pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16596 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

New Physics Reach through Precision at Future Colliders: a Multi-Pronged Approach

Tommaso Armadillo , Eugenia Celada , Jaco ter Hoeve , Fabio Maltoni , Luca Mantani , Juan Rojo , Alejo N. Rossia , Simone Tentori
show 2 more authors
Marion O. A. Thomas Eleni Vryonidou
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 08:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords SMEFTFCC-eeHiggs couplingsprecision measurementsnew physicseffective field theorycomposite Higgscollider projections
0
0 comments X

The pith

Future electron-positron colliders can constrain new physics through precision measurements of Standard Model interactions interpreted in multiple effective theories.

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

The paper projects how facilities such as FCC-ee will test for new physics by making high-precision measurements of known Standard Model processes. It interprets the expected data in three linked ways: simple adjustments to Higgs couplings, effective couplings for Higgs and electroweak observables, and full global fits in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory that evolve parameters with energy, add linear and quadratic terms, and incorporate next-to-leading-order corrections. These fits are then matched to concrete ultraviolet models including composite Higgs scenarios and single-particle extensions. A sympathetic reader would care because the work shows that precision data can reach new physics scales even when no new particles are produced directly.

Core claim

Projections for FCC-ee, LEP3 and the Linear Collider Facility demonstrate substantial sensitivity to new physics when Standard Model precision measurements are analyzed in Higgs coupling modifiers, effective Higgs and electroweak couplings, and global SMEFT fits that include renormalisation-group evolution, linear and quadratic contributions, and available NLO corrections, with explicit matching to ultraviolet-complete benchmark models such as composite Higgs and single-particle Standard Model extensions.

What carries the argument

Global SMEFT fits that incorporate renormalisation-group evolution, linear and quadratic operator contributions, and next-to-leading-order corrections, matched to ultraviolet-complete models.

If this is right

  • FCC-ee precision data can exclude or favor composite Higgs models at multi-TeV scales through the induced EFT coefficients.
  • Including RGE evolution and NLO corrections tightens bounds on effective operators relative to leading-order analyses.
  • The three complementary frameworks permit cross-checks of any observed deviation across different theoretical assumptions.
  • Single-particle extensions of the Standard Model become testable via the specific patterns they induce in the global fits.
  • The released SMEFiT update allows these projections to be reproduced and extended to additional observables or models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the projections hold, they would support prioritizing high-luminosity precision runs at future e+e- machines as complementary discovery tools.
  • The same multi-framework approach could be applied to other planned facilities to compare indirect reaches.
  • Large discrepancies between linear and quadratic SMEFT results would indicate the need to consider higher-dimensional operators or the breakdown of the EFT.
  • Improved experimental precision on any single observable would propagate to stronger constraints across the full set of matched UV scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The Standard Model Effective Field Theory remains valid and sufficient to describe physics at the energies and precision levels projected for these future colliders.

What would settle it

A set of precision measurements at FCC-ee that deviates from Standard Model expectations in a pattern that cannot be fit by any combination of SMEFT operators even after including quadratic terms, RGE evolution, and NLO corrections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16596 by Alejo N. Rossia, Eleni Vryonidou, Eugenia Celada, Fabio Maltoni, Jaco ter Hoeve, Juan Rojo, Luca Mantani, Marion O. A. Thomas, Simone Tentori, Tommaso Armadillo.

Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: The projected percentage uncertainties (from the half-width of the 68% C.I.) for the measurement of the coupling modifiers κi for fermions, gauge bosons, and loop-induced processes respectively, in the kappa-0 framework. Each collider is treated separately, and in particular no common HL-LHC baseline is assumed. The dashed bars indicate the sensitivity degradation once theory uncertainties in the SM pred… view at source ↗
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: displays a similar comparison as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: The projected relative uncertainties (at the 68% C.I.) for the determination of the electroweak effective couplings defined in Sect. 2.3: the left- and right-handed couplings to the Z-boson (left and right upper panels, respectively) and the W-boson effective couplings (bottom panel). The empty dashed bars correspond to the HL-LHC projections, taken as baseline. For each of the proposed future colliders,… view at source ↗
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1: Results (length of the 95% C.I. bounds) of individual (triangles) and global marginalised (filled bars) fits to the projections for different future colliders for the nop = 61 Wilson coefficients that compose our basis, displayed at the reference scale of µ0 = 10 TeV. These fits are carried out at the linear level, O [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.3. Figure 6.3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.4. Figure 6.4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.5
Figure 6.5. Figure 6.5: The entries of the Fisher information matrix, evaluated at linear order in the EFT expansion, for the fits based on the LEP3, FCC-ee, LCF-550 and LCF-1000 projections (from left to right). For this analysis, we cluster the input datasets into three groups: LEP, HL-LHC, and either LEP3, FCC-ee, or LCF respectively, in the latter case separating the different √ s runs. Theoretical uncertainties are include… view at source ↗
Figure 6.6
Figure 6.6. Figure 6.6: The correlation matrix in the space of Wilson coefficients in a global SMEFT fit carried out at the linear level to LEP, (HL-)LHC, and FCC-ee projections. The numerical value of the correlation is shown only for those entries of the matrix satisfying |ρ| > 0.2. See Fig. E.4 for the corresponding correlation map in the quadratic fit. 6.2 Impact of quadratic EFT corrections The results presented in Sect. 6… view at source ↗
Figure 6.7
Figure 6.7. Figure 6.7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_6_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.8
Figure 6.8. Figure 6.8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_6_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.9
Figure 6.9. Figure 6.9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_6_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.10
Figure 6.10. Figure 6.10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_6_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.11
Figure 6.11. Figure 6.11: The 68% C.I. bounds on the Higgs self-coupling modifier δκ3 obtained in linear and quadratic EFT fits to different future collider projections, for both the conservative and aggressive scenario for theoretical uncertainties. Bounds correspond to a reference scale of µ0 = 250 GeV. We compare the HL-LHC projections with those from the FCC-ee, LEP3, LCF550 and LCF1000, in all cases with the HL-LHC dataset … view at source ↗
Figure 7.1
Figure 7.1. Figure 7.1: The 95% C.L. reach on the heavy particle mass MUV in representative single-particle extensions of the SM matched onto the SMEFT. This mass reach is determined by a χ 2 scan by imposing the condition χ 2 (MUV) = χ 2 SM + 3.84. All UV couplings gUV are set to be either 1 or 1 TeV, depending on their dimensionality, at the matching scale µ = MUV. We display the bounds obtained from the HL-LHC and then those… view at source ↗
Figure 7.2
Figure 7.2. Figure 7.2: The projected 95% C. I. (H.D.I.) excluded regions (shaded) on the coupling g∗ as a function of the mass parameter m∗ of the SILH scenario, obtained from the global SMEFT fit with theoretical predictions following the matching relations summarised in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_7_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present projections for the sensitivity of future high-energy colliders to new physics through precision measurements of the Standard Model (SM) interactions, focusing on near-term electron-positron facilities: FCC-ee, LEP3, and the Linear Collider Facility. We interpret these projections in three complementary frameworks: Higgs coupling modifiers, effective Higgs and electroweak couplings, and global SMEFT fits. The SMEFT analysis includes renormalisation-group evolution, linear/quadratic contributions, and NLO corrections to EFT cross sections where available. By matching the EFT to UV-complete models, we also quantify the sensitivity of future colliders to representative benchmark scenarios, including composite Higgs models and single-particle SM extensions. In parallel, we release an updated version of the open-source SMEFiT framework, enabling the results presented here to be fully reproduced, extended, and customised.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents projections for the new physics sensitivity of future e+e- colliders (FCC-ee, LEP3, LCF) to precision SM measurements, interpreted via Higgs coupling modifiers, effective Higgs/electroweak couplings, and global SMEFT fits that incorporate RGE evolution, linear plus quadratic terms, and available NLO corrections. It matches selected EFT results to UV benchmarks including composite Higgs models and single-particle extensions, while releasing an updated open-source SMEFiT framework to enable full reproduction and extension of the results.

