Optimal sensitivity of anomalous charged triple gauge couplings through $W$ boson helicity at the $e^+e^-$ colliders

Amir Subba; Jayita Lahiri; Sahabub Jahedi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Optimal sensitivity of anomalous charged triple gauge couplings through $W$ boson helicity at the $e^+e^-$ colliders

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that helicity-resolved WW production at a 3 TeV e+e- collider, analysed with the optimal observable technique, constrains anomalous WWV couplings up to 100 times more tightly than current LHC bounds.

desk verdict Workmanlike OOT projection for cTGCs at CLIC with useful helicity-dependent sensitivities, but the headline limits are statistical-only and assume a background-free sample after an unreported BDT efficiency. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13664 v2 pith:RFTAWNV3 submitted 2024-11-20 hep-ph

Sahabub Jahedi , Jayita Lahiri , Amir Subba This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords anomalouschargedtriplegaugecouplingsSMEFToptimalobservabletechniqueWbosonhelicityelectron-positroncolliderCPviolationelectricdipolemomentWilsoncoefficients

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Future electron-positron colliders could measure the anomalous charged triple gauge couplings ($WW\gamma$ and $WWZ$) far more precisely than the LHC, if the data are analysed with the optimal observable technique (OOT) and separated by the helicity of the produced $W$ pair. The paper parameterizes the anomalous couplings through five dimension-6 SMEFT operators in the HISZ basis and predicts 95% CL limits on their Wilson coefficients from $WW\to qq'\ell\nu$ events at $\sqrt{s}=3$ TeV with $L_{\rm int}=1000$ fb$^{-1}$. These limits improve on current LHC bounds by up to two orders of magnitude for $C_B$, $C_W$, and $C_{\widetilde{W}WW}$, and by one order for $C_{WWW}$ and $C_{\widetilde W}$, and they are roughly 10--25 times tighter than limits from a standard binned $\chi^2$ fit. The result matters because it quantifies how much constraining power comes from the full shape of the angular distribution and from $W$-helicity tagging, beyond simple counting experiments.

What carries the argument

The engine is the optimal observable technique (OOT): writing the differential cross-section as $O(\phi)=d\sigma/d\cos\theta=g_i f_i(\phi)$, with $g_i$ the Wilson coefficients divided by $\Lambda^2$ and $f_i$ known SM/BSM coefficient functions, the optimal weighting $w_i(\phi)=M^{-1}_{ij}f_j(\phi)/O(\phi)$ minimizes the covariance matrix to $V_{ij}=M^{-1}_{ij}/L_{\rm int}$, where $M_{ij}=\int f_i f_j/O\,d\phi$. The 95% CL intervals follow from $\chi^2=\sum_{ij}(g_i-g_i^0)(g_j-g_j^0)V^{-1}_{ij}$. This statistical machinery is paired with the helicity structure of $e^+e^-\to W^+W^-$: the nine helicity states are grouped into LL, TT, and LT combinations, and known selection rules (CP-odd operators contribute only when $\lambda+\lambda'\neq 0$; $C_B$ drops out of TT) determine which operator each channel probes best. The phenomenological link is the HISZ-basis (a standard dimension-6 SMEFT operator set) mapping from five dimension-6 operators to anomalous $WW\gamma/WWZ$ couplings, together with a BDT-selected semileptonic $WW\to qq'\ell\nu$ sample.

