The Strongly Interacting $WW$ System: Gold--Plated Modes

C.--P. Yuan; G. A. Ladinsky; J. Bagger; J. Gunion; K. Cheung; R. Rosenfeld; T. Han; V. Barger

REVIEW

The Strongly Interacting $WW$ System: Gold--Plated Modes

J. Bagger, V. Barger, K. Cheung, J. Gunion, T. Han, G. A. Ladinsky, R. Rosenfeld, C.--P. Yuan

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 10 Jun 1993 · 55 references

Pith's verdict: A broad, honest feasibility study whose channel-to-model mapping holds up but whose year counts are softer than the tables suggest.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 13, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/9306256 (version 1)

Pith IDYPUNPWOM, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationC.--P. Yuan, G. A. Ladinsky, J. Bagger, J. Gunion, K. Cheung, R. Rosenfeld, T. Han, V. Barger. "The Strongly Interacting $WW$ System: Gold--Plated Modes." arXiv:hep-ph/9306256 (1993). https://pith.science/paper/YPUNPWOM

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Worth your time if you work on TeV-scale EWSB at hadron colliders. The real contribution isn't any single cut — the forward jet tag, central jet veto and back-to-back lepton cut all come from the authors' own earlier papers (refs. 12–17). What's new is the integration: one cut package applied uniformly across four leptonic channels and eight models, plus a genuine calibration of the effective-W/equivalence-theorem machinery against the exact SM matrix element in Table 4. That table is the most useful thing in the paper, and the authors are candid about where the approximation is weakest — the Breit-Wigner violation of the equivalence theorem is discussed at length in section 4, not buried. The footnote on page 38 disclosing an earlier programming error in the t-tbar-j comparison is the kind of thing you rarely see and should be worth something. The qualitative conclusion — each model class has at least one channel where S exceeds B, and the channel tells you the isospin of the resonance — is robust and is the paper's lasting point. The same-sign channel, which carries the nonresonant models, calibrates to about 2% in Table 4, so the flagship claim doesn't rest on the shakiest number. Where I'd push back on the reader's report: the 'factor of two in ZZ at the mass cut used' is the M_ZZ > 0.5 entry, not the M_ZZ > 1.0 cut that actually feeds Table 6a. At the cut used the discrepancy is 33%. The stress-test has this right. The real soft spot is that Eq. (4.1) is a discrete Poisson threshold applied to central rates, and neither the EWA/ET normalization error (33–55% in ZZ and W+W− at the middle cuts) nor the background scale uncertainty — which section 4 explicitly says cannot be estimated without higher-order calculations — is propagated. Entries near the ten-year boundary, like Vec 2.0 ZZ at 7.8 years, can flip. There's also a small internal tension: section 4 calls the second mass cut the minimum at which EWA/ET is reliable for all models, yet Table 4 shows 55% at exactly that cut in W+W−. The efficiency-transfer assumption in Table 3 is argued, not demonstrated, though the argument is reasonable. No code shipped, so nothing to reproduce directly. Read it for the channel-model mapping and the calibration table, not for the year counts. Deserves referees.

Referee report

Significance

This is a well-organized and influential survey that established the gold-plated channel strategy for strong WW scattering. Its strengths are real and should be named: the EWA/ET procedure is explicitly validated against the exact subtraction result in Table 4; the Breit-Wigner violation of the equivalence theorem is disclosed and discussed at length in §4 rather than hidden; the efficiency-transfer procedure of Table 3 is stated with a physical justification (jet kinematics follow the initial longitudinal W kinematics and are independent of the strong amplitude); and the resulting channel–model mapping (scalar resonances in ZZ and W⁺W⁻, vector resonances in W⁺Z, nonresonant models in W⁺W⁺) is a falsifiable prediction that has guided subsequent work. The paper is honest about its approximations. The main gap is that the quantitative year counts are not accompanied by the uncertainties the paper itself measures.

Major objections (4)

[§4 and Tables 5–7] The quantitative output of the paper is the years-to-significance in Tables 6a/6b and 7a/7b, obtained by applying the Poisson criterion of Eq. (4.1) to the central signal and background rates of Tables 5a/5b. Those rates carry normalization uncertainties that the paper measures in Table 4 but does not propagate. At the middle mass cuts actually used, the EWA/ET signal exceeds the exact subtraction result by 55% in W⁺W⁻ (12.1 vs 7.8 fb at Mℓℓ > 0.5 TeV), by 33% in ZZ (0.69 vs 0.52 fb at MZZ > 1.0 TeV), and falls short by 24% in W⁺Z (0.13 vs 0.17 fb at MT > 1.0 TeV). Section 4 also states that the background scale uncertainty cannot be estimated without higher-order calculations, so B enters Eq. (4.1) as exact. Because Eq. (4.1) is a discrete threshold on small counts, a 30–50% shift in S or B can move entries near the ten-year boundary (for example, Vec 2.0 ZZ at 7.8 years and O(2N) ZZ at 5.8 years). The qualitative conclusion — that each model class has a channel with S > B — is robust, but the year counts are quoted to two significant figures with no error. Please attach a systematic range to Tables 6 and 7, or state explicitly that the entries are indicative to a factor of order two.
[§4, paragraph beginning 'We summarize our results'] Section 4 states that 'the second mass cut for which we tabulate results is the minimum for which we deem the EWA/ET approximation to be reliable for all the different models.' Table 4 shows a 55% discrepancy at exactly that cut in the W⁺W⁻ channel (Mℓℓ > 0.5 TeV: 12.1 vs 7.8 fb) and 33% in ZZ at MZZ > 1.0 TeV. Either the reliability criterion should be stated quantitatively (for example, 'within 60%') or the cuts should be raised, with the corresponding loss of rate shown. This matters because W⁺W⁻ is the flagship channel for the SM, Scalar, and O(2N) models in Table 6a.
[§2, item 3) and Table 1] Section 2, item 3) says the W⁺Z analysis imposes 'the jet-vetoing of Eq. (2.10)', which is pT(jveto) > 30 GeV, but the W⁺Z row of Table 1 lists pT(jveto) > 60 GeV. Since W⁺Z is the flagship channel for the Vector models in Table 6a (2.8 and 4.2 years), the background in Table 2a and the year counts depend on which threshold was actually applied. Please reconcile the text and the table and, if the threshold was changed, state the effect on the W⁺Z background.
[§2, item 4) and Table 2a] The W⁺W⁺ background budget in Table 2a includes Wtt̄ associated production (0.75 fb before veto) but not the tt̄ cascade in which a lepton from b̄ decay passes the isolation requirement. Section 2, item 4) removes this background only by an assumed isolation requirement ('we assume that charged lepton isolation can be implemented at the level required'), and offers the M(ℓjtag) > 200 GeV cut as an alternative without showing its effect. Since W⁺W⁺ is the discovery channel for the LET_CG, LET_K, and Delay_K models (0.50, 0.75, and 1.2 years in Table 6a), please quantify the residual cascade background after a realistic isolation cut, or show that the M(ℓjtag) alternative retains the signal rates quoted in Table 5a.

