Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Single production of singlet vector-like leptons at the ILC

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At a 1 TeV electron-positron collider, single production of singlet vector-like leptons could be detected at 5σ for masses up to about 700 GeV, with the fully hadronic W-decay channel giving the larger reach.

desk verdict The 5σ reach rectangles claimed in the abstract do not follow from the paper's own cut tables; the significance is off by orders of magnitude at high mass. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07125 v2 pith:GN6JHEEK submitted 2024-12-10 hep-ph

Chong-Xing Yue , Yue-Qi Wang , Xiao-Chen Sun , Xin-Yang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords vector-likeleptonssingletVLSmodelInternationalLinearCollidersingleproductionmuonanomalousmagneticmomentpolarizedbeamsleptonicdecaychannelhadronic
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

This paper argues that a proposed 1 TeV International Linear Collider (ILC) with polarized beams and 1 ab$^{-1}$ of data could discover the singlet vector-like leptons predicted by the vector-like-lepton-with-scalar (VLS) model. The authors compute the cross section for single production $e^+e^- \to \psi\ell$, let the VLL decay through $\psi \to W\nu$, and consider two $W$ decay modes: pure leptonic (two charged leptons plus missing energy) and fully hadronic (two jets, one lepton, and missing energy). They find $5\sigma$ sensitivity for a mass window $M_F \in [300, 675]$ GeV and coupling $\kappa \in [0.0294, 0.1]$ in the leptonic channel, and a larger window $M_F \in [300, 700]$ GeV with $\kappa \in [0.0264, 0.0941]$ in the hadronic channel. The fully hadronic channel is the more sensitive of the two. The point of the exercise is that a future lepton collider can probe this class of new fermions more cleanly than a hadron collider, giving a concrete experimental target for the VLS model.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the singlet VLS model and the single-production process it generates. The model adds to the Standard Model a generation of SU(2)-singlet vector-like leptons $\psi$ and a new scalar $S$, with Yukawa couplings $\kappa$ and $\kappa'$ to the Higgs $h$ and $S$, respectively. After electroweak symmetry breaking, these couplings induce effective $\psi$–$Z$ and $\psi$–$W$ interactions whose strength scales as $\kappa v / M_F$; these drive the s-channel production $e^+e^- \to \psi\ell$ via $Z$ exchange (Eq. (5)) and the decay $\psi \to W\nu,\, Z\ell,\, h\ell$. The analysis machinery is a cut-based collider study: Monte Carlo event generation at leading order, parton showering and hadronization, fast detector simulation with the ILD detector card, and a statistical significance evaluated as $S/\sqrt{S+B}$ after kinematic cuts on missing energy, transverse energy, and pseudorapidity of the leptons (or on $M_{\rm eff}$ and $E_T$ for the hadronic channel). The model assumption that $\kappa/\kappa' = 10^{-2}$ with $\kappa'$ fixed by the muon anomalous magnetic moment (Eq. (6)) at $M_S = 500$ GeV anchors the coupling to the experiment that motivates the model.