Significance. If the projections and their uncertainties hold, the work would be significant for collider physics planning by offering a multi-framework comparison of reach, with explicit inclusion of RGE, quadratic, and NLO effects plus UV matching. The release of updated SMEFiT code is a clear strength that supports reproducibility and community use.

major comments (1)
  1. [SMEFT global fit section] SMEFT global fit section: the central projections rely on the dim-6 truncation remaining accurate to per-mille or better at FCC-ee energies and luminosities, yet the manuscript provides no explicit assessment of dim-8 operator contributions or the size of truncation errors after RGE evolution from the matching scale; this directly affects the reliability of the extracted Wilson coefficient bounds and the UV model interpretations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief statement on the assumed new-physics scale and cutoff used for the RGE running.
  2. [Results figures] Figure captions for the sensitivity plots should explicitly note which observables enter the global fit and whether quadratic terms are included.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review. The single major comment raises a valid point about the lack of explicit truncation error assessment in the SMEFT analysis. We address it below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: SMEFT global fit section: the central projections rely on the dim-6 truncation remaining accurate to per-mille or better at FCC-ee energies and luminosities, yet the manuscript provides no explicit assessment of dim-8 operator contributions or the size of truncation errors after RGE evolution from the matching scale; this directly affects the reliability of the extracted Wilson coefficient bounds and the UV model interpretations.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not contain an explicit quantitative assessment of dim-8 operator contributions or the associated truncation errors after RGE evolution. While the SMEFT analysis includes linear and quadratic dim-6 terms, RGE evolution, and available NLO corrections, no dedicated discussion or estimate of higher-dimensional effects is provided. This omission limits the ability to fully assess the robustness of the Wilson coefficient bounds and the UV matching interpretations at the per-mille precision targeted by FCC-ee. In the revised version we will add a concise subsection (likely in Section 4 or an appendix) that supplies power-counting estimates of dim-8 effects. These will be based on naive dimensional analysis for representative operators, evaluated at FCC-ee energies and luminosities, and will comment on the impact of RGE mixing from the matching scale. We will also clarify the regime of validity for the tree-level dim-6 matching to the UV benchmark models. The central numerical projections themselves will remain unchanged, but the added discussion will better contextualize their applicability and limitations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: projections are forward calculations from external assumptions

full rationale

The paper derives sensitivity projections for future colliders by applying assumed luminosities, detector performances, and the SMEFT framework (with RGE evolution, linear/quadratic terms, and NLO corrections) to compute expected precisions on observables. These are then interpreted in coupling modifiers, effective couplings, and global fits, with matching to selected UV benchmarks. The central results are forward predictions, not statistical fits to the same data, and the release of updated SMEFiT code allows external reproduction. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce claims to unverified premises appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit list of fitted parameters or ad-hoc axioms; standard SMEFT assumptions (validity below cutoff, truncation at dimension-6) are implicit but not enumerated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5481 in / 1093 out tokens · 38996 ms · 2026-05-10T08:00:16.377837+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. When Two Loops Matter: Electroweak Precision in the SMEFT

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A modification to the top-Higgs Yukawa coupling in SMEFT induces a two-loop shift in the W mass through a large anomalous dimension, providing a new indirect probe via electroweak precision observables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    de Blas, Y

    J. de Blas, Y. Du, C. Grojean, J. Gu, V. Miralles, M. E. Peskin, J. Tian, M. Vos, and E. Vryonidou, “Global SMEFT Fits at Future Colliders,”arXiv:2206.08326 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  2. [2]

    Report of the 2021 U.S. Community Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2021),

    J. N. Butler, R. S. Chivukula, A. de Gouvea, T. Han, Y.-K. Kim, P. Cushman, G. R. Farrar, Y. G. Kolomensky, S. Nagaitsev, N. Yunes, S. Gourlay, and T. Raubenheimer, “Report of the 2021 U.S. Community Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2021),” 30. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1922503

    work page arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    The European Strategy for Particle Physics: 2026 Update - Recommendations by the European Strategy Group,

    “The European Strategy for Particle Physics: 2026 Update - Recommendations by the European Strategy Group,” tech. rep., Monte Verit` a/Ascona, Switzerland, 2025. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2950671. [4]Linear ColliderCollaboration, A. Subba et al., “The Linear Collider Facility (LCF) at CERN,” arXiv:2503.24049 [hep-ex]. [5]Linear Collider VisionCollaborati...

    work page arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    LEP3: A High-Luminosity e+e- Higgs and ElectroweakFactory in the LHC Tunnel,