Minor objections (6)

[Table 6a, W⁺Z row] As printed, the five entries place Vector 2.5 at 2.8 years and Vector 2.0 at 4.2 years, which reverses the ordering implied by Table 5a (9.5 vs 6.2 signal events at the same 2.5-event background at MT > 0.5 TeV) and by the §4 remark that W⁺W⁺ is superior for Vector 2.5. Please check the column alignment or the entries.
[Reference [38]] 'S. Nachulich' should read 'S. Naculich', as spelled in the acknowledgements.
[Reference [11]] 'Phys. Lett.˙ B252' contains a stray dot.
[Eq. (3.14)] The O(2N) amplitude is typeset as a single run-on string ('16π²s16π²v² − sN[...]'); please set it as a proper fraction so the denominator is unambiguous.
[Figure 3] The caption says the longitudinal signal is plotted above the summed background, but the panels do not visually distinguish the two; a legend or distinct line style would help the reader.
[Tables 7a and 7b] The LHC year counts do not fold in the pileup and minimum-bias concerns raised in §4; please state explicitly that the entries assume one interaction per crossing, so the reader can judge how optimistic they are.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Jet tags and a lepton cut could expose strong W scattering

The reading

The paper asks a practical question: if the mechanism that gives the W and Z their masses is strong rather than a light Higgs, could the SSC or LHC actually see it? Its answer is that the cleanest purely leptonic decays of W and Z pairs — the 'gold-plated' modes $W^+W^-$, $WZ$, $ZZ$ and $W^+W^+$ with electrons and muons in the final state — can be made visible once three cuts are applied together: tag one energetic forward jet, veto hard central jets, and require the two leptons to be nearly back-to-back in the transverse plane. The cuts work because a longitudinally polarized $W$ pair is emitted with a soft transverse-momentum spectrum and leaves forward spectator quarks, while the transverse-polarization and top-quark backgrounds are harder and more central. The authors then compute, for eight representative models of a strongly interacting symmetry-breaking sector, how many years of canonical luminosity each machine needs to claim a signal at 95% or 99% confidence, and find that every model has at least one channel where the signal rises above the background within a few years.

What carries the argument

Three ingredients carry the argument. First, the polarization-based definition of signal versus background: $W_LW_L$ is the physics of the symmetry-breaking sector, while $W_LW_T$ and $W_TW_T$ are essentially Higgs-mass-independent and therefore computable in the Standard Model with a 100 GeV Higgs. Second, the cut triple — a tagged jet with $E>1.0$-$2.0$ TeV at $3<|y|<5$, a veto on jets with $p_T>30$-$60$ GeV at $|y|<3$, and a back-to-back lepton requirement such as $cos phi_{ell ell}<-0.8$ — whose efficiencies are measured in the exact $m_H=1$ TeV Standard Model calculation and then multiplied onto effective-$W$ cross sections for every other model. Third, the confidence-level bookkeeping: Poisson upper limits on background compared with Poisson lower limits on signal-plus-background, converted into the number of 10 fb$^{-1}$ (SSC) or 100 fb$^{-1}$ (LHC) years needed for a 95% or 99% claim.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that strong longitudinal $WW$ scattering is observable at a hadron supercollider using only the purely leptonic channels, provided the backgrounds are attacked with a specific combination of cuts. The signal is defined as the production of two longitudinally polarized vector bosons, $pp -> W_L W_L X$, computed with the equivalence theorem and the effective-$W$ approximation; the irreducible background is $W_L W_T$ plus $W_T W_T$ production, computed with exact Standard Model matrix elements at a light Higgs mass. Because the initial longitudinal $W$'s carry a $1/(p_T^2+M_W^2)^2$ distribution with respect to their parent quarks, the signal events have limited net transverse momentum, forward spectator jets, little central jet activity, and energetic, nearly back-to-back leptons — precisely the features the tag, veto and opening-angle cuts select. The authors report that after these cuts the background in each channel falls to a handful of events per year while the signal, though never large, is larger still for at least one channel in every model class: scalar-resonance models in $ZZ$ and $W^+W^-$, vector-resonance models in $W^+Z$, and non-resonant models in $W^+W^+$.