What would settle it

Recompute the $5\sigma$ contours with $\kappa$ fixed by Eq. (6) and the relation $\kappa/\kappa' = 10^{-2}$ at $M_S = 500$ GeV for each $M_F$; if the resulting curve never reaches $5\sigma$ inside the quoted mass range, the paper's central quantitative claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that, within the singlet VLS model, the process $e^+e^- \to \psi\ell$ followed by $\psi \to W\nu$ and $W \to \ell\nu$ or $jj$ yields a statistically significant signal at the ILC. With $\sqrt{s} = 1$ TeV, $L = 1$ ab$^{-1}$, and beam polarization $P(e^+, e^-) = (-30\%, 80\%)$, the $5\sigma$ contours in the ($M_F$, $\kappa$) plane enclose $M_F$ from 300 to 675 GeV and $\kappa$ from 0.0294 to 0.1 for the pure leptonic channel, and $M_F$ from 300 to 700 GeV with $\kappa$ from 0.0264 to 0.0941 for the fully hadronic channel. The fully hadronic channel reaches significance 13.06 at $M_F = 300$ GeV and 7.65 at $M_F = 400$ GeV for $\kappa = 0.03$, compared with 6.28 and 3.54 in the leptonic channel. The paper's bottom line is that the ILC could either discover or exclude singlet vector-like leptons in most of the mass range below 700 GeV, provided the coupling $\kappa$ lies above about 0.026.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis scans the coupling $\kappa$ freely at each mass, assuming $\kappa$ and $M_F$ are independent, even though the model's muon-g-2 constraint may tie $\kappa$ to $M_F$ and collapse the quoted two-dimensional discovery regions to a curve.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A null result at the 1 TeV ILC with 1 ab^-1 would exclude singlet vector-like leptons with masses below about 700 GeV and couplings κ down to roughly 0.026 in the VLS model, given the assumed polarization.
  • The fully hadronic W-decay channel should be the primary search mode at lepton colliders, since it yields a larger reach in both MF and κ than the pure leptonic channel.
  • The chosen beam polarization P(e+, e-) = (−30%, 80%) enhances the single-production cross section and suppresses the dominant electroweak backgrounds, making it a key ingredient of the projected sensitivity.
  • Because the single-production cross sections are nearly identical for the first, second, and third generations of VLLs, the same search applies to all three generations without modification.
  • If no signal appears, the ILC measurement would directly probe the coupling region that the VLS model invokes to explain the muon g-2 anomaly, providing a cross-check of that explanation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two-dimensional reach regions treat κ and MF as independent parameters, but the model's own muon-g-2 constraint (Eq. (6) with κ/κ′ = 10^-2 at MS = 500 GeV) may fix κ for each MF; if so, the accessible parameter space collapses to a one-dimensional curve and the quoted rectangles likely overstate the discovery region.
  • The quoted boundaries are derived from leading-order event generation; higher-order QCD and electroweak corrections could shift the signal and background shapes and move the 5σ contours by of order ten to twenty percent.
  • The same single-production search strategy transfers directly to other proposed lepton colliders with adapted luminosity and energy, so the method generalizes beyond the specific ILC parameters assumed here.
  • If the muon g-2 anomaly is later resolved by different new physics, the preferred values of κ and κ′ would change, and the reach regions would need to be recomputed; the discovery claim is contingent on the g-2 interpretation.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the single production of singlet vector-like leptons (VLLs) in the scalar-extended VLS model at a 1 TeV ILC with 1 ab^-1 and polarization P(e+, e-) = (-30%, 80%). It considers W-boson decays in the pure leptonic channel (two charged leptons plus missing energy) and the fully hadronic channel (two jets, one charged lepton, missing energy), using a MadGraph5/Pythia8/Delphes3/MadAnalysis5 pipeline. The authors present a cut-based analysis with cross sections after each cut and statistical significances, and they claim 5 sigma discovery reach for MF in [300, 675] GeV with kappa in [0.0294, 0.1] (leptonic) and MF in [300, 700] GeV with kappa in [0.0264, 0.0941] (hadronic).

