Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 106 references

New Physics contamination to precision luminosity measurements at future $e^+e^-$ colliders

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Heavy new physics can bias luminosity calibration at future e+e− colliders by up to 4 percent, and luminosity-free asymmetries can remove the bias.

desk verdict A credible, useful exploratory study: heavy SMEFT four-fermion operators can contaminate small-angle Bhabha luminosity at future e+e- colliders at or above target precision, and the proposed A↑↓ asymmetry is a genuinely new handle, though the AFB removal claim needs a stronger conditioning argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05256 v2 pith:EF3DEE75 submitted 2025-01-09 hep-ph

Mauro Chiesa , Clara L. Del Pio , Guido Montagna , Oreste Nicrosini , Fulvio Piccinini , Francesco P. Ucci This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords small-angleBhabhascatteringluminositymeasurementSMEFTfour-fermionoperatorsforward-backwardasymmetryup-downfuturee+e−colliderslightnewphysics
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

The paper asks whether unknown new physics could masquerade as an error in the luminosity measurement that all precision cross sections at future e+e− colliders are normalized to. It finds that heavy new-physics effects, encoded as dimension-six four-fermion operators, shift the small-angle Bhabha cross section used as the luminosity reference by $(-4.2 \pm 1.7) \times 10^{-5}$ at the Z pole at FCC-ee and by $(-4.2 \pm 1.7) \times 10^{-2}$ at 3 TeV at CLIC, both at or above the stated precision targets. Light new particles (axionlike particles, dark vectors, the X17 candidate) stay below $10^{-6}$ and are harmless. The paper then shows that luminosity-independent angular asymmetries in large-angle Bhabha scattering — $A_{FB}$ measured at three energies near the Z resonance, or a new up-down polarization asymmetry $A^{\uparrow \downarrow}$ — can constrain the same four-electron operators tightly enough to remove the contamination.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the SMEFT prediction of the Bhabha cross section at dimension six, $\sigma_{\rm SMEFT} = \sigma_{\rm SM} + \sum_i (C_i/\Lambda_{\rm NP}^2) \, \sigma^{(6)}_i$, and the relative deviation $\delta_{\rm SMEFT} = \sigma^{(6)}/\sigma_{\rm SM}$ defined in Eq. (12). The relevant operators are the four-electron contact terms $C_{ll}$, $C_{le}$, $C_{ee}$; the $Zee$ coupling shifts are negligible, and the contact-term effect grows at large angles as $\delta \sim -s\,C_i(1-\cos\theta)/(\Lambda_{\rm NP}^2\,2\pi\alpha)$. The removal strategy uses asymmetry observables $A_{ab} = (\sigma_a-\sigma_b)/(\sigma_a+\sigma_b)$ in large-angle Bhabha scattering, whose luminosity dependence cancels, fit to the SMEFT prediction via Eq. (17) and Eq. (22); the new $A^{\uparrow\downarrow}$ asymmetry in Eq. (23) flips the sign of only $P_{e^-}$ and resolves the flat direction that makes $A_{LR}$ useless.

What would settle it

A detector-level simulation of the large-angle Bhabha selection at a Z-pole machine, including acceptance, alignment, and QED-radiation uncertainties, that finds $\Delta A_{FB} > 5 \times 10^{-5}$, or a three-energy fit that returns Wilson-coefficient errors above about $10^{-2}$, would falsify the claim that the heavy-NP contamination can be removed with $A_{FB}$ alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the reference process for absolute luminosity at future e+e− machines, small-angle Bhabha scattering, is not BSM-proof at the required precision. With the current flavor-general bounds on Wilson coefficients, the four-fermion operators $C_{ll}$, $C_{le}$, $C_{ee}$ produce a negative shift in the SABS cross section that grows with energy and with scattering angle; Table II quantifies it from $(-4.2 \pm 1.7) \times 10^{-5}$ at 91 GeV up to $(-4.2 \pm 1.7) \times 10^{-2}$ at 3 TeV. Light NP is negligible. Because the shift is driven by contact operators, it can be removed by measuring luminosity-free asymmetries in large-angle Bhabha scattering: three $A_{FB}$ points near the Z pole constrain the Wilson coefficients to about $10^{-2}$, and the newly proposed $A^{\uparrow \downarrow}$ asymmetry, which flips only one beam polarization, breaks the flat direction of the standard left-right asymmetry and reaches the few $\times 10^{-3}$ level, making the residual luminosity bias negligible.