Load-bearing premise

The numbers rest on borrowing jet-tag and jet-veto efficiencies measured in the exact Standard Model with a 1 TeV Higgs and applying them unchanged to signal rates computed with the effective-$W$ approximation and equivalence theorem for every other model, on the belief that jet kinematics follow the incoming longitudinal $W$'s and are independent of the strong scattering amplitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A strongly interacting symmetry-breaking sector need not be invisible at a hadron collider: the paper's tables give sub-year to few-year sensitivities at the SSC for the Standard Model-like and scalar-resonance cases in $W^+W^-$, and comparable sensitivities at the LHC in $ZZ$, $W^+Z$ and $W^+W^+$.
The pattern of which channel lights up identifies the quantum numbers of whatever unitarizes $WW$ scattering, so the four channels together act as a crude spin-isospin filter rather than four independent searches.
Because $W^+W^+$ has no lowest-order continuum background, it is the natural discovery channel for non-resonant models, and the paper's non-resonant scenarios are indeed most visible there.
If no excess appears, roughly two to three years of 10 fb$^{-1}$ annual SSC luminosity in all four channels would be needed to exclude an obvious longitudinal enhancement, which the authors argue is a reason to pursue higher instantaneous luminosity.

Reading between the lines

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

The efficiency-transfer step is the paper's most portable idea and also its most exposed one: any future analysis that recomputes jet-tag and jet-veto efficiencies directly for a non-Standard-Model signal would immediately test whether the years-to-significance numbers in the tables are stable.
The same polarization logic suggests a cheap cross-check the paper does not pursue: the ratio of $W^+W^+$ to $W^-W^-$ and of $W^+Z$ to $W^-Z$ rates is a charge-asymmetry observable that would distinguish a genuine longitudinal signal from a mis-measured background without needing absolute rate predictions.
Because the cuts rely on forward jet acceptance at $3<|y|<5$, detector coverage in the very forward region becomes a first-order requirement rather than an upgrade detail; a machine without that coverage loses the tag and much of the argument.
The paper's admission that pileup and minimum-bias overlap at the LHC could degrade isolation, vetoing and tagging suggests that the LHC entries in the tables are optimistic relative to the SSC entries by more than the raw energy comparison implies.

Original abstract

In this paper we survey the signals and backgrounds for a strongly-interacting electroweak symmetry breaking sector at hadron supercolliders in the TeV region. We study the process pp->WWX, and compute the rates for the ``gold-plated'' channels, where W^{+/-}->l^{+/-}\nu and Z -> l^+l^- (l = e,\mu), for a wide variety of models. Using a forward jet-tag, a central jet-veto and a back-to-back lepton cut to suppress the Standard Model backgrounds, we demonstrate that the SSC and LHC have substantial sensitivity to strong interactions in the electroweak symmetry breaking sector.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,087 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.08 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.44 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.07 · compares with prior results 0.32 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

In this paper we survey the signals and backgrounds for a strongly-interacting electroweak symmetry breaking sector at hadron supercolliders in the TeV region. We study the process pp->WWX, and compute the rates for the ``gold-plated'' channels, where W^{+/-}->l^{+/-}\nu and Z -> l^+l^- (l = e,\mu), for a wide variety of models. Using a forward jet-tag, a central jet-veto and a back-to-back lepton cut to suppress the Standard Model backgrounds, we demonstrate that the SSC and LHC have substantial sensitivity to strong interactions in the electroweak symmetry breaking sector.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	In this paper we survey the signals and backgrounds for a strongly-interacting electroweak symmetry breaking sector at hadron supercolliders in the TeV region.	contribution 0.78	0.57	0.05	asserted 0.59
s1	We study the process pp->WWX, and compute the rates for the ``gold-plated'' channels, where W^{+/-}->l^{+/-}\nu and Z -> l^+l^- (l = e,\mu), for a wide variety of models.	contribution 0.96	0.94	0.05	asserted 0.96
s2	Using a forward jet-tag, a central jet-veto and a back-to-back lepton cut to suppress the Standard Model backgrounds, we demonstrate that the SSC and LHC have substantial sensitivity to strong interactions in the electroweak symmetry breaking sector.	result 0.77	0.92	0.82	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 0.70 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.98.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (55)

[1]

D. A. Dicus and V. S. Mathur, Phys. Rev. D7, 3111 (1973); B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D16, 1519 (1977); M. Veltman, Acta Phys. Polon. B8, 475 (1977)

View on Pith 1973
[2]

M. S. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B261, 379 (1985)

View on Pith 1985
[3]

J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin, and G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Rev. D10, 1145 (1974); C. Vayonakis, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 17, 383 (1976); G. J. Gounaris, R. Kogerler, and H. Neufeld, Phys. Rev. D34, 3257 (1986); Y.–P. Yao and C.–P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D38, 2237 (1988); J. Bagger and C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D41, 264 (1990); H. Veltman, Phys. Rev. D41, 2294 (1990); H....

View on Pith 1974
[4]

M. S. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard, Phys. Lett. B142, 85 (1984); G. L. Kane, W. W. Repko and W. R. Rolnick, Phys. Lett. B148, 367 (1984); S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B249, 42 (1985)

View on Pith 1984
[5]

J. Lindfors, Z. Phys. C28, 427 (1985); J. F. Gunion, J. Kalinowksi, and A. Toﬁghi-Niaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2351 (1986); W. B. Rolnick, Nucl. Phys. B274, 171 (1986); P. W. Johnson, F. I. Olness and Wu–Ki Tung, Phys. Rev. D36, 291 (1987); Z. Kunszt and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B296, 253 (1988); A. Abbasabadi, W. W. Repko, D. A. Dicus and R. Vega, P hys. ...