Significance. If the quoted reach were correct, the paper would provide a useful projection for singlet VLL searches at the ILC and a concrete benchmark for the VLS model. The paper has clear strengths: the simulation chain is standard and reproducible, the cut flow is transparent with cross sections per cut in Tables II and IV, the polarization choice is motivated by a cross-section scan, and the significance formula is stated explicitly. The main weakness is that the headline reach regions are not supported by the paper's own Monte Carlo tables; the 5 sigma contours in Fig. 5 and the Abstract/Conclusions are internally inconsistent with the numerical significances in Tables II and IV. This makes the central quantitative claim unreliable in its present form.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusions vs. Tables II and IV] The claimed 5 sigma reach rectangles cannot be reproduced from the paper's own cut tables. For the pure leptonic channel, Table II for MF = 600 GeV and kappa = 0.03 gives S = 2.2701 x 10^-7 pb and B = 6.1029 x 10^-3 pb, i.e. 0.227 signal events and 6103 background events at 1 ab^-1, corresponding to SS = 0.00291 as listed. Since the signal rate scales as kappa^2 while the background is kappa-independent, kappa = 0.1 gives only SS ~ 0.032; reaching SS = 5 at MF = 600 would require kappa ~ 1.24, far outside the quoted interval [0.0294, 0.1]. The same check on the fully hadronic channel using Table IV gives S = 1.0786 events and B = 25100 events at MF = 600 and kappa = 0.03 (SS = 0.00683); SS = 5 would require kappa ~ 0.81, and at MF = 700, kappa ~ 2.2. Thus the Abstract's MF in [300, 675] GeV (leptonic) and MF in [300, 700] GeV (hadronic) ranges, and the corresponding 5 sigma curves in Fig. 5, are incompatible with the stated cut-based analysis. This is not a minor scaling issue but a contradiction in the main quantitative result, and it must be resolved by recomputing the reach or by explaining an unstated alternative procedure.
  2. [Section II, Eqs. (1)-(6)] The role of the muon anomalous magnetic moment constraint in the parameter scan is ambiguous and load-bearing for the two-dimensional reach plots. The text says that kappa-prime can be expressed in terms of MF and MS via Eq. (6), and then fixes kappa/kappa-prime = 10^-2 with kappa-prime computed from Eq. (6) for MS = 500 GeV while scanning kappa in (0.01, 0.1). If kappa-prime is indeed fixed by the g-2 constraint for each MF, then kappa = 10^-2 kappa-prime is also determined as a function of MF, and the (MF, kappa) plane collapses to a one-dimensional curve; the filled rectangles in the Abstract and Fig. 5 would then overstate the independent parameter space. If instead kappa is meant to be an independent input in (0.01, 0.1), then Eq. (6) cannot be enforced simultaneously for all scanned points unless kappa-prime is also scanned and the AMM anomaly is not necessarily explained. The authors should state unambiguously which procedure generated Fig. 5; without this, the physical interpretation of the quoted kappa ranges is unclear.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The Abstract calls the results 'analytic results' although they are obtained from a Monte Carlo detector-level simulation; 'simulation results' or 'numerical results' would be more accurate.
  2. [Section II] There are typos: 'electroweak symmertry breaking' and 'asymptotically safety' should read 'electroweak symmetry breaking' and 'asymptotic safety'.
  3. [Table II and Table IV] The SS row of both tables has broken spacing (e.g., '3 .541', '0 .479', '7 .6531'); the typesetting should be corrected.
  4. [Section III A] In the discussion of Fig. 3(c) and (d), the sentence 'the SM background has a peak at low values for eta_l-' is followed by 'while the SM background has a peak at high values for eta_l+'; the second clause should refer to the signal distribution.
  5. [Section III B] The variable written as 'Mef f' should be typeset as M_eff or similar, and its definition should appear consistently in the text and figure captions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ILC reach is computed from the model Lagrangian and Monte Carlo simulation, with only a contextual self-citation, although the claimed reach is inconsistent with the paper's own significance tables.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: Eqs. (1)-(4) define the singlet VLS Lagrangian, couplings, and decay widths, Eq. (5) gives the analytic s-channel cross section, and the significance SS = S/sqrt(S+B) is applied to simulated signal and background events, so the kappa bounds quoted in the Abstract and Fig. 5 are scan outputs for a free coupling rather than fitted inputs, and the central reach claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The branching-ratio guidance is taken from Ref. [49] by different authors, and the only same-group citation, Ref. [50], is used merely to cite existing parameter constraints and prior collider studies, not to justify the 5-sigma reach, so it is a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation. A separate, non-circularity concern should be flagged: at kappa = 0.03 and MF = 600 GeV, Table II gives SS = 0.00291 for the pure leptonic channel and Table IV gives SS = 0.00683 for the fully hadronic channel; because the signal rate scales as kappa^2 with fixed backgrounds, reaching SS = 5 would require kappa roughly 1.26 (leptonic) and 0.82 (hadronic), so the quoted rectangles MF in [300,675] GeV with kappa in [0.0294,0.1] and MF in [300,700] GeV with kappa in [0.0264,0.0941] cannot be reproduced from the paper's own tables. This internal inconsistency is a correctness or reporting risk, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or entities; the vector-like lepton and the new scalar S are inherited from the VLS model of Refs. [41-43]. The free parameters are the model couplings and masses that are scanned or fixed by hand. The key assumptions are the model Lagrangian itself, the choice MS = 500 GeV, the ratio kappa/kappa-prime = 10^-2, and the simplification that S is heavier than the VLL.

free parameters (4)
  • kappa = scanned 0.01-0.1, benchmark 0.03
    Yukawa coupling of the singlet VLL to the SM Higgs; the central reach is quoted in the (MF, kappa) plane. Not fitted to data, but varied by hand.
  • MF (VLL mass) = scanned 300-700 GeV
    Common mass of the VLL generations; scanned to map the discovery region.
  • MS (new scalar mass) = 500 GeV
    Mass of the new SU(2)L singlet scalar S, fixed by hand; affects the muon AMM via f(MS^2/MF^2) and the derived value of kappa-prime.
  • kappa-prime = set by Delta a_mu via Eq. (6) with kappa/kappa-prime = 10^-2
    Coupling of S to right-handed electron and psi; not a scan parameter, computed from the muon AMM anomaly for MS = 500 GeV.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption VLS model Lagrangian and couplings (Eqs. (1)-(3))
    The theoretical framework is taken from Refs. [41-43]; the paper assumes this model without independent derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper New scalar S is heavier than the VLL, so psi to S l decays are neglected
    Section II states this assumption; if S were lighter, additional decay modes would alter branching ratios and the reach.
  • ad hoc to paper kappa/kappa-prime = 10^-2
    Section II: the ratio is fixed to 10^-2 based on AMMs and electroweak data, with kappa-prime computed from Eq. (6); the impact on the reach depends on this choice.
  • domain assumption Muon AMM anomaly is explained by the VLS model
    Used to fix kappa-prime for a given MF and MS = 500 GeV; this is an experimental input, not a prediction of the paper.
  • domain assumption SM backgrounds computed at LO with fast detector simulation approximate the real ILC environment
    Standard for a first sensitivity study; no NLO corrections or full detector systematics are included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single production of singlet vector-like leptons at the ILC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GN6JHEEK