What would settle it

Recompute the Table 4 limits after applying a concrete BDT working point that preserves a stated signal efficiency (for example 60--90%) and includes the non-resonant continuum background fraction visible in Fig. 3; if the post-selection purity is below roughly 98% or the signal efficiency below 80%, the intervals widen enough that the claimed two-order-of-magnitude improvement over LHC bounds shrinks to one order or less.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the optimal observable technique applied to helicity-resolved $W^+W^-$ production at a 3 TeV $e^+e^-$ collider yields 95% CL sensitivities to dimension-6 cTGC Wilson coefficients that surpass current LHC bounds by two orders of magnitude for $C_B$, $C_W$, and $C_{\widetilde{W}WW}$, and by one order for $C_{WWW}$ and $C_{\widetilde W}$. The most stringent projected limits are $C_B/\Lambda^2\in[-0.041,+0.031]$, $C_W/\Lambda^2\in[-0.021,+0.019]$, $C_{WWW}/\Lambda^2\in[-0.089,+0.088]$, $C_{\widetilde{W}WW}/\Lambda^2\in[-0.002,+0.002]$, and $C_{\widetilde W}/\Lambda^2\in[-1.43,+1.43]$ TeV$^{-2}$, each reached in a particular $W$-helicity channel and beam-polarization setting. The paper further claims that the OOT limits are factors of about 20, 25, and 9 tighter than standard $\chi^2$ fits for the first three coefficients, and about 12 tighter for the two CP-odd ones, and that a 90% accuracy in $W$-helicity measurement reduces sensitivity by only about 6%.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted limits assume that after the BDT selection the semileptonic $WW$ sample is essentially pure signal with full signal efficiency, so every surviving event counts as signal and the statistical covariance is set by the total cross-section alone; any background leakage or signal loss would directly widen the quoted intervals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 3 TeV $e^+e^-$ collider with 1000 fb$^{-1}$ would measure $C_B$, $C_W$, and $C_{\widetilde{W}WW}$ with 95% CL intervals about 100 times narrower than current LHC bounds, and $C_{WWW}$ and $C_{\widetilde W}$ about 10 times narrower.
On the same differential distribution, the OOT yields limits roughly 20, 25, and 9 times tighter than a standard binned $\chi^2$ fit for $C_B$, $C_W$, and $C_{WWW}$, and about 12 times tighter for the two CP-odd coefficients.
Helicity-resolved measurement gives a clean decomposition of the five operators: $C_B$ and $C_W$ are best constrained in the LL channel, $C_{WWW}$ in TT, and $C_{\widetilde{W}WW}$ and $C_{\widetilde W}$ in LT.
Beam polarization changes the projected sensitivity by several factors: $P_{e^-}=-80\%$ is best for $C_W$ and $C_{WWW}$, while $P_{e^-}=+80\%$ is best for $C_B$, $C_{\widetilde{W}WW}$, and $C_{\widetilde W}$.
For the CP-odd sector, the electron EDM bound on $C_{\widetilde W}$ is about three orders of magnitude stronger than the collider projection, while the EDM and collider bounds on $C_{\widetilde{W}WW}$ are comparable.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the paper does not report the signal efficiency or purity of its BDT selection; a realistic detector-level study that quotes these numbers would show whether the near-background-free approximation holds and how much the limits degrade.
Editorial extension: if the OOT improvement is real, the same shape-based technique could be applied to azimuthal asymmetries in the $W$ decay products, which may further isolate the CP-odd couplings without assuming a background-free sample.
Editorial extension: the factor-of-10-to-25 gap between OOT and binned $\chi^2$ limits indicates that the constraining power comes from the precise $\cos\theta$ shape; checking whether electroweak NLO corrections change that shape is the natural stress test of the projected limits.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this one if you work on electroweak precision projections. The new bit is concrete: they take the old optimal observable technique, apply it to e+e- -> W+W- at CLIC (3 TeV, 1 ab^-1), and split the sample by W helicity combinations (LL, TT, LT). Table 4 gives projected 95% CL limits on five dimension-6 cTGC Wilson coefficients, together with the best helicity bin and beam polarization for each. I don't think those specific numbers exist elsewhere, and the qualitative ordering — C~WWW best seen in LT, C_WWW in TT, C_B in LL — is credible and follows from the known helicity selection rules. The EDM comparison for the two CP-odd operators is a useful sanity check. The comparison with CMS limits in Table 1 is apples-to-oranges (different center-of-mass and assumptions) but they label it as an order-of-magnitude benchmark, so fine.

The soft spots are the usual ones for this genre, and one is more serious than the paper lets on. First, the OOT limits are statistical only. The BDT in Sec. 4 is advertised as making the sample 'almost background-free' (AUC 0.999), and then the analysis proceeds as if N = sigma_T * L_int with no signal efficiency at all. No cut efficiency or purity is reported. A realistic 50-80% efficiency would weaken the bounds by a factor ~1.1-1.4; not fatal for a projection, but the number should be on the page. More importantly, they never say how the BDT-selected sample is folded into the OOT: if the differential distributions are generator-level and uncorrected by the selection, the limits are over-optimistic in a way that the BDT can't fix.

Second, the CP-odd couplings only contribute quadratically in the cross-section. The OOT is built for linear signals. The text acknowledges the quadratic nature (Sec. 3) but doesn't clearly state how the quadratic dependence is mapped into the linear f_i basis used in Eq. (5.1). Without that step, the 'optimal' claim for C~WWW and C~W is not strictly justified; the numbers are still a reasonable binned-likelihood projection, but the method label should be qualified.

Systematics are discussed for the chi2 comparison but not for the OOT results, and the LHC comparison is single-operator vs single-operator. Both are minor in a projection paper, and the authors are upfront about the background-free assumption.