    C. Anastopoulos et al., “LEP3: A High-Luminosity e+e- Higgs and ElectroweakFactory in the LHC Tunnel,”arXiv:2504.00541 [physics.acc-ph]. [7]LHeC, FCC-he Study GroupCollaboration, P. Agostini et al., “The Large Hadron–Electron Collider at the HL-LHC,” J. Phys. G48no. 11, (2021) 110501,arXiv:2007.14491 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    The Large Hadron electron Collider as a bridge project for CERN,

    F. Ahmadova et al., “The Large Hadron electron Collider as a bridge project for CERN,” arXiv:2503.17727 [hep-ex]. [9]LHeC Study GroupCollaboration, J. L. Abelleira Fernandez et al., “A Large Hadron Electron Collider at CERN: Report on the Physics and Design Concepts for Machine and Detector,” J. Phys. G39(2012) 075001,arXiv:1206.2913 [physics.acc-ph]

    work page arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Physics Prospects for a near-term Proton-Proton Collider,

    V. Cavaliere, M. Dunford, H. M. Gray, E. Lipeles, A. Lister, and C. Nellist, “Physics Prospects for a near-term Proton-Proton Collider,”arXiv:2504.00951 [hep-ex]. [11]CEPC Physics Study GroupCollaboration, H. Cheng et al., “The Physics potential of the CEPC. Prepared for the US Snowmass Community Planning Exercise (Snowmass 2021),” in Snowmass 2021. 5, 20...

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, “The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory,” Phys. Rept.793(2019) 1–98,arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch, and D. Wyler, “The standard model effective field theory at work,” Rev. Mod. Phys.96no. 1, (2024) 015006,arXiv:2303.16922 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Barklow, K

    T. Barklow, K. Fujii, S. Jung, R. Karl, J. List, T. Ogawa, M. E. Peskin, and J. Tian, “Improved Formalism for Precision Higgs Coupling Fits,” Phys. Rev. D97no. 5, (2018) 053003, arXiv:1708.08912 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Data-Driven Discovery Strategy for Standard Model Effective Field Theory Searches,

    M. Hirsch, L. Mantani, and V. Sanz, “Data-Driven Discovery Strategy for Standard Model Effective Field Theory Searches,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135no. 24, (2025) 241801,arXiv:2507.11109 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    The FERMIACC: Agents for Particle Theory

    P. Agrawal, N. Craig, A. Madden, and I. V. Lombera, “The FERMIACC: Agents for Particle Theory,”arXiv:2603.22538 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  12. [12]

    Hartland, F

    N. P. Hartland, F. Maltoni, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, “A Monte Carlo global analysis of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory: the top quark sector,” JHEP04 (2019) 100,arXiv:1901.05965 [hep-ph]. 66

    work page arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Constraining the SMEFT with Bayesian reweighting,

    S. van Beek, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, and E. Slade, “Constraining the SMEFT with Bayesian reweighting,” SciPost Phys.7no. 5, (2019) 070,arXiv:1906.05296 [hep-ph]. [20]SMEFiTCollaboration, J. J. Ethier, G. Magni, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, “Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quar...

    work page arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    SMEFT analysis of vector boson scattering and diboson data from the LHC Run II,

    J. J. Ethier, R. Gomez-Ambrosio, G. Magni, and J. Rojo, “SMEFT analysis of vector boson scattering and diboson data from the LHC Run II,” Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 6, (2021) 560, arXiv:2101.03180 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Giani, G

    T. Giani, G. Magni, and J. Rojo, “SMEFiT: a flexible toolbox for global interpretations of particle physics data with effective field theories,” Eur. Phys. J. C83no. 5, (2023) 393,arXiv:2302.06660 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Celada, T

    E. Celada, T. Giani, J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A. N. Rossia, M. O. A. Thomas, and E. Vryonidou, “Mapping the SMEFT at high-energy colliders: from LEP and the (HL-)LHC to the FCC-ee,” JHEP09(2024) 091,arXiv:2404.12809 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    ter Hoeve, G