@misc{pith2026241207125,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single production of singlet vector-like leptons at the ILC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GN6JHEEK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07125}
}
abstract

Vector-like leptons (VLLs) as one kind of interesting new particles can produce rich phenomenology at low- and high-energy experiments. In the framework of the singlet vector-like leptons with scalar (VLS) model, we investigate the discovery potential of VLL via its single production at the International Linear Collider (ILC) with the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s} =$ 1 TeV and the integrated luminosity $\mathcal{L}$ = 1 ab$^{-1}$, taking into account the appropriate polarization. For the signal and standard model (SM) background analysis, we have considered two kinds of decay channels for the W boson, i.e. pure leptonic and fully hadronic decay channels. Our analytic results show that the parameter space $M_{F}\in$ [300, 675] GeV and $\kappa \in$ [0.0294, 0.1] might be detected by the proposed ILC for pure leptonic decay channel. For fully hadronic decay channel, larger detection region of the parameter space are derived as $M_{F}\in$ [300, 700] GeV and $\kappa \in$ [0.0264, 0.0941].

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07125 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams for single production of VLL at the ILC. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Production cross section of the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The normalized distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The normalized distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012), 1207.7214

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), 1207.7235

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405, 279 (2005), hep-ph/0404175

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    J. L. Feng, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 495 (2010), 1003.0904

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A16 (2014), 1303.5076. 14

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    J. L. Feng, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 351 (2013), 1302.6587

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Maltoni, Phys. Rept. 460, 1 (2008), 0704.1800

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    A. P. Morais, A. Onofre, F. F. Freitas, J. a. Gonc ¸alves, R. Pasechnik, and R. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 232 (2023), 2108.03926

    arXiv 2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021), 2104.03281

    2021

  2. [10]

    Kuflik, Y

    E. Kuflik, Y . Nir, and T. V olansky, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 091801 (2013), 1204.1975

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Eberhardt, G

    O. Eberhardt, G. Herbert, H. Lacker, A. Lenz, A. Menzel, U. Nierste, and M. Wiebusch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 241802 (2012), 1209.1101

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Arkani-Hamed, A

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz, and A. E. Nelson, JHEP 07, 034 (2002), hep-ph/0206021

    2002 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Perelstein, M

    M. Perelstein, M. E. Peskin, and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. D 69, 075002 (2004), hep-ph/0310039

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Carena, J

    M. Carena, J. Hubisz, M. Perelstein, and P. Verdier, Phys. Rev. D 75, 091701 (2007), hep- ph/0610156

    2007

  7. [15]

    T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath, and L.-T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 67, 095004 (2003), hep- ph/0301040

    2003

  8. [16]

    Anastasiou, E

    C. Anastasiou, E. Furlan, and J. Santiago, Phys. Rev. D 79, 075003 (2009), 0901.2117

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    K. Kong, M. McCaskey, and G. W. Wilson, JHEP 04, 079 (2012), 1112.3041

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gillioz, R

    M. Gillioz, R. Grober, C. Grojean, M. Muhlleitner, and E. Salvioni, JHEP 10, 004 (2012), 1206.7120

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Keren-Zur, P

    B. Keren-Zur, P. Lodone, M. Nardecchia, D. Pappadopulo, R. Rattazzi, and L. Vecchi, Nucl. Phys. B 867, 394 (2013), 1205.5803

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Falkowski, D

    A. Falkowski, D. M. Straub, and A. Vicente, JHEP 05, 092 (2014), 1312.5329

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Agashe, G

    K. Agashe, G. Perez, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 75, 015002 (2007), hep-ph/0606293

    2007 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Contino, T

    R. Contino, T. Kramer, M. Son, and R. Sundrum, JHEP 05, 074 (2007), hep-ph/0612180

    2007 arXiv

  15. [23]