Overall this is a competent, standard pheno paper. The central method is established (Diehl-Nachtmann, and their own earlier OOT work), the amplitudes are textbook, and the results are reproducible in principle from the stated setup. I'd send it to a referee, asking for efficiency/purity numbers, a clarification of the quadratic-parameter handling, and at least a parametric estimate of systematics in the OOT limits. With those fixed, it's a solid contribution to the SMEFT precision program.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the sensitivity of five dimension-6 SMEFT operators that contribute to anomalous charged triple gauge couplings (cTGCs) through e+e− → W+W− at CLIC (√s = 3 TeV, L_int = 1000 fb−1). The authors apply the optimal observable technique (OOT) to the cosθ distribution for different W-boson helicity combinations and initial beam polarizations, reporting 95% CL limits in Table 4. They then compare these limits with existing LHC bounds on the same Wilson coefficients and with the electron EDM constraint on the two CP-violating operators. The central claim is that the OOT-based sensitivities are one to two orders of magnitude stronger than the current LHC limits, and significantly stronger than a standard χ2 analysis.

Significance. If the quoted sensitivities survive a realistic detector-level treatment, the paper would provide a strong physics case for the WW program at CLIC and a useful helicity-resolved comparison between OOT and standard χ2 fitting. The analytic helicity-amplitude framework and the OOT formalism are standard, and the paper correctly emphasizes the role of beam polarization and helicity selection. The combination of CP-even and CP-odd operators, together with the EDM comparison, is a useful addition. However, the headline limits are computed under idealized assumptions that are only partially stated: no background contamination, no signal efficiency, and perfect helicity identification. The significance of the central claim is therefore contingent on whether these idealizations can be relaxed without fundamentally changing the conclusions.

major comments (4)

[§4, §5.1, Table 4] The OOT limits in Table 4 are derived from the analytic parton-level dσ/dcosθ with N = σ_T L_int, and the paper states in §4 that 'the rest of the analysis does not take into account of the background contamination'. No signal efficiency, selection purity, or cosθ reconstruction procedure is provided, so the reader cannot assess how much the limits would degrade under a realistic semi-leptonic selection. Because the covariance matrix scales as 1/N, even a 50% signal efficiency would weaken the limits by roughly 40%, and residual background or resolution smearing would further dilute the OOT weighting. The stress-test concern about background contamination and implicit full efficiency therefore lands. Please either propagate the BDT acceptance and any residual background into the OOT calculation, or explicitly label Table 4 as parton-level statistical limits and temper the comparison with LHC bounds accordingly.
[§3 (helicity measurement paragraph), Table 4] The paper states that a 10% uncertainty in W helicity measurement leads to an approximate 6% reduction in sensitivity, but the limits in Table 4 are quoted for perfectly identified helicity combinations (LL, TT, LT). Since these helicity combinations are the basis for the claimed optimal sensitivities, the 6% degradation should either be applied to the reported numbers or the limits should be described as assuming ideal helicity tagging. As written, the reader cannot tell whether the quoted limits include this effect, and the central comparison with LHC bounds is affected.
[§5.2] The discussion of systematic uncertainties (5%, 10%, 20%) is presented only for the standard χ2 analysis in Eq. (5.8). The OOT limits in Table 4, which are the main results, are purely statistical; systematic uncertainties in the normalization or shape of the differential distribution would enter the covariance matrix in Eq. (5.6) and weaken the quoted limits. Please quantify how plausible systematic uncertainties would affect the OOT sensitivities, or state explicitly that the OOT limits are statistical only and should be interpreted as such.
[§7 Conclusion] The summary statement that sensitivities are improved by 'two orders of magnitude for the CP-conserving case' is not accurate for all CP-conserving operators: CWWW/Λ^2 improves by only one order of magnitude when comparing Table 4 with Table 1. Please revise the conclusion to be per-coupling or to say 'up to two orders of magnitude', and similarly for the CP-violating case where one operator improves by two orders and the other by one.

minor comments (5)