    J. ter Hoeve, G. Magni, J. Rojo, A. N. Rossia, and E. Vryonidou, “The automation of SMEFT-assisted constraints on UV-complete models,” JHEP01(2024) 179,arXiv:2309.04523 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Connecting scales: RGE effects in the SMEFT at the LHC and future colliders,

    J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A. N. Rossia, and E. Vryonidou, “Connecting scales: RGE effects in the SMEFT at the LHC and future colliders,” JHEP06(2025) 125,arXiv:2502.20453 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    ter Hoeve, L

    J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A. N. Rossia, and E. Vryonidou, “Higgs trilinear coupling in the standard model effective field theory at the high luminosity LHC and the FCC-ee,” Phys. Rev. D 112no. 1, (2025) 013008,arXiv:2504.05974 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    de Blas et al.,Physics Briefing Book: Input for the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,arXiv:2511.03883

    J. de Blas et al., “Physics Briefing Book: Input for the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,”arXiv:2511.03883 [hep-ex]. [28]CMSCollaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton–proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C79no. 5, (2019) 421,arXiv:1809.10733 [hep-ex]. [29]ATLASCollab...

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    de Blas et al., JHEP 01 (2020) 139, arXiv:1905.03764 [hep-ph]

    J. de Blas et al., “Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders,” JHEP01(2020) 139, arXiv:1905.03764 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Probing the CP structure of the top quark Yukawa coupling: Loop sensitivity versus on-shell sensitivity,

    T. Martini, R.-Q. Pan, M. Schulze, and M. Xiao, “Probing the CP structure of the top quark Yukawa coupling: Loop sensitivity versus on-shell sensitivity,” Phys. Rev. D104no. 5, (2021) 055045,arXiv:2104.04277 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Top-quark pair production as a probe of light top-philic scalars and anomalous Higgs interactions,

    F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, and S. Tentori, “Top-quark pair production as a probe of light top-philic scalars and anomalous Higgs interactions,” JHEP09(2024) 098,arXiv:2406.06694 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    What if the Higgs couplings to W and Z bosons are larger than in the Standard Model?,

    A. Falkowski, S. Rychkov, and A. Urbano, “What if the Higgs couplings to W and Z bosons are larger than in the Standard Model?,” JHEP04(2012) 073,arXiv:1202.1532 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, “Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,” Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 621–653

    1986

  26. [26]

    Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,” JHEP10(2010) 085,arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]. 67

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    Aebischer, A

    J. Aebischer, A. J. Buras, and J. Kumar, “SMEFT ATLAS: The Landscape Beyond the Standard Model,”arXiv:2507.05926 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  28. [28]

    Brivio, S

    I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, F. Maltoni, R. Moutafis, T. Plehn, E. Vryonidou, S. Westhoff, and C. Zhang, “O new physics, where art thou? A global search in the top sector,” JHEP02(2020) 131, arXiv:1910.03606 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    The impact of flavour data on global fits of the MFV SMEFT,

    R. Aoude, T. Hurth, S. Renner, and W. Shepherd, “The impact of flavour data on global fits of the MFV SMEFT,” JHEP12(2020) 113,arXiv:2003.05432 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Resolving the flavor structure in the MFV-SMEFT,

    S. Bruggisser, D. van Dyk, and S. Westhoff, “Resolving the flavor structure in the MFV-SMEFT,” JHEP02(2023) 225,arXiv:2212.02532 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    More synergies from beauty, top, Z and Drell-Yan measurements in SMEFT,

    C. Grunwald, G. Hiller, K. Kr¨ oninger, and L. Nollen, “More synergies from beauty, top, Z and Drell-Yan measurements in SMEFT,” JHEP11(2023) 110,arXiv:2304.12837 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Allwicher, C

    L. Allwicher, C. Cornella, G. Isidori, and B. A. Stefanek, “New physics in the third generation. A comprehensive SMEFT analysis and future prospects,” JHEP03(2024) 049,arXiv:2311.00020 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    A global analysis of the SMEFT under the minimal MFV assumption,

    R. Bartocci, A. Biek¨ otter, and T. Hurth, “A global analysis of the SMEFT under the minimal MFV assumption,” JHEP05(2024) 074,arXiv:2311.04963 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz, and T. You, “Top, Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Fit to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,” JHEP04(2021) 279,arXiv:2012.02779 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Indirect constraints on top quark operators from a global SMEFT analysis,