Load-bearing premise

The whole removal strategy rests on the projection that the asymmetry measurements are limited only by counting statistics, with errors $\Delta A_{FB} \lesssim 5 \times 10^{-5}$ and $\Delta C_i$ at the few $\times 10^{-3}$ level, and that no detector, acceptance, or radiative-correction systematics enter; if those systematics dominate, the constraints weaken and the luminosity contamination is not removed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At FCC-ee the Z-pole luminosity calibration carries a heavy-NP bias of about $4 \times 10^{-5}$ under current bounds, comparable to the $10^{-4}$ target; at CLIC's 3 TeV run the bias reaches $4 \times 10^{-2}$, far above the $10^{-2}$ target.
  • Light new particles — axionlike particles, dark photons, and the X17 candidate — do not disturb the luminosity reference at the $10^{-4}$ level, so they can be neglected in the calibration budget.
  • Measuring $A_{FB}$ at three energies near the Z resonance constrains the four-electron Wilson coefficients to about $10^{-2}$ and reduces the Z-pole luminosity bias to about $5 \times 10^{-6}$.
  • For machines that skip the Z scan, the up-down asymmetry $A^{\uparrow\downarrow}$ with polarized beams reaches $\Delta C_i$ at the few $\times 10^{-3}$ level, leaving a bias below $10^{-7}$.
  • The same asymmetry constraints obtained at the Z pole or at high energy also remove the NP bias for the other running energies of the same collider.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same luminosity-free asymmetry logic could be carried over to $\mu^+\mu^- \to \mu^+\mu^-$ at a muon collider, where the reference process and the energy dependence of the contact-term contamination both change.
  • If detector systematics turn out to dominate, a hybrid fit that adds the angular distribution of large-angle Bhabha events to the asymmetry measurements could recover some constraining power, at the cost of reintroducing part of the luminosity dependence.
  • The strong energy growth of the contamination means the SMEFT extrapolation at the highest CLIC energy should be checked against the actual momentum transfer of the selected SABS events, since the EFT validity is not obvious when $\sqrt{s}=3$ TeV and $\Lambda_{\rm NP}=1$ TeV.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript investigates whether New Physics can contaminate the absolute luminosity measurement based on small-angle Bhabha scattering (SABS) at future e+e− colliders, and proposes asymmetry-based strategies to remove such contamination. Light NP scenarios are modeled with explicit Lagrangians for ALPs, dark photons, and the X17 boson, and are found to shift the SABS cross section below the 10^-4 precision target. Heavy NP is described by SMEFT dimension-six operators, with Wilson coefficients taken from an external flavor-general global fit; the resulting contamination ranges from (-4.2 ± 1.7) x 10^-5 at FCC-ee (sqrt(s) = 91 GeV) to (-4.2 ± 1.7) x 10^-2 at CLIC (sqrt(s) = 3 TeV), exceeding the luminosity goals at several energies. To remove this contamination, the authors propose to constrain the four-electron Wilson coefficients using luminosity-independent large-angle Bhabha asymmetries: the forward-backward asymmetry measured at three energies near the Z pole, and a new polarized up-down asymmetry A_up-down for high-energy linear colliders. They report that these observables can reduce the four-electron coefficients to the 10^-3 to 10^-2 level, bringing the residual SABS contamination below the target.