[Table 2] The header 'Coupings' is a typo; it should read 'Couplings'.
[Eq. (5.6)] The sentence 'Here, σ_T = ∫ O(ϕ)dϕ. N signifies the total number of events which is expressed as N = σ_T L_int.' is syntactically broken and σ_T is not defined before use; please rewrite it as a complete sentence.
[Eq. (6.2) and §6] The numerical EDM limits in Eq. (6.3) depend on the cutoff scale Λ_C through the logarithm in Eq. (6.2), but the value of Λ_C used in the calculation is not specified. Please state the assumed value.
[Throughout] The notation for the CP-odd operator C~WWW is rendered inconsistently (for example, 'C ^WWW' in tables and text); please unify the notation.
[Table 1] The CMS limits cited in Table 1 come from different final states (WW/WZ and Wγ); a brief note clarifying that these are the most stringent single-operator bounds from the respective analyses would help the reader interpret the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected sensitivities are computed from independent SMEFT matrix elements and the externally established optimal observable technique; self-citations are applications, not load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central results, the 95% CL sensitivities in Table 4, are outputs of a well-defined calculation, not fitted quantities or relabeled inputs. The differential cross section is built from helicity amplitudes for e+e- -> W+W- with SMEFT insertions (Eqs. 3.2, 3.3), and the limits follow from the optimal observable covariance V_ij = M^{-1}_ij / L_int (Eq. 5.6) and the chi^2 definition of Eq. 5.7. No parameter is tuned to reproduce the quoted limits, and the OOT formalism is traced to the original external references [40-43], with the authors' own OOT papers [51-56] cited only as further applications. The comparison with LHC bounds and electron EDM constraints uses independent experimental inputs, and the EDM formula is taken from the external reference [81]. The background-free assumption and the 90% helicity-accuracy assumption are stated modeling choices, not circular definitions of the predicted limits. The claimed improvement of OOT over standard chi^2 analysis is a genuine calculation based on the information contained in the differential distributions, not an identity imposed by construction. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters into its sensitivity calculation; the design choices (sqrt(s)=3 TeV, L_int=1000 fb^-1, polarization options) are CLIC baseline inputs. The only hand-chosen modeling value is the W helicity assignment accuracy of 90%. The main structural assumptions are the dimension-6 truncation, the adopted helicity amplitudes and OOT formalism, the background-free approximation, and the EDM matching formula.

free parameters (1)

W helicity assignment accuracy = 90%
Chosen by hand in Section 3 ('we take a conservative estimate of 90% accuracy in W boson helicity measurement') to estimate the effect of helicity misidentification. The quoted final limits in Table 4 do not include the resulting approximate 6% degradation.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption SMEFT truncated at dimension 6; dimension-8 contributions neglected
Section 3 states 'For simplicity, we neglect the effect of dimension-8 contribution and stick to the dimension-6 SMEFT.' The paper itself notes that for CP-odd operators the quadratic dimension-6 term may be comparable to dimension-8 contributions.
standard math Helicity amplitude formulas from Hagiwara, Peccei, Zeppenfeld, Hikasa (1987), ref [21]
Equations (3.2) and (3.3) for e+e- -> W+W- helicity amplitudes are taken from ref [21] and underpin the cross-section used in the OOT.
ad hoc to paper OOT assumes known SM distributions and no background contamination
Section 4 concludes the semileptonic WW sample is 'almost background-free' after BDT selection, and Section 5 applies OOT to a pure signal sample without reporting signal efficiency, making the covariance V_ij = M^{-1}/L_int optimistic.
domain assumption Electron EDM matching formula of Panico, Pomarol, Riembau, ref [81]
Equation (6.2) is used in Section 6 to derive EDM constraints on the CP-odd operators; the validity of this one-loop matching is assumed without cross-check.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal sensitivity of anomalous charged triple gauge couplings through $W$ boson helicity at the $e^+e^-$ colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFTAWNV3

@misc{pith2026241113664,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal sensitivity of anomalous charged triple gauge couplings through $W$ boson helicity at the $e^+e^-$ colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFTAWNV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13664}
}

abstract

We study the estimation of anomalous charged triple gauge couplings (cTGCs) parameterized in a model-independent Standard Model effective field theory (SMEFT) framework via $WW$ production followed by semi-leptonic decay at the $e^+e^-$ colliders. The anomalous $(WWV~(V=\gamma,Z))$ couplings are given in terms of Wilson coefficients of three CP-conserving and two CP-violating dimension-6 operators in the HISZ basis. We adopt the optimal observable technique (OOT) to extract the sensitivity of these anomalous couplings and compare it with the latest experimental limits on anomalous couplings studied at the LHC. The limits on the anomalous couplings obtained via OOT are significantly tighter than the ones obtained using standard $\chi^2$ analysis. The impact of different helicity combinations of the $W$ boson pair in determining optimal sensitivity is analyzed. The constraints on CP-violating operators from the electron electric dipole moment (EDM) are also discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[1]

ATLAScollaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1 [1207.7214]

arXiv 2012
[2]

CMS collaboration, Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30 [1207.7235]

arXiv 2012
[3]

CLICdp, CLIC collaboration, The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report, 1812.06018. – 20 –

arXiv 2018
[4]