    F. Garosi, D. Marzocca, A. R. S´ anchez, and A. Stanzione, “Indirect constraints on top quark operators from a global SMEFT analysis,” JHEP12(2023) 129,arXiv:2310.00047 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    de Blas, A

    J. de Blas, A. Goncalves, V. Miralles, L. Reina, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, “Constraining new physics effective interactions via a global fit of electroweak, Drell-Yan, Higgs, top, and flavour observables,” JHEP03(2026) 013,arXiv:2507.06191 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Probing the flavour-blind SMEFT: EFT validity and the interplay of energy scales,

    L. Mantani and V. Sanz, “Probing the flavour-blind SMEFT: EFT validity and the interplay of energy scales,” JHEP06(2025) 147,arXiv:2503.02935 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Barklow, K

    T. Barklow, K. Fujii, S. Jung, M. E. Peskin, and J. Tian, “Model-Independent Determination of the Triple Higgs Coupling at e+e- Colliders,” Phys. Rev. D97no. 5, (2018) 053004,arXiv:1708.09079 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Physics Briefing Book : Input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update 2020

    R. K. Ellis et al., “Physics Briefing Book: Input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update 2020,”arXiv:1910.11775 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, “Scheming in the SMEFT... and a reparameterization invariance!,” JHEP07 (2017) 148,arXiv:1701.06424 [hep-ph]. [Addendum: JHEP 05, 136 (2018)]. [50]CMSCollaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states at √s= 13 TeV,” JHEP07(2021) 208,arXiv:2103.02708 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Parton distributions in the SMEFT from high-energy Drell-Yan tails,

    A. Greljo, S. Iranipour, Z. Kassabov, M. Madigan, J. Moore, J. Rojo, M. Ubiali, and C. Voisey, “Parton distributions in the SMEFT from high-energy Drell-Yan tails,” JHEP07(2021) 122, arXiv:2104.02723 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Greljo, J

    A. Greljo, J. Salko, A. Smolkoviˇ c, and P. Stangl, “Rare b decays meet high-mass Drell-Yan,” JHEP 05(2023) 087,arXiv:2212.10497 [hep-ph]. [53]ATLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., “Differential cross-section measurements for the electroweak production of dijets in association with aZboson in proton–proton collisions at ATLAS,” Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 2, (2021)...

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    HEPData: a repository for high energy physics data

    E. Maguire, L. Heinrich, and G. Watt, “HEPData: a repository for high energy physics data,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser.898no. 10, (2017) 102006,arXiv:1704.05473 [hep-ex]. 68

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,” JHEP07(2014) 079, arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2014

  45. [45]

    Brivio,SMEFTsim 3.0 — a practical guide,JHEP04(2021) 073 [2012.11343]

    I. Brivio, “SMEFTsim 3.0 — a practical guide,” JHEP04(2021) 073,arXiv:2012.11343 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Degrande, G

    C. Degrande, G. Durieux, F. Maltoni, K. Mimasu, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, “Automated one-loop computations in the standard model effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D103no. 9, (2021) 096024,arXiv:2008.11743 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Triboson production in the SMEFT,

    E. Celada, G. Durieux, K. Mimasu, and E. Vryonidou, “Triboson production in the SMEFT,” JHEP 12(2024) 055,arXiv:2407.09600 [hep-ph]. [59]ATLASCollaboration, “Projected sensitivity of measurements of Higgs boson pair production with the ATLAS experiment at the HL-LHC,” tech. rep., CERN, Geneva, 2025. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2925853. [60]ATLASCollaborati...

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Lep3 projections,

    T. Virdee, “Lep3 projections,”.https://indico.cern.ch/event/1439855/contributions/ 6461601/attachments/3076522/5444412/188-LEP3_update_submitted.pdf. [65]FCCCollaboration, M. Benedikt et al., “Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detectors,” Eur. Phys. J. C85no. 12, (2025) 1468,arXiv:2505.00272 [hep-ex]. [66]F...

    work page doi:10.17181/n78xk-qcv56 2025

  49. [49]

    Statistical and experimental systematic uncertainties on ewpos at the z pole in fcc-ee,