Significance. If the removal strategies are valid, the paper fills a real gap in the luminosity-calibration literature, which has focused on SM radiative corrections and has only recently begun to consider NP contamination. The analysis is strengthened by the use of two independent SMEFT implementations (SmeftFR/SMEFTSim), by analytic estimates that reproduce the numerical results, and by the public availability of the updated BabaYaga@NLO code. The proposed up-down polarization asymmetry is a useful new observable, and the explicit identification of the flat direction in ALR is a good example of critical analysis. The main unresolved point is the conditioning of the three-energy AFB fit, which is central to the Z-pole removal claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (20)] The central claim that a measurement of AFB at sqrt(s) = 89, 93, 98 GeV simultaneously constrains all three four-electron Wilson coefficients is not established by the information given. The text reports only the aggregate statement Delta(C4f) <= 10^-2 and does not provide the per-coefficient uncertainties, the correlation matrix of the fit, or the eigenvalues and condition number of the 3x3 sensitivity matrix in Eq. (20). The aggregate statement is ambiguous: if it means a bound on each coefficient, the individual values should be given; if it means a norm of the three-vector, it does not exclude a single direction with uncertainty of order 3 x 10^-2, which would produce a residual SABS shift of about 2 x 10^-4 at sqrt(s) = 365 GeV, above the 10^-4 luminosity target, and of order 2 x 10^-2 at CLIC 3 TeV. The authors should report the full covariance of the fitted coefficients (or an equivalent eigenvalue decomposition) at the chosen energies, and demonstrate that all three Wilson coefficients are individually resolved. The 2D ellipses and the flat-direction discussion given for the polarization asymmetries in Section III.B are the appropriate level of detail to provide.
  2. [III.A, Eq. (18)] The quantitative projections are derived under the assumption that only counting statistics contribute to the uncertainty on AFB. The proposed strategy is meant to remove a bias that at sqrt(s) = 365 GeV is at the 10^-4 level, so a systematic error in AFB of order 10^-5 would already be relevant. The authors should either include an estimate of the dominant experimental systematics (acceptance, efficiency, energy and angular calibration, radiative-correction theory uncertainty) or state a tolerable systematic budget for the proposed measurements. Without this, the statement that the contamination can be removed should be understood as an idealized, statistics-limited projection rather than a fully established experimental strategy.
minor comments (3)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (20)] The right-hand side is written as Delta(A0_FB,alpha)/A0_FB,alpha, but according to Eq. (17) it should represent the relative deviation (A_data - A_SM)/A_SM; please clarify the notation to avoid confusing the measured deviation with the experimental uncertainty Delta(AFB) used in the following sentence.
  2. [Ref. [49]] The reproducibility statement says that the running code and all results are available on GitHub, but no URL or version identifier is given, which makes the statement difficult to verify.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and incomplete references, for example 'More data are foreseen the in next years' in Section II.A.3, 'forwar' in Section III.A, and reference [36] containing 'Year' in place of a full publication date or document identifier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the heavy-NP contamination is anchored to an external global fit, and the asymmetry-based removal is a sensitivity forecast rather than a hidden refit.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical results are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. The heavy-NP deviations in Table II are obtained by inserting the Wilson coefficients, uncertainties, and correlation matrix from the external flavor-general SMEFT global fit of Ref. [78] into Eq. (12); none of those inputs is fitted to the SABS or LABS data used in this paper. The light-NP estimates are likewise anchored to independent experimental bounds (NA64, BaBar, PADME, ATOMKI). The proposed removal strategies in Sec. III are forecasts: the AFB and polarization-asymmetry fits use simulated data generated about the SM expectation, with statistical uncertainties computed from Eq. (18), and the resulting WC uncertainties are propagated through the same linear SMEFT map to estimate the residual SABS contamination. This is a standard sensitivity projection, not a case of fitting a parameter to a subset of data and then presenting a closely related quantity as a prediction. The use of the authors' BabaYaga@NLO generator is supported by publicly available code and prior validated publications, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from self-citations. The skeptic's concern about the conditioning of the 3x3 AFB system is a legitimate correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the paper does not hide a fitted input as an independent prediction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical results rest on external global-fit Wilson coefficients and maximal light-NP couplings chosen from current experimental bounds, plus idealized assumptions about future collider operation and statistics. No new particles or mediators are introduced by this paper.