View on Pith 1985
[6]

For a review, see C.–P. Yuan, Proposal for Studying TeV WLWL → WLWL Interactions Experimentally , preprint MSUTH 92/06, 1992, to be published in Perspectives On Higgs Physics , edited by Gordon L. Kane, World Scientiﬁc Publishing Company, in press

View on Pith 1992
[7]

J. Kuti, L. Lin, and Y. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 678 (1988); M. Luscher and P. Weisz, Phys. Lett. B212, 472 (1988); Nucl. Phys. B318, 705 (1989); U. M. Heller et al. , FSU-SCRI-93-29 (1993)

View on Pith 1988
[8]

J. F. Gunion et al. , Ref. 5

View on Pith
[9]

R. N. Cahn et al. , Phys. Rev. D35, 1626 (1987); V. Barger, T. Han, and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D37 2005 (1988); R. Kleiss and W. J. Stirling, Phys. Lett. 200B, 193 (1988)

View on Pith 1987
[10]

D. Froideveaux, Proceedings of the LHC Workshop (1990), CE RN 90-10, Vol II, p. 444; M. H. Seymour, ibid, p. 557. 42

View on Pith 1990
[11]

U. Baur and E. W. N. Glover, Nucl. Phys. B347, 12 (1990); U. Baur and E. W. N. Glover, Phys. Lett.˙ B252, 683 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[12]

V. Barger, K. Cheung, T. Han, and R.J.N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D42, 3052 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[13]

V. Barger, K. Cheung, T. Han, J. Ohnemus, and D. Zeppenfeld , Phys. Rev. D44, 1426 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[14]

V. Barger, K. Cheung, T. Han, and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. D44, 2701 (1991); Erratum to appear in Phys. Rev. D; MAD/PH/757

View on Pith 1991
[15]

V. Barger, K. Cheung, T. Han, A. Stange, and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. D46, 2028 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[16]

D. Dicus, J.F. Gunion, and R. Vega, Phys. Lett. 258B, 475 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[17]

D. Dicus, J.F. Gunion, L. H. Orr, and R. Vega, Nucl. Phys. B377, 31 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[18]

talks given by W. Smith, F. Paige, and T. Han at the SSC Physics Sympo- sium, Madison, Wisconsin, Feb. 1991 (unpublished)

View on Pith 1991
[19]

R. W. Brown and K. O. Mikaelian, Phys. Rev. D19, 922 (1979)

View on Pith 1979
[20]

U. Baur, E. W. N. Glover, and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B318, 106 (1989); V. Barger, T. Han, J. Ohnemus, and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys . Rev. D41, 2782 (1990)

View on Pith 1989
[21]

J. Ohnemus and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D43, 3626 (1991); B. Mele, P. Nason, and G. Ridolﬁ, Nucl. Phys. B357, 409 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[22]

D. A. Dicus, C. Kao, and W. W. Repko, Phys. Rev. D36, 1570 (1987); E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B321, 561 (1989)

View on Pith 1987
[23]

D. A. Dicus, S. L. Wilson, and R. Vega, Phys. Lett. 192B, 231 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[24]

V. Barger, T. Han, and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Lett. 200B, 193 (1988); U. Baur and E. W. N. Glover, Phys. Rev. D44, 99 (1991)

View on Pith 1988
[25]

R. K. Ellis and J. C. Sexton, Nucl. Phys. B282, 642 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[26]

P. Nason, S. Dawson, and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B303, 607 (1988); W. Beenakker et al. , Phys. Rev. D40, 54 (1989); Nucl. Phys. B351, 507 (1991). 43

View on Pith 1988
[27]

R. Kleiss and W. J. Stirling, Z. Phys. C40, 419 (1988); H. Baer, V. Barger, and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D39, 2809 (1989); H. Baer, V. Barger, J. Ohnemus, and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D42, 54 (1990); R. P. Kauﬀ- man and C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D42, 956 (1990); G. A. Ladinsky and C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D43, 789 (1990)

View on Pith 1988
[28]

V. Barger, A. D. Martin, and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Lett. B125, 339(1983); V. Barger, T. Han, and J. Ohnemus, Phys. Rev. D37, 1174(1988)

View on Pith 1983
[29]

SDC Technical Design Report, SDC-92-201 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[30]

M. S. Chanowitz and M. Golden, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1053 (1988); 63, 466(E) (1989)

View on Pith 1988
[31]

M. S. Berger and M. S. Chanowitz, Phys. Lett. B263, 509 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[32]

D. A. Dicus and R. Vega, Phys. Lett. B217, 194 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[33]

For a review, see e. g. , J. Bagger, in R. K. Ellis, C. T. Hill, and J. D. Lykken, eds., Perspectives in the Standard Model , World Scientiﬁc, 1992

View on Pith 1992
[34]

C.–P. Yuan, Nucl. Phys. B310 (1988) 1

View on Pith 1988
[35]

G.L. Kane and C.-P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D40, 2231 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[36]

S. Willenbrock and G. Valencia, Phys. Lett. B247, 341 (1990); Phys. Rev. D46, 2247 (1992)

View on Pith 1990
[37]

M. Einhorn, Nucl. Phys. B246, 75 (1984)

View on Pith 1984
[38]

S. Nachulich and C.–P. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B293, 395 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[39]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 166, 1568 (1968); S. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zu- mino, Phys. Rev. 177, 2239 (1969); C. Callan, S. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. 177, 2247 (1969); S. Weinberg, Physica 96A, 327 (1979)

View on Pith 1968
[40]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 616 (1966); M. S. Chanowitz, M. Golden, and H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2344 (1986); Phys. Rev. D35, 1490 (1987)

View on Pith 1966
[41]

R. Casalbuoni, et al., Phys. Lett. B155, 59 (1985); Nucl. Phys. B282, 235 (1987); see also M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rep. 164, 217 (1988), and references therein

View on Pith 1985
[42]

R. Casalbuoni, et al., Phys. Lett. B249, 130 (1990); B253, 275 (1991); J. Bagger, T. Han and R. Rosenfeld, in E. Berger, ed., Research Directions for the Decade, Snowmass 1990, World Scientiﬁc, 1992. 44

View on Pith 1990
[43]

R. Casalbuoni, et al., Phys. Lett. B269, 361 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[44]

A. Dobado, M. Herrero and J. Terron, Z. Phys. C50, 205 (1991); 465 (1991); S. Dawson and G. Valencia, Nucl. Phys. B348, 23 (1991); Nucl. Phys. B352, 27 (1991); J. Bagger, S. Dawson and G. Valencia, in E. Berger, ed., Research Directions for the Decade, Snowmass 1990, World Scientiﬁc, 1992

View on Pith 1991
[45]