    T. Li, Z. Murdock, S. Nandi, and S. K. Rai, Phys. Rev. D 85, 076010 (2012), 1201.5616

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Huang, K

    G.-Y . Huang, K. Kong, and S. C. Park, JHEP 06, 099 (2012), 1204.0522

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Redi, JHEP 09, 060 (2013), 1306.1525

    M. Redi, JHEP 09, 060 (2013), 1306.1525

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. Kang, P. Langacker, and B. D. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D 77, 035003 (2008), 0708.2701

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    K. S. Babu, I. Gogoladze, M. U. Rehman, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D78, 055017 (2008), 0807.3055

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 81, 035004 (2010), 0910.2732

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    P. W. Graham, A. Ismail, S. Rajendran, and P. Saraswat, Phys. Rev. D 81, 055016 (2010), 15 0910.3020

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Adhikary, M

    A. Adhikary, M. Olechowski, J. Rosiek, and M. Ryczkowski (2024), 2406.16050

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Crivellin, F

    A. Crivellin, F. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, JHEP 12, 166 (2020), 2008.01113

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Megias, M

    E. Megias, M. Quiros, and L. Salas, JHEP 05, 016 (2017), 1701.05072

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Carmona and F

    A. Carmona and F. Goertz, JHEP 05, 002 (2015), 1410.8555

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Carmona and F

    A. Carmona and F. Goertz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 251801 (2016), 1510.07658

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Carmona and F

    A. Carmona and F. Goertz, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 979 (2018), 1712.02536

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Guedes and J

    G. Guedes and J. Santiago, JHEP 01, 111 (2022), 2107.03429

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Baspehlivan, B

    F. Baspehlivan, B. Dagli, O. E. Delialioglu, and S. Sultansoy (2022), 2201.08251

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Achard et al

    P. Achard et al. (L3), Phys. Lett. B 517, 75 (2001), hep-ex/0107015

    2001 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. D 105, 112007 (2022), 2202.08676

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 07, 118 (2023), 2303.05441

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hiller, C

    G. Hiller, C. Hormigos-Feliu, D. F. Litim, and T. Steudtner, Phys. Rev. D 102, 095023 (2020), 2008.08606

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hiller, C

    G. Hiller, C. Hormigos-Feliu, D. F. Litim, and T. Steudtner, Phys. Rev. D 102, 071901 (2020), 1910.14062

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hiller, C

    G. Hiller, C. Hormigos-Feliu, D. F. Litim, and T. Steudtner, in 54th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories (2019), pp. 415–418, 1905.11020

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    D. F. Litim and F. Sannino, JHEP 12, 178 (2014), 1406.2337

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. D. Bond and D. F. Litim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 211601 (2019), 1801.08527

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. D. Bond and D. F. Litim, Phys. Rev. D 97, 085008 (2018), 1707.04217

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bednyakov and A

    A. Bednyakov and A. Mukhaeva, Symmetry 15, 1497 (2023), 2309.08258

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    D. F. Litim, N. Riyaz, E. Stamou, and T. Steudtner, Phys. Rev. D 108, 076006 (2023), 2307.08747

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bißmann, G

    S. Bißmann, G. Hiller, C. Hormigos-Feliu, and D. F. Litim, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 101 (2021), 2011.12964

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Yue, Y .-Q

    C.-X. Yue, Y .-Q. Wang, H. Wang, Y .-H. Wang, and S. Li, Nucl. Phys. B 1000, 116482 (2024), 2402.02072

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A. Das, S. Mandal, and T. Modak, Phys. Rev. D 102, 033001 (2020), 2005.02267

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Das and S

    A. Das and S. Mandal, Nucl. Phys. B 966, 115374 (2021), 2006.04123

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bhattacharya, S

    S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, and J. Wudka, JHEP 05, 009 (2022), 2106.02846. 16

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Aihara et al

    H. Aihara et al. (ILC) (2019), 1901.09829

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Bambade et al

    P. Bambade et al. (2019), 1903.01629

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014), 1310.1921

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer, and T. Reiter, Comput. Phys. Com- mun. 183, 1201 (2012), 1108.2040

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V . Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP07, 079 (2014), 1405.0301

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V . Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao, and M. Zaro, JHEP 07, 185 (2018), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 085 (2021)], 1804.10017

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Sj ¨ostrand, S

    T. Sj ¨ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015), 1410.3012

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V . Lema ˆıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3), JHEP 02, 057 (2014), 1307.6346

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Fuks, and G. Serret, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 222 (2013), 1206.1599

    2013 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Dumont, B. Fuks, and C. Wymant, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3103 (2014), 1405.3982

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Conte and B

    E. Conte and B. Fuks, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1830027 (2018), 1808.00480. 17

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.