free parameters (9)
  • Cll = 0.17 +/- 0.06
    Wilson coefficient of the four-electron operator (eL gamma_mu eL)(eL gamma_mu eL), taken from the flavor-general global fit of Ref. [78]. It drives the dominant negative shift in SABS.
  • Cle = -0.037 +/- 0.036
    Wilson coefficient of the (eL gamma_mu eL)(eR gamma_mu eR) operator, from the same global fit. It enters the LABS asymmetry constraints.
  • Cee = 0.034 +/- 0.062
    Wilson coefficient of the (eR gamma_mu eR)(eR gamma_mu eR) operator, from the same global fit. It contributes to the SABS shift and to the asymmetry fits.
  • Delta g^Ze_L = -0.0038 +/- 0.0046
    Shift of the left-handed Zee coupling induced by dimension-six operators, from Ref. [78]. The paper finds it negligible for SABS.
  • Delta g^Ze_R = -0.0054 +/- 0.0045
    Shift of the right-handed Zee coupling, from Ref. [78]. The paper finds it negligible for SABS.
  • g_aee (ALP-electron) = 3e-3 at m_a = 1 GeV
    Maximal ALP-electron coupling allowed by NA64 beam-dump bounds, chosen to maximize the light scalar contamination.
  • g_aγγ (ALP-photon) = 2e-4 GeV^-1
    Maximal ALP-photon coupling from beam-dump and invisible decay searches, used for photon-fusion ALP production.
  • g'_V (dark photon-electron) = 3e-4 at M_V = 1 GeV
    Maximal dark photon coupling to electrons from the BaBar invisible dark photon search, chosen to maximize the dark vector contamination.
  • g_Xee (X17-electron) = 5.6e-4 at m_X = 16.90 MeV
    Coupling of the hypothetical X17 boson to electrons, from PADME constraints, used to estimate the X17 contamination to SABS.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption SMEFT expansion truncated at dimension six with Lambda_NP = 1 TeV.
    Used throughout Section II.B, Eq. (8), to compute heavy NP contributions. Assumes the new physics scale is O(TeV) and dimension-eight effects are negligible.
  • domain assumption The global-fit Wilson coefficients and correlation matrix from Ref. [78] represent the current best knowledge.
    All heavy NP deviations in Table II follow from these external fitted values. If the global fit is updated, the numbers change.
  • domain assumption Future collider luminosities, running times, and angular acceptances are as assumed.
    Used in Section III to compute statistical uncertainties, e.g., L_FCC = 1.4 x 10^36 cm^-2 s^-1 for 5 x 10^6 seconds and ILC L = 1.35 x 10^34 cm^-2 s^-1, with acceptances from Table II.
  • domain assumption Only statistical uncertainties are included in the asymmetry fits.
    Stated before Eq. (18): 'assuming only statistical uncertainty Delta_k = sqrt(N_k)'. Systematic effects are neglected.
  • domain assumption The SM is the true theory up to the start of future colliders, so simulated data can be centered on the SM prediction.
    Stated in Section III: 'We assume the validity of the SM up to the starting of future colliders physics programs'.
  • domain assumption The LABS acceptance theta in [40, 140] degrees and the three energy points sqrt(s) = 89, 93, 98 GeV are sufficient to separate the three four-electron Wilson coefficients.
    Used in Section III.A. The energy points are chosen from maxima of the current central-value deviation, so they depend on the assumed Wilson coefficients.
  • domain assumption NLO SMEFT corrections are at the percent level relative to the LO SMEFT prediction and can be neglected.
    Based on the order-of-magnitude estimates in Eqs. (14) and (15), not on a complete NLO computation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Physics contamination to precision luminosity measurements at future $e^+e^-$ colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EF3DEE75

@misc{pith2026250105256,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Physics contamination to precision luminosity measurements at future $e^+e^-$ colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EF3DEE75}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05256}
}
abstract

Several key observables of the high-precision physics program at future lepton colliders will critically depend on the knowledge of the absolute machine luminosity. The determination of the luminosity relies on the precise knowledge of some reference process, which is in principle not affected by unknown physics, so that its cross section can be computed within a well-established theory, like the Standard Model. Quantifying the uncertainties induced by possible New Physics effects on such processes is therefore crucial. We present an exploratory investigation of light and heavy New Physics contributions to the small-angle Bhabha process at future $e^+e^-$ colliders and we discuss possible strategies to remove potential uncertainties originating from such contaminations by relying on observables that are independent of the absolute luminosity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05256 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Tree level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diagrams for LNP contributions to SABS. To the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Diagrams with insertion of SMEFT operators at dimension six, represented by square vertices. From the left to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. SMEFT deviation to the SABS differential cross section as a function of the electron scattering angle in the same setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Absolute deviation of the LABS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Results of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    Brivio, SMEFTsim 3.0 — a practical guide, JHEP04, 073, arXiv:2012.11343 [hep-ph]

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

    arXiv 2012

  2. [1]

    (Pseudo)scalar axionlike particles The interaction of a (pseudo)scalar axionlike particle (ALP) a of mass ma with both the photon and the elec- tron can be parametrized with the parity-violating La- grangian LALP = 1 2 ∂µa ∂µa − 1 2 m2 aa2 + 1 4 gaγγ (Fµν ˜F µν) a + gaee(¯e iγ5 e) a , (4) where Fµν is the electromagnetic field tensor, ˜F µν the dual field...