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. 158, 142 (1984); Nucl. Phys. B250, 465 (1985); J. Bagger, S. Dawson and G. Valencia, Fermilab prepr int PUB-92-75-T (1992), and references therein

View on Pith 1984
[46]

See, however, A.F. Falk, M. Luke and E.H. Simmons, Nucl. Phys. B365 (1991) 523

View on Pith 1991
[47]

J. G. Morﬁn and W.-K. Tung, Z. Phys. C52, 13 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[48]

M. Berger and M. Chanowitz, Phys. Lett. B267, 416 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[49]

T. Han, G. Valencia, and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 3274 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[50]

J. F. Gunion, J. Kalinowski, A. Toﬁghi-Niaki, A. Abbasabadi, and W . Repko, in Physics of the Superconducting Supercollider , Snowmass, Colorado (1986); Gunion et al. , Ref. 5; Abbasabadi et al. , Ref. 5

View on Pith 1986
[51]

M. Chanowitz, talk presented in the XXVI International Conf. on High Energy Physics, Dallas, Aug., 1992; and talk presented in the Works hop on Electroweak Symmetry Breaking at Colliding-Beam Facilities, Universit y of California at Santa Cruz, December, 1992

View on Pith 1992
[52]

A. Dobado, M. J. Herrero, and T. N. Truong, Phys. Lett. 235, 129 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[53]

R. N. Cahn and M. Chanowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1327 (1986); V. Barger, T. Han, and R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D36, 295 (1987)

View on Pith 1986
[54]

J.F. Gunion et al. , Phys. Rev. D40, 2223 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[55]

J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D47, 101 (1993); SLAC-PUB-5823, talk given at the IXth International Workshop on Photon-Photon Collisions, Un iversity of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, March 23-27, 1992. 45 FIGURE CAPTIONS

View on Pith 1993

Forward citations

Cited by 29 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Constraints on Loryons in a Two Higgs Doublet Model
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In a two-Higgs-doublet model, neutral singlet scalar Loryons remain viable up to about 700 GeV, while charged Loryon representations are strongly constrained by unitarity and Higgs-to-diphoton measurements.
Anomalous Couplings from the Electroweak Chiral Lagrangian for Off-Shell Higgs in $gg\to Z_L Z_L$
hep-ph 2025-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

In the electroweak chiral Lagrangian, off-shell Higgs contributions to gg to Z_L Z_L at leading order reduce to two independent combinations of the anomalous couplings c_t, c_V, and c_ggh.
Double Higgs Production in Vector Boson Fusion at NLO QCD in HEFT
hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Full NLO QCD predictions for pp -> hhjj production in VBF with HEFT couplings cλ, cV, c2V, including non-factorising and Higgs-strahlung diagrams, show that some allowed coupling combinations reshape key observables.
High Energy Vector Boson Scattering in Four-Body Final States to Probe Higgs Cubic, Quartic, and HEFT interactions
hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

With modified Higgs potentials, 2-to-4 vector boson scattering has unitarity violation scales around ten times lower than 2-to-3 scattering and can overtake its cross section at parton energies of a few TeV.
An EFT hunter's guide to two-to-two scattering: HEFT and SMEFT on-shell amplitudes
hep-ph 2023-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors enumerate all independent four-point contact terms for Standard Model particles up to quartic energy growth, and map the quadratic-growth terms onto SMEFT Wilson coefficients and the Warsaw basis.

Show 24 more citing papers

Unitarity Violation and the Geometry of Higgs EFTs
hep-ph 2021-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Non-analyticities in the curvature of the Higgs field-space manifold set the radius of convergence of the EFT expansion, and that radius fixes the scale of unitarity violation at or below 4 pi v.
Is SMEFT Enough?
hep-ph 2020-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Curvature invariants of the scalar field manifold give a field-basis-independent test that separates SMEFT from HEFT, and integrating out states whose mass comes entirely from electroweak symmetry breaking, or that br...
Higgs boson pair production in non-linear Effective Field Theory with full $m_t$-dependence at NLO QCD
hep-ph 2018-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Full top-mass NLO QCD corrections to gluon-fusion Higgs pair production in the electroweak chiral Lagrangian give K-factors near two that vary strongly with the anomalous Higgs couplings, unlike the flat K-factors of ...
Crawling technicolor
hep-ph 2018-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A technicolor scenario in which the Higgs is a genuine dilaton of an infrared fixed point realized in the Nambu-Goldstone mode yields a calculable Higgs mass and a beta-function-dependent potential.
Signals of the electroweak phase transition at colliders and gravitational wave observatories
hep-ph 2018-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Including dimension-eight operators in the Higgs potential, a strong first-order electroweak phase transition detectable by LISA occurs for 3 to 3.5 in the combination c6/f^2 + 3v^2 c8/(2f^4), a region that double-Hig...
High-Energy Vector Boson Scattering after the Higgs Discovery
hep-ph 2014-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A parameter-free direct T-matrix unitarization prescription is derived and implemented to keep effective-theory predictions for high-energy vector-boson scattering inside the unitarity circle.
CP violation with a dynamical Higgs
hep-ph 2014-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A complete basis of twenty CP-odd gauge and gauge-Higgs operators for a non-linearly realised Higgs is constructed, mapped onto the linear dimension-six basis, and used to derive bounds from EDMs, LEP triple-gauge dat...
Higgs ultraviolet softening
hep-ph 2014-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A higher-derivative Higgs kinetic term is shown to equal a specific combination of chiral effective operators, so its gauge-sector effects cancel for a linear Higgs but survive for a composite one, and LHC data bound ...
Strong Higgs Interactions at a Linear Collider
hep-ph 2013-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