CMS collaboration, Search for anomalous triple gauge couplings in WW and WZ production in lepton + jet events in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 12 (2019) 062 [1907.08354]

arXiv 2019
[5]

CMS collaboration, Measurement of the inclusive and differential WZ production cross sections, polarization angles, and triple gauge couplings in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 07 (2022) 032 [2110.11231]

arXiv 2022
[6]

CMS collaboration, Measurement of the Wγ Production Cross Section in Proton-Proton Collisions at√s=13 TeV and Constraints on Effective Field Theory Coefficients, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 252002 [2102.02283]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[7]

Baur and D

U. Baur and D. Zeppenfeld,Unitarity Constraints on the Electroweak Three Vector Boson Vertices, Phys. Lett. B201 (1988) 383

1988
[8]

L. Bian, J. Shu and Y. Zhang,Prospects for Triple Gauge Coupling Measurements at Future Lepton Colliders and the 14 TeV LHC, JHEP 09 (2015) 206 [1507.02238]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015

Show all 83 references

[9]

Butter, O

A. Butter, O. J. P. Éboli, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, T. Plehn and M. Rauch,The Gauge-Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run I, JHEP 07 (2016) 152 [1604.03105]

2016 arXiv
[10]

Azatov, J

A. Azatov, J. Elias-Miro, Y. Reyimuaji and E. Venturini,Novel measurements of anomalous triple gauge couplings for the LHC, JHEP 10 (2017) 027 [1707.08060]

2017 arXiv
[11]

Baglio, S

J. Baglio, S. Dawson and I. M. Lewis,An NLO QCD effective field theory analysis of W +W − production at the LHC including fermionic operators, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 073003 [1708.03332]

2017 arXiv
[12]

H. T. Li and G. Valencia,CP violating anomalous couplings inW jet production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 075014 [1708.04402]

2017 arXiv
[13]

Chiesa, A

M. Chiesa, A. Denner and J.-N. Lang,Anomalous triple-gauge-boson interactions in vector-boson pair production with RECOLA2, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 467 [1804.01477]

2018 arXiv
[14]

Baglio, S

J. Baglio, S. Dawson and I. M. Lewis,NLO effects in EFT fits toW +W − production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 035029 [1812.00214]

2019 arXiv
[15]

Bhatia, U

D. Bhatia, U. Maitra and S. Raychaudhuri,Pinning down anomalousWWγ couplings at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 095017 [1804.05357]

2019 arXiv
[16]

Rahaman and R

R. Rahaman and R. K. Singh,Unravelling the anomalous gauge boson couplings inZW ± production at the LHC and the role of spin-1 polarizations, JHEP 04 (2020) 075 [1911.03111]

2020 arXiv
[17]

Azatov, D

A. Azatov, D. Barducci and E. Venturini,Precision diboson measurements at hadron colliders, JHEP 04 (2019) 075 [1901.04821]

2019 arXiv
[18]

Tizchang and S

S. Tizchang and S. M. Etesami,Pinning down the gauge boson couplings in WWγ production using forward proton tagging, JHEP 07 (2020) 191 [2004.12203]

2020 arXiv
[19]

K. J. F. Gaemers and G. J. Gounaris,Polarization Amplitudes fore+e−→W +W − and e+e−→ZZ, Z. Phys. C 1 (1979) 259

1979
[20]

C. L. Bilchak and J. D. Stroughair,W +W − Pair Production ine+e− Colliders, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 1881

1984
[21]

Hagiwara, R

K. Hagiwara, R. D. Peccei, D. Zeppenfeld and K. Hikasa,Probing the Weak Boson Sector in e+e−→W +W −, Nucl. Phys. B282 (1987) 253. – 21 –

1987
[22]

Chang, W.-Y

D. Chang, W.-Y. Keung and I. Phillips,CP violating observables ine−e+→W −W +, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 4045 [hep-ph/9307232]

1993 arXiv
[23]

Hagiwara, S

K. Hagiwara, S. Ishihara, R. Szalapski and D. Zeppenfeld,Low-energy constraints on electroweak three gauge boson couplings, Phys. Lett. B283 (1992) 353

1992
[24]

Choudhury and J

D. Choudhury and J. Kalinowski,Unraveling theWWγ and WWZ vertices at the linear collider: Anti-neutrino neutrinoγ and anti-neutrino neutrino¯qq final states, Nucl. Phys. B 491 (1997) 129 [hep-ph/9608416]

1997 arXiv
[25]

Choudhury, J

D. Choudhury, J. Kalinowski and A. Kulesza,CP violating anomalousWWγ couplings in e+e− collisions, Phys. Lett. B457 (1999) 193 [hep-ph/9904215]