    A. BLONDEL, “Statistical and experimental systematic uncertainties on ewpos at the z pole in fcc-ee,” Mar., 2025.https://doi.org/10.17181/sq5pm-c8334. [69]ILC International Development TeamCollaboration, A. Aryshev et al., “The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021,”arXiv:2203.07622 [physics.acc-ph]

    work page doi:10.17181/sq5pm-c8334 2025

  50. [50]

    Forslund and P

    M. Forslund and P. Meade, “High precision higgs from high energy muon colliders,” JHEP08(2022) 185,arXiv:2203.09425 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    e +e− →ZHprocess in the SMEFT beyond leading order,

    K. Asteriadis, S. Dawson, P. P. Giardino, and R. Szafron, “e +e− →ZHprocess in the SMEFT beyond leading order,” JHEP02(2025) 162,arXiv:2409.11466 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Impact of Next-to-Leading-Order Weak Standard-Model-Effective-Field-Theory Corrections ine +e− →ZH,

    K. Asteriadis, S. Dawson, P. P. Giardino, and R. Szafron, “Impact of Next-to-Leading-Order Weak Standard-Model-Effective-Field-Theory Corrections ine +e− →ZH,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133no. 23, (2024) 231801,arXiv:2406.03557 [hep-ph]. 69

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Biek¨ otter and B

    A. Biek¨ otter and B. D. Pecjak, “Analytic results for electroweak precision observables at NLO in SMEFT,” JHEP07(2025) 134,arXiv:2503.07724 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Complete Next-to-Leading-Order Standard-Model-Effective-Field-Theory Electroweak Corrections to Higgs Decays,

    L. Bellafronte, S. Dawson, C. Del Pio, M. Forslund, and P. P. Giardino, “Complete Next-to-Leading-Order Standard-Model-Effective-Field-Theory Electroweak Corrections to Higgs Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett.136no. 5, (2026) 051801,arXiv:2508.14966 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Next-to-Leading Order Running in the SMEFT,

    L. Born, J. Fuentes-Mart´ ın, and A. E. Thomsen, “Next-to-Leading Order Running in the SMEFT,” arXiv:2601.19974 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  56. [56]

    The effect of the two-loop SMEFT RGEs at future colliders,

    L. Mantani, P. Olgoso, and A. N. Rossia, “The effect of the two-loop SMEFT RGEs at future colliders,”arXiv:To Appear: 2604.xxyyy [hep-ph]

  57. [57]

    Mildner,An EWPD SMEFT likelihood for the LHC — and how to improve it with measurements of W and Z boson properties, JHEP07(2025) 089, arXiv:2412.07651 [hep-ph]

    H. Mildner, “An EWPD SMEFT likelihood for the LHC — and how to improve it with measurements ofWandZboson properties,” JHEP07(2025) 089,arXiv:2412.07651 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Del Vecchio, J

    A. Del Vecchio, J. Eysermans, L. Gouskos, G. Iakovidis, A. Maloizel, G. Marchiori, and M. Selvaggi, Measurement of Higgs boson hadronic decays at FCC- ee, Mar., 2025. https://doi.org/10.17181/3jjdh-6fz97

    work page doi:10.17181/3jjdh-6fz97 2025

  59. [59]

    Higgs Physics Potential of FCC-hh Standalone,

    M. Mangano, “Higgs Physics Potential of FCC-hh Standalone,” tech. rep., CERN, Geneva, 2019. http://cds.cern.ch/record/2681378

    work page arXiv 2019

  60. [60]

    O’Connell, M

    D. O’Connell, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and M. B. Wise, “Minimal Extension of the Standard Model Scalar Sector,” Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 037701,arXiv:hep-ph/0611014

    work page arXiv 2007

  61. [61]

    Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models

    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(2012) 1–102,arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  62. [62]

    Freitaset al., (2019), arXiv:1906.05379 [hep-ph]

    A. Freitas et al., “Theoretical uncertainties for electroweak and Higgs-boson precision measurements at FCC-ee,”arXiv:1906.05379 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 1906

  63. [63]

    Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary,

    J. de Blas, J. C. Criado, M. Perez-Victoria, and J. Santiago, “Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary,” JHEP03(2018) 109, arXiv:1711.10391 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  64. [64]