At a 3 TeV CLIC with 1 inverse attobarn, double-Higgs production via vector-boson fusion would pin the coupling shift delta_b to about 5% and the compositeness scale 4 pi f to 15-20 TeV, while triple-Higgs production ...
On the effect of resonances in composite Higgs phenomenology
hep-ph 2011-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A single light resonance in an SO(5)/SO(4) composite Higgs model produces a characteristic pattern of enhancement (s-channel) and depletion (t/u-channel) in LHC weak-boson-scattering cross sections, parametrized by it...
Strong Double Higgs Production at the LHC
hep-ph 2010-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In composite Higgs models the WW to hh amplitude grows with energy, and a parton-level analysis finds the resulting pp to hhjj signal in three-lepton final states is marginally detectable at the LHC with 300 fb^-1.
Resonances and Unitarity in Weak Boson Scattering at the LHC
hep-ph 2008-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A single parameterization covering scalar, vector and tensor resonances of any isospin, matched to the chiral Lagrangian and unitarized by a K-matrix, is implemented in WHIZARD and shown to differ from the effective-W...
Measurement and interpretation of same-sign $W$ boson pair production in association with two jets in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2023-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The most precise ATLAS measurement of electroweak and inclusive same-sign W-boson pair production with two jets gives 2.92 and 3.38 fb, consistent with the Standard Model, plus competitive dimension-8 gauge-coupling limits.
Benchmarking Di-Higgs Production in Various Extended Higgs Sector Models
hep-ph 2021-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Across four extended Higgs models, SM-like Higgs-pair production survives current constraints at rates up to roughly twelve times the Standard Model value, and the paper supplies benchmark points and NLO cross section...
Les Houches 2013: Physics at TeV Colliders: New Physics Working Group Report
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Twenty contributed studies from the 2013 Les Houches New Physics working group cover Higgs coupling fits, vector-like quark and composite Higgs benchmarks, SUSY constraints, flavour observables and dark matter, includ...
Disentangling a dynamical Higgs
hep-ph 2013-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Complete four-derivative chiral gauge and gauge-Higgs operator basis, mapped onto the dimension-six linear basis, yields specific coupling decorrelations that current LHC Higgs and triple-gauge data cannot yet resolve.
Exploring Higgs Triplet Models via Vector Boson Scattering at the LHC
hep-ph 2010-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Among three Higgs-triplet models, only the Georgi-Machacek version yields a reachable LHC signal in weak-boson scattering, needing roughly 41 (119) inverse femtobarns for a 1.0 (1.5) TeV triplet in the two-W channel.
Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to W+W+jj and W-W-jj production via weak-boson fusion
hep-ph 2009-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Next-to-leading-order QCD corrections to weak-boson-fusion W+W+jj production are modest (under about 7 percent) and leave residual scale uncertainties near 2.5 percent when the momentum transfer is used as the scale.
Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to W+Z and W-Z production via vector-boson fusion
hep-ph 2007-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Next-to-leading-order QCD corrections to electroweak W-plus-Z and W-minus-Z plus two-jet production at the LHC change total rates by under 10 percent and reduce scale uncertainty to roughly 2 percent.
Observation of electroweak production of a same-sign $W$ boson pair in association with two jets in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2019-06 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

ATLAS observes same-sign W-boson pair production with two jets via electroweak interactions at 6.5 standard deviations and measures a fiducial cross section of 2.89 fb.
Current and future constraints on Higgs couplings in the nonlinear Effective Theory
hep-ph 2018-03 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

A Bayesian fit to LHC Higgs data constrains the leading Wilson coefficients of the electroweak chiral Lagrangian to within roughly 6 to 13 percent of their Standard Model values, and projects how future colliders woul...
Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC
hep-ph 2019-01 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

Extrapolating current LHC analyses to 3 ab^-1 at 14 TeV and 15 ab^-1 at 27 TeV, the report projects percent-level Higgs coupling measurements and a first handle on the Higgs self-coupling.
Vector-Boson Fusion and Vector-Boson Scattering
hep-ph 2016-10 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A structured review of LHC vector-boson fusion and scattering covering signatures, higher-order corrections, parton-shower matching, anomalous gauge couplings, unitarization prescriptions, and the experimental status ...
Comment on 'Primary Dimensions'
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

Primary dimensions are inconsistent because their construction requires rescaling the gauge coupling in the Goldstone boson's covariant derivative, which breaks SU(2)_L gauge invariance of the Yukawa term.

How the literature uses it

40 arXiv papers cite this in 57 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 25 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper

The goal of this study is to refine the analyses of Refs. [ref] for strongly interacting electroweak symmetry breaking.

Observing Strongly Interacting Vector Boson Systems at the CERN Large Hadron Collider · Introduction · 0.92

Uses its method or tool 3 papers

However, the mass of the Kaluza-Klein resonance can be deduced from the Jacobian peak in the transverse cluster mass, defined by [ref]

QCD Corrections to Vector-Boson Fusion Processes in Warped Higgsless Models · $W^±Zjj$ production · 0.83
This requires defining the signal as the difference between the observed number of events and the one predicted in the SM for a reference value of the Higgs mass [ref] , since the contribution from the transverse scattering is not expected to change significantly in presence of new physics: $σ( V_LV_L signal) = σ(VV observed) - σ(SM)$.

New Physics at the LHC: Strong vs Weak symmetry breaking · The Higgs boson: elementary or composite? · 0.83
To estimate the amount of BSM signal for the $WZ$ and $ZZ$ processes, we follow existing literature on the subject, and the work of Bagger et al. [ref] in particular.

The Higgs boson and the physics of $WW$ scattering before and after Higgs discovery · $WZ$ and $ZZ$ as signals · 0.81

Uses its data or values 1 paper

For instance, according to Ref. [ref] , the reaction $W^+W^+→W^+W^+$ in the purely leptonic final state would yield approximately 40 events of signal at $ξ=1$ with $300 fb^-1$, with a background of about 10 events (mostly due to the scattering of transversely polarized $W$'s).

Strong Double Higgs Production at the LHC · Conclusions and outlook · 0.94

Compares with it 2 papers

The expression of $A(s,t,u)$ coincides with that previously obtained in the literature for a vector of $SO(3)$ in $SO(4)/SO(3)$ models, see for example Ref. [ref] .