1999 arXiv
[26]

Buchalla, O

G. Buchalla, O. Cata, R. Rahn and M. Schlaffer,Effective Field Theory Analysis of New Physics ine+e−→W +W − at a Linear Collider, Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2589 [1302.6481]

2013 arXiv
[27]

Berthier, M

L. Berthier, M. Bjørn and M. Trott,Incorporating doubly resonantW ± data in a global fit of SMEFT parameters to lift flat directions, JHEP 09 (2016) 157 [1606.06693]

2016 arXiv
[28]

Zhang,Time to Go Beyond Triple-Gauge-Boson-Coupling Interpretation ofW Pair Production, Phys

Z. Zhang,Time to Go Beyond Triple-Gauge-Boson-Coupling Interpretation ofW Pair Production, Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017) 011803 [1610.01618]

2017 arXiv
[29]

Rahaman and R

R. Rahaman and R. K. Singh,Probing the anomalous triple gauge boson couplings in e+e−→W +W − using W polarizations with polarized beams, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 075044 [1909.05496]

2020 arXiv
[30]

Subba and R

A. Subba and R. K. Singh,Role of polarizations and spin-spin correlations of W’s in e−e+→W −W + at√s = 250 GeV to probe anomalousW −W +Z/γ couplings, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 073004 [2212.12973]

2023 arXiv
[31]

Subba and R

A. Subba and R. K. Singh,Study of anomalousW −W +γ/Z couplings using polarizations and spin correlations ine−e+→W −W + with polarized beams, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 1119 [2305.15106]

2023 arXiv
[32]

Subba and R

A. Subba and R. K. Singh,Anomalous triple gauge couplings ine−e+→ 4j: Role of polarizations, spin correlations and interference, 2407.01322

arXiv
[33]

I. T. Cakir, O. Cakir, A. Senol and A. T. Tasci,Search for anomalousWWγ and WWZ couplings with polarizede-beam at the LHeC, Acta Phys. Polon. B45 (2014) 1947 [1406.7696]

2014 arXiv
[34]

Li, X.-M

R. Li, X.-M. Shen, K. Wang, T. Xu, L. Zhang and G. Zhu,Probing anomalousWWγ triple gauge bosons coupling at the LHeC, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 075043 [1711.05607]

2018 arXiv
[35]

Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, M

A. Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, M. Köksal, A. A. Billur and M. A. Hernández-Ruíz,Probing model-independent limits onW +W −γ triple gauge boson vertex at the LHeC and the FCC-he, J. Phys. G47 (2020) 055005 [1910.02307]

2020 arXiv
[36]

Köksal, A

M. Köksal, A. A. Billur, A. Gutiérrez-Rodríguez and M. A. Hernández-Ruíz,Bounds on the non-standardW +W −γ couplings at the LHeC and the FCC-he, Phys. Lett. B808 (2020) 135661 [1910.06747]

2020 arXiv
[37]

S. Spor, A. A. Billur and M. Köksal,Model independent study for the anomalousW +W −γ couplings at the future lepton-hadron colliders, Eur. Phys. J. Plus135 (2020) 683 [2002.01445]. – 22 –

2020 arXiv
[38]

Spor and M

S. Spor and M. Köksal,Sensitivity analysis for the anomalousW +W −γ couplings at the LHeC and the FCC-he, Eur. Phys. J. Plus137 (2022) 80 [2104.00477]

2022 arXiv
[39]

Degrande, N

C. Degrande, N. Greiner, W. Kilian, O. Mattelaer, H. Mebane, T. Stelzer et al.,Effective Field Theory: A Modern Approach to Anomalous Couplings, Annals Phys. 335 (2013) 21 [1205.4231]

2013 arXiv
[40]

Atwood and A

D. Atwood and A. Soni,Analysis for magnetic moment and electric dipole moment form-factors of the top quark viae+e−→t¯t, Phys. Rev. D45 (1992) 2405

1992
[41]

Davier, L

M. Davier, L. Duflot, F. Le Diberder and A. Rouge,The Optimal method for the measurement of tau polarization, Phys. Lett. B306 (1993) 411

1993
[42]

Diehl and O

M. Diehl and O. Nachtmann,Optimal observables for the measurement of three gauge boson couplings ine+e− —> W+W −, Z. Phys. C 62 (1994) 397

1994
[43]

J. F. Gunion, B. Grzadkowski and X.-G. He,Determining thet¯t and ZZ couplings of a neutral Higgs boson of arbitrary CP nature at the NLC, Phys. Rev. Lett.77 (1996) 5172 [hep-ph/9605326]

