrections, uncertainties and approximations in neutralino annihilations: Examples , Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 116001, [arXiv:1108.4291]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  72. [72]

    Boudjema, G

    F. Boudjema, G. Drieu La Rochelle, and A. Mariano, Relic density calculations beyond tree-level, exact calculations versus effective couplings: the ZZ final state , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014), no. 11 115020, [ arXiv:1403.7459]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  73. [73]

    Belanger, V

    G. Belanger, V. Bizouard, F. Boudjema, and G. Chalons, One-loop renormalization of the NMSSM in SloopS: The neutralino-chargino and sfermion sectors , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016), no. 11 115031, [ arXiv:1602.05495]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

    B´ elanger, V

    G. B´ elanger, V. Bizouard, F. Boudjema, and G. Chalons, One-loop renormalization of the NMSSM in SloopS. II. The Higgs sector , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 1 015040, [arXiv:1705.02209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    Banerjee, F

    S. Banerjee, F. Boudjema, N. Chakrabarty, G. Chalons, and H. Sun, Relic density of dark matter in the inert doublet model beyond leading order: The heavy mass case , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), no. 9 095024, [ arXiv:1906.11269]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    Semenov, LanHEP — A package for automatic generation of Feynman rules from the Lagrangian

    A. Semenov, LanHEP — A package for automatic generation of Feynman rules from the Lagrangian. Version 3.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 201 (2016) 167–170, [ arXiv:1412.5016]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  77. [77]

    Semenov, LanHEP - a package for automatic generation of Feynman rules from the Lagrangian

    A. Semenov, LanHEP - a package for automatic generation of Feynman rules from the Lagrangian. Updated version 3.1 , arXiv:1005.1909

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  78. [78]

    Semenov, LanHEP: A Package for the automatic generation of Feynman rules in field theory

    A. Semenov, LanHEP: A Package for the automatic generation of Feynman rules in field theory. Version 3.0, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 431–454, [ arXiv:0805.0555]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  79. [79]

    A. V. Semenov, LanHEP: A Package for automatic generation of Feynman rules in field theory. Version 2.0, hep-ph/0208011. – 14 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [80]

    Semenov, LanHEP: A package for automatic generation of Feynman rules from the Lagrangian, Comput

    A. Semenov, LanHEP: A package for automatic generation of Feynman rules from the Lagrangian, Comput. Phys. Commun. 115 (1998) 124–139

    1998

Showing first 80 references.