On the effect of resonances in composite Higgs phenomenology · $ρ^L = (3,1)$ · 0.97
The chirally-coupled vector resonance model of [ref] is identical to ours (see the discussion of the CCWZ formalism in App. [ref]), where we identify $a = (2g_ρv/M_ρ)^2$ and $g = M_ρ^2/(2v^2 g_ρ)$.

Resonances and Unitarity in Weak Boson Scattering at the LHC · Specific Models · 0.98

Cites it as background 22 papers

Such on-shell constructions correspond to the EFT framework known as the Higgs EFT (HEFT) [ref] .

Dimension-8 SMEFT contact-terms for vector-pair production via on-shell Higgsing · Introduction · 0.95
In traditional HEFT [ref] , basis is constructed using the linearly realized sigma field of Goldstone and electroweak gauge eigenstates based on the Callan-Coleman-Wess-Zumino (CCWZ) theory [ref] .

The New Formulation of Higgs Effective Field Theory · Introduction · 0.89
The second approach is what has become known as the “Higgs Effective Field Theory” (HEFT),[Alternately, the Higgs-Electroweak Chiral Lagrangian (EWCh$ℒ$).] in which the only manifest gauge symmetry is $SU(3)_C ×U(1)_em$, see [ref] .

Is SMEFT Enough? · Introduction · 0.97

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

D. A. Dicus and V. S. Mathur, Phys. Rev. D7, 3111 (1973); B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D16, 1519 (1977); M. Veltman, Acta Phys. Polon. B8, 475 (1977)

View on Pith 1973

[2] [2]

M. S. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B261, 379 (1985)

View on Pith 1985

[3] [3]

J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin, and G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Rev. D10, 1145 (1974); C. Vayonakis, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 17, 383 (1976); G. J. Gounaris, R. Kogerler, and H. Neufeld, Phys. Rev. D34, 3257 (1986); Y.–P. Yao and C.–P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D38, 2237 (1988); J. Bagger and C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D41, 264 (1990); H. Veltman, Phys. Rev. D41, 2294 (1990); H....

View on Pith 1974

[4] [4]

M. S. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard, Phys. Lett. B142, 85 (1984); G. L. Kane, W. W. Repko and W. R. Rolnick, Phys. Lett. B148, 367 (1984); S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B249, 42 (1985)

View on Pith 1984

[5] [5]

J. Lindfors, Z. Phys. C28, 427 (1985); J. F. Gunion, J. Kalinowksi, and A. Toﬁghi-Niaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2351 (1986); W. B. Rolnick, Nucl. Phys. B274, 171 (1986); P. W. Johnson, F. I. Olness and Wu–Ki Tung, Phys. Rev. D36, 291 (1987); Z. Kunszt and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B296, 253 (1988); A. Abbasabadi, W. W. Repko, D. A. Dicus and R. Vega, P hys. ...

View on Pith 1985

[6] [6]

For a review, see C.–P. Yuan, Proposal for Studying TeV WLWL → WLWL Interactions Experimentally , preprint MSUTH 92/06, 1992, to be published in Perspectives On Higgs Physics , edited by Gordon L. Kane, World Scientiﬁc Publishing Company, in press

View on Pith 1992

[7] [7]

J. Kuti, L. Lin, and Y. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 678 (1988); M. Luscher and P. Weisz, Phys. Lett. B212, 472 (1988); Nucl. Phys. B318, 705 (1989); U. M. Heller et al. , FSU-SCRI-93-29 (1993)

View on Pith 1988

[8] [8]

J. F. Gunion et al. , Ref. 5

View on Pith

[9] [9]

R. N. Cahn et al. , Phys. Rev. D35, 1626 (1987); V. Barger, T. Han, and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D37 2005 (1988); R. Kleiss and W. J. Stirling, Phys. Lett. 200B, 193 (1988)

View on Pith 1987

[10] [10]

D. Froideveaux, Proceedings of the LHC Workshop (1990), CE RN 90-10, Vol II, p. 444; M. H. Seymour, ibid, p. 557. 42

View on Pith 1990

[11] [11]

U. Baur and E. W. N. Glover, Nucl. Phys. B347, 12 (1990); U. Baur and E. W. N. Glover, Phys. Lett.˙ B252, 683 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[12] [12]

V. Barger, K. Cheung, T. Han, and R.J.N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D42, 3052 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[13] [13]

V. Barger, K. Cheung, T. Han, J. Ohnemus, and D. Zeppenfeld , Phys. Rev. D44, 1426 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[14] [14]

V. Barger, K. Cheung, T. Han, and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. D44, 2701 (1991); Erratum to appear in Phys. Rev. D; MAD/PH/757

View on Pith 1991

[15] [15]

V. Barger, K. Cheung, T. Han, A. Stange, and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. D46, 2028 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[16] [16]

D. Dicus, J.F. Gunion, and R. Vega, Phys. Lett. 258B, 475 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[17] [17]

D. Dicus, J.F. Gunion, L. H. Orr, and R. Vega, Nucl. Phys. B377, 31 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[18] [18]

talks given by W. Smith, F. Paige, and T. Han at the SSC Physics Sympo- sium, Madison, Wisconsin, Feb. 1991 (unpublished)

View on Pith 1991

[19] [19]

R. W. Brown and K. O. Mikaelian, Phys. Rev. D19, 922 (1979)

View on Pith 1979

[20] [20]

U. Baur, E. W. N. Glover, and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B318, 106 (1989); V. Barger, T. Han, J. Ohnemus, and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys . Rev. D41, 2782 (1990)

View on Pith 1989

[21] [21]

J. Ohnemus and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D43, 3626 (1991); B. Mele, P. Nason, and G. Ridolﬁ, Nucl. Phys. B357, 409 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[22] [22]