    Carmona, A

    A. Carmona, A. Lazopoulos, P. Olgoso, and J. Santiago, “Matchmakereft: automated tree-level and one-loop matching,” SciPost Phys.12no. 6, (2022) 198,arXiv:2112.10787 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    Guedes, P

    G. Guedes, P. Olgoso, and J. Santiago, “Towards the one loop IR/UV dictionary in the SMEFT: One loop generated operators from new scalars and fermions,” SciPost Phys.15no. 4, (2023) 143, arXiv:2303.16965 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    From the EFT to the UV: the complete SMEFT one-loop dictionary

    G. Guedes and P. Olgoso, “From the EFT to the UV: the complete SMEFT one-loop dictionary,” arXiv:2412.14253 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    Higgs as a Holographic Pseudo-Goldstone Boson

    R. Contino, Y. Nomura, and A. Pomarol, “Higgs as a Holographic Pseudo Goldstone Boson,” Nucl. Phys. B671(2003) 148–174,arXiv:hep-ph/0306259

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  68. [68]

    The Minimal Composite Higgs Model

    K. Agashe, R. Contino, and A. Pomarol, “The Minimal composite Higgs model,” Nucl. Phys. B719 (2005) 165–187,arXiv:hep-ph/0412089

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  69. [69]

    Panico and A

    G. Panico and A. Wulzer, The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs, vol. 913. Springer, 2016. arXiv:1506.01961 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  70. [70]

    Patterns of Strong Coupling for LHC Searches,

    D. Liu, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, and F. Riva, “Patterns of Strong Coupling for LHC Searches,” JHEP11(2016) 141,arXiv:1603.03064 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  71. [71]

    Higgs Basis: Proposal for an EFT basis choice for LHC HXSWG,

    A. Falkowski and A. Falkowski, “Higgs Basis: Proposal for an EFT basis choice for LHC HXSWG,”. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2001958. 70

    work page arXiv

  72. [72]

    The Strongly-Interacting Light Higgs,

    G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol, and R. Rattazzi, “The Strongly-Interacting Light Higgs,” JHEP06(2007) 045,arXiv:hep-ph/0703164

    work page arXiv 2007

  73. [73]

    SMEFT probes in future precision DIS experiments,

    C. Bissolotti, R. Boughezal, and K. Simsek, “SMEFT probes in future precision DIS experiments,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 7, (2023) 075007,arXiv:2306.05564 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Forslund and P

    M. Forslund and P. Meade, “Precision Higgs width and couplings with a high energy muon collider,” JHEP01(2024) 182,arXiv:2308.02633 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Helset, A

    A. Helset, A. Martin, and M. Trott, “The Geometric Standard Model Effective Field Theory,” JHEP 03(2020) 163,arXiv:2001.01453 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  76. [76]

    Dimension-8 SMEFT analysis of minimal scalar field extensions of the Standard Model,

    J. Ellis, K. Mimasu, and F. Zampedri, “Dimension-8 SMEFT analysis of minimal scalar field extensions of the Standard Model,” JHEP10(2023) 051,arXiv:2304.06663 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    The Higgs width in the SMEFT,

    I. Brivio, T. Corbett, and M. Trott, “The Higgs width in the SMEFT,” JHEP10(2019) 056, arXiv:1906.06949 [hep-ph]. [98]LHC Higgs Cross Section Working GroupCollaboration, D. de Florian et al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector,”arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    On the future of Higgs, electroweak and diboson measurements at lepton colliders,

    J. De Blas, G. Durieux, C. Grojean, J. Gu, and A. Paul, “On the future of Higgs, electroweak and diboson measurements at lepton colliders,” JHEP12(2019) 117,arXiv:1907.04311 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    Corbett, A

    T. Corbett, A. Helset, A. Martin, and M. Trott, “EWPD in the SMEFT to dimension eight,” JHEP 06(2021) 076,arXiv:2102.02819 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC

    M. Cepeda et al., “Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,” CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.7(2019) 221–584,arXiv:1902.00134 [hep-ph]. [102]CMSCollaboration, “Guidelines coupling projections 2018,” 2018. https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/GuidelinesCouplingProjections2018. [103]ATLAS, CMSCollaboration, G. Aad et al., “Hig...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.