1996 arXiv
[44]

Hagiwara, S

K. Hagiwara, S. Ishihara, J. Kamoshita and B. A. Kniehl,Prospects of measuring general Higgs couplings ate+e− linear colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C14 (2000) 457 [hep-ph/0002043]

2000 arXiv
[45]

Dutta, K

S. Dutta, K. Hagiwara and Y. Matsumoto,Measuring the Higgs-Vector boson Couplings at Lineare+e− Collider, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 115016 [0808.0477]

2008 arXiv
[46]

Grzadkowski and Z

B. Grzadkowski and Z. Hioki,CP violating lepton energy correlation ine−e+→t¯t, Phys. Lett. B 391 (1997) 172 [hep-ph/9608306]

1997 arXiv
[47]

Grzadkowski, Z

B. Grzadkowski, Z. Hioki and M. Szafranski,Four Fermi effective operators in top quark production and decay, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 035002 [hep-ph/9712357]

1998 arXiv
[48]

Grzadkowski and Z

B. Grzadkowski and Z. Hioki,Probing top quark couplings at polarized NLC, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 014013 [hep-ph/9805318]

2000 arXiv
[49]

Grzadkowski and J

B. Grzadkowski and J. Pliszka,Testing top quark Yukawa interactions ine+e−→t¯tZ, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 115018 [hep-ph/9907206]

1999 arXiv
[50]

Grzadkowski and Z

B. Grzadkowski and Z. Hioki,Optimal observable analysis of the angular and energy distributions for top quark decay products at polarized linear colliders, Nucl. Phys. B585 (2000) 3 [hep-ph/0004223]

2000 arXiv
[51]

Bhattacharya, S

S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi and J. Wudka,Optimal determination of new physics couplings: a comparative study, JHEP 12 (2023) 026 [2301.07721]

2023
[52]

Jahedi and J

S. Jahedi and J. Lahiri,Probing anomalous ZZγ and Zγγ couplings at thee+e− colliders using optimal observable technique, JHEP 04 (2023) 085 [2212.05121]

2023 arXiv
[53]

Jahedi,Optimal estimation of dimension-8 neutral triple gauge couplings at thee+e− colliders, JHEP 12 (2023) 031 [2305.11266]

S. Jahedi,Optimal estimation of dimension-8 neutral triple gauge couplings at thee+e− colliders, JHEP 12 (2023) 031 [2305.11266]

2023
[54]

Bhattacharya, S

S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi and J. Wudka,Probing heavy charged fermions ate+e− collider using the optimal observable technique, JHEP 05 (2022) 009 [2106.02846]

2022 arXiv
[55]

Bhattacharya, S

S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, J. Lahiri and J. Wudka,Optimal new physics estimation in the presence of standard model backgrounds, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 036004 [2312.12514]

2025
[56]

Jahedi, S

S. Jahedi, S. Bhattacharya and J. Wudka,Probing Z Couplings of Heavy Charged Fermions at e+e− Colliders, Springer Proc. Phys.304 (2024) 1078. – 23 –

2024
[57]

Grzadkowski, Z

B. Grzadkowski, Z. Hioki, K. Ohkuma and J. Wudka,Probing anomalous top quark couplings induced by dimension-six operators at photon colliders, Nucl. Phys. B689 (2004) 108 [hep-ph/0310159]

2004 arXiv
[58]

Grzadkowski, Z

B. Grzadkowski, Z. Hioki, K. Ohkuma and J. Wudka,Optimal-observable analysis of possible new physics using the b quark inγγ —> t¯t —> bX, Phys. Lett. B593 (2004) 189 [hep-ph/0403174]

2004 arXiv
[59]

Grzadkowski, Z

B. Grzadkowski, Z. Hioki, K. Ohkuma and J. Wudka,Optimal beam polarizations for new-physics search throughγγ —> t¯t —> lX/bX, JHEP 11 (2005) 029 [hep-ph/0508183]

2005 arXiv
[60]

J. F. Gunion and J. Pliszka,Determining the relative size of the CP even and CP odd Higgs boson couplings to a fermion at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B444 (1998) 136 [hep-ph/9809306]

1998 arXiv
[61]

Cao and J

Q.-H. Cao and J. Wudka,Search for new physics via single top production at TeV energyeγ colliders, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 094015 [hep-ph/0608331]

2006 arXiv
[62]

Hioki, T

Z. Hioki, T. Konishi and K. Ohkuma,Studying possible CP-violating Higgs couplings through top-quark pair productions at muon colliders, JHEP 07 (2007) 082 [0706.4346]