D. A. Dicus, C. Kao, and W. W. Repko, Phys. Rev. D36, 1570 (1987); E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B321, 561 (1989)

View on Pith 1987

[23] [23]

D. A. Dicus, S. L. Wilson, and R. Vega, Phys. Lett. 192B, 231 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[24] [24]

V. Barger, T. Han, and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Lett. 200B, 193 (1988); U. Baur and E. W. N. Glover, Phys. Rev. D44, 99 (1991)

View on Pith 1988

[25] [25]

R. K. Ellis and J. C. Sexton, Nucl. Phys. B282, 642 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[26] [26]

P. Nason, S. Dawson, and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B303, 607 (1988); W. Beenakker et al. , Phys. Rev. D40, 54 (1989); Nucl. Phys. B351, 507 (1991). 43

View on Pith 1988

[27] [27]

R. Kleiss and W. J. Stirling, Z. Phys. C40, 419 (1988); H. Baer, V. Barger, and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D39, 2809 (1989); H. Baer, V. Barger, J. Ohnemus, and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D42, 54 (1990); R. P. Kauﬀ- man and C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D42, 956 (1990); G. A. Ladinsky and C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D43, 789 (1990)

View on Pith 1988

[28] [28]

V. Barger, A. D. Martin, and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Lett. B125, 339(1983); V. Barger, T. Han, and J. Ohnemus, Phys. Rev. D37, 1174(1988)

View on Pith 1983

[29] [29]

SDC Technical Design Report, SDC-92-201 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[30] [30]

M. S. Chanowitz and M. Golden, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1053 (1988); 63, 466(E) (1989)

View on Pith 1988

[31] [31]

M. S. Berger and M. S. Chanowitz, Phys. Lett. B263, 509 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[32] [32]

D. A. Dicus and R. Vega, Phys. Lett. B217, 194 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[33] [33]

For a review, see e. g. , J. Bagger, in R. K. Ellis, C. T. Hill, and J. D. Lykken, eds., Perspectives in the Standard Model , World Scientiﬁc, 1992

View on Pith 1992

[34] [34]

C.–P. Yuan, Nucl. Phys. B310 (1988) 1

View on Pith 1988

[35] [35]

G.L. Kane and C.-P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D40, 2231 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[36] [36]

S. Willenbrock and G. Valencia, Phys. Lett. B247, 341 (1990); Phys. Rev. D46, 2247 (1992)

View on Pith 1990

[37] [37]

M. Einhorn, Nucl. Phys. B246, 75 (1984)

View on Pith 1984

[38] [38]

S. Nachulich and C.–P. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B293, 395 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[39] [39]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 166, 1568 (1968); S. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zu- mino, Phys. Rev. 177, 2239 (1969); C. Callan, S. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. 177, 2247 (1969); S. Weinberg, Physica 96A, 327 (1979)

View on Pith 1968

[40] [40]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 616 (1966); M. S. Chanowitz, M. Golden, and H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2344 (1986); Phys. Rev. D35, 1490 (1987)

View on Pith 1966

[41] [41]

R. Casalbuoni, et al., Phys. Lett. B155, 59 (1985); Nucl. Phys. B282, 235 (1987); see also M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rep. 164, 217 (1988), and references therein

View on Pith 1985

[42] [42]

R. Casalbuoni, et al., Phys. Lett. B249, 130 (1990); B253, 275 (1991); J. Bagger, T. Han and R. Rosenfeld, in E. Berger, ed., Research Directions for the Decade, Snowmass 1990, World Scientiﬁc, 1992. 44

View on Pith 1990

[43] [43]

R. Casalbuoni, et al., Phys. Lett. B269, 361 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[44] [44]

A. Dobado, M. Herrero and J. Terron, Z. Phys. C50, 205 (1991); 465 (1991); S. Dawson and G. Valencia, Nucl. Phys. B348, 23 (1991); Nucl. Phys. B352, 27 (1991); J. Bagger, S. Dawson and G. Valencia, in E. Berger, ed., Research Directions for the Decade, Snowmass 1990, World Scientiﬁc, 1992

View on Pith 1991

[45] [45]

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. 158, 142 (1984); Nucl. Phys. B250, 465 (1985); J. Bagger, S. Dawson and G. Valencia, Fermilab prepr int PUB-92-75-T (1992), and references therein

View on Pith 1984

[46] [46]

See, however, A.F. Falk, M. Luke and E.H. Simmons, Nucl. Phys. B365 (1991) 523

View on Pith 1991

[47] [47]

J. G. Morﬁn and W.-K. Tung, Z. Phys. C52, 13 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[48] [48]

M. Berger and M. Chanowitz, Phys. Lett. B267, 416 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[49] [49]

T. Han, G. Valencia, and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 3274 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[50] [50]

J. F. Gunion, J. Kalinowski, A. Toﬁghi-Niaki, A. Abbasabadi, and W . Repko, in Physics of the Superconducting Supercollider , Snowmass, Colorado (1986); Gunion et al. , Ref. 5; Abbasabadi et al. , Ref. 5

View on Pith 1986

[51] [51]

M. Chanowitz, talk presented in the XXVI International Conf. on High Energy Physics, Dallas, Aug., 1992; and talk presented in the Works hop on Electroweak Symmetry Breaking at Colliding-Beam Facilities, Universit y of California at Santa Cruz, December, 1992

View on Pith 1992

[52] [52]

A. Dobado, M. J. Herrero, and T. N. Truong, Phys. Lett. 235, 129 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[53] [53]

R. N. Cahn and M. Chanowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1327 (1986); V. Barger, T. Han, and R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D36, 295 (1987)

View on Pith 1986

[54] [54]

J.F. Gunion et al. , Phys. Rev. D40, 2223 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[55] [55]

J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D47, 101 (1993); SLAC-PUB-5823, talk given at the IXth International Workshop on Photon-Photon Collisions, Un iversity of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, March 23-27, 1992. 45 FIGURE CAPTIONS

View on Pith 1993