2007 arXiv
[63]

Bhattacharya, S

S. Bhattacharya, S. Nandi and S. K. Patra,Optimal-observable analysis of possible new physics inB→D(∗)τντ, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 034011 [1509.07259]

2016 arXiv
[64]

Calcuttawala, A

Z. Calcuttawala, A. Kundu, S. Nandi and S. K. Patra,Optimal observable analysis for the decayb→s plus missing energy, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 650 [1702.06679]

2017 arXiv
[65]

Calcuttawala, A

Z. Calcuttawala, A. Kundu, S. Nandi and S. Kumar Patra,New physics with the lepton flavor violating decayτ→ 3µ, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 095009 [1802.09218]

2018 arXiv
[66]

Bhattacharya, S

S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, S. Nandi and A. Sarkar,Probing flavor constrained SMEFT operators through tc production at the muon collider, JHEP 07 (2024) 061 [2312.14872]

2024 arXiv
[67]

Jahedi and A

S. Jahedi and A. Sarkar,Exploring optimal sensitivity of lepton flavor violating effective couplings at thee+e− colliders, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 095021 [2408.00190]

2024 arXiv
[68]

ACME collaboration, Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron, Nature 562 (2018) 355

2018
[69]

Buchmuller and D

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

1986
[70]

Grzadkowski, M

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085 [1008.4884]

2010 arXiv
[71]

L3 collaboration, Measurement of W polarisation at LEP, Phys. Lett. B557 (2003) 147 [hep-ex/0301027]

2003 arXiv
[72]

ATLAScollaboration, Measurement ofW ±Z production cross sections and gauge boson polarisation inpp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 535 [1902.05759]

2019 arXiv
[73]

Kim and A

T. Kim and A. Martin,A W ± polarization analyzer from Deep Neural Networks, 2102.05124

arXiv
[74]

Alwall, M

J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer,MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond, JHEP 06 (2011) 128 [1106.0522]

2011 arXiv
[75]

Alloul, N

A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun.185 (2014) 2250 [1310.1921]. – 24 –

2014 arXiv
[76]

Sjöstrand, S

T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191 (2015) 159 [1410.3012]

2015 arXiv
[77]

DELPHES 3 collaboration, DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP 02 (2014) 057 [1307.6346]

2014 arXiv
[78]

A. S. Cornell, W. Doorsamy, B. Fuks, G. Harmsen and L. Mason,Boosted decision trees in the era of new physics: a smuon analysis case study, JHEP 04 (2022) 015 [2109.11815]

2022 arXiv
[79]

Coadou,Boosted decision trees, 2206.09645

Y. Coadou,Boosted decision trees, 2206.09645

arXiv
[80]

Chen and C

T. Chen and C. Guestrin,XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System, 1603.02754

arXiv
[81]

Panico, A

G. Panico, A. Pomarol and M. Riembau,EFT approach to the electron Electric Dipole Moment at the two-loop level, JHEP 04 (2019) 090 [1810.09413]

2019 arXiv
[82]

CEPC Study Group collaboration, CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator, Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods8 (2024) 1 [2312.14363]

2024
[83]

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

I. Agapov et al.,Future Circular Lepton Collider FCC-ee: Overview and Status, in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022,2203.08310. – 25 –

2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

ATLAScollaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1 [1207.7214]

arXiv 2012

[2] [2]

CMS collaboration, Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30 [1207.7235]

arXiv 2012

[3] [3]

CLICdp, CLIC collaboration, The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report, 1812.06018. – 20 –

arXiv 2018

[4] [4]

CMS collaboration, Search for anomalous triple gauge couplings in WW and WZ production in lepton + jet events in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 12 (2019) 062 [1907.08354]

arXiv 2019

[5] [5]

CMS collaboration, Measurement of the inclusive and differential WZ production cross sections, polarization angles, and triple gauge couplings in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV, JHEP 07 (2022) 032 [2110.11231]

arXiv 2022

[6] [6]

CMS collaboration, Measurement of the Wγ Production Cross Section in Proton-Proton Collisions at√s=13 TeV and Constraints on Effective Field Theory Coefficients, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 252002 [2102.02283]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[7] [7]

Baur and D

U. Baur and D. Zeppenfeld,Unitarity Constraints on the Electroweak Three Vector Boson Vertices, Phys. Lett. B201 (1988) 383

1988

[8] [8]

L. Bian, J. Shu and Y. Zhang,Prospects for Triple Gauge Coupling Measurements at Future Lepton Colliders and the 14 TeV LHC, JHEP 09 (2015) 206 [1507.02238]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015