  3. [2]

    The kinetic mixing of such boson [64–66] with the SM (un)brokenU (1)(em)Y gauge field would result in a coupling with the electro- magnetic current after the EW symmetry breaking

    Dark vectors In a light NP scenario, Bhabha scattering could also be mediated by a dark vector bosonVµ associated with a new U (1)′ gauge symmetry, usually referred to as dark photon [62] or lightZ ′ models [63]. The kinetic mixing of such boson [64–66] with the SM (un)brokenU (1)(em)Y gauge field would result in a coupling with the electro- magnetic curr...

  4. [3]

    The hypothetical X17 particle The anomalous resonance observed by the ATOMKI experiment [68] in 8Be∗ → 8Be e+e− nuclear transitions at me+e− ≃ 17 MeV has been interpreted as a new vec- tor gauge boson [69]. Subsequent results with 4He [70] and 12C [71] atoms confirmed such findings, while the MEG II experiment [72] has not found evidence in its data, yet ...

  5. [4]

    Actiset al

    S. Actiset al. (Working Group on Radiative Corrections and Monte Carlo Generators for Low Energies), Quest for precision in hadronic cross sections at low energy: Monte Carlo tools vs. experimental data, Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 585 (2010), arXiv:0912.0749 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [5]

    Altmann et al

    J. Altmann et al. , ECF A Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study , CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, Vol. 5/2025 (2025) arXiv:2506.15390 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    Schael et al

    S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group), Precision elec- troweak measurements on theZ resonance, Phys. Rept. 10 427, 257 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0509008

    arXiv 2006

  8. [7]

    Voutsinas, E

    G. Voutsinas, E. Perez, M. Dam, and P. Janot, Beam- beam effects on the luminosity measurement at LEP and the number of light neutrino species, Phys. Lett. B 800, 135068 (2020), arXiv:1908.01704 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 106 references
  1. [8]

    Janot and S

    P. Janot and S. Jadach, Improved Bhabha cross section at LEP and the number of light neutrino species, Phys. Lett. B803, 135319 (2020), arXiv:1912.02067 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [9]

    P. Azzi, P. Azzurri, S. Biswas, F. Blekman, G. Cor- cella, S. D. Curtis, J. Erler, N. Foppiani, I. Hele- nius, S. Jadach, P. Janot, F. Jegerlehner, P. Langacker, E. Locci, F. Margaroli, B. Mele, F. Piccinini, J. Reuter, M. Steinhauser, R. Tenchini, M. Vos, and C. Zhang, Physic...

    arXiv

  3. [10]

    Azzurri, TheW mass and width measurement chal- lenge at FCC-ee, Eur

    P. Azzurri, TheW mass and width measurement chal- lenge at FCC-ee, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    A. B. Arbuzov, V. S. Fadin, E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Li- patov, N. P. Merenkov, and L. G. Trentadue, Small angle Bhabha scattering for LEP 10.5170/CERN-1995- 003.369 (1995)

    1995 doi

  5. [12]

    Abbiendiet al

    G. Abbiendiet al. (OPAL Collaboration), Precision lu- minosity for Z0 line shape measurements with a silicon tungsten calorimeter, Eur. Phys. J. C14, 373 (2000), arXiv:hep-ex/9910066

    2000 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Montagna, O

    G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Preci- sion physics at LEP, Riv. Nuovo Cim.21N9, 1 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9802302

    1998 arXiv

  7. [14]

    de Blas et al., Focus topics for the ECFA study on Higgs / Top / EW factories, arXiv:2401.07564 [hep-ph] (2024)

    J. de Blas et al., Focus topics for the ECFA study on Higgs / Top / EW factories, arXiv:2401.07564 [hep-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Jadach, W

    S. Jadach, W. Płaczek, M. Skrzypek, B. F. L. Ward, andS.A.Yost,Thepathto0.01%theoreticalluminosity precision for the FCC-ee, Phys. Lett. B790, 314 (2019), arXiv:1812.01004 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Abreu et al

    S. Abreu et al. , Theory for the FCC-ee: Report on the 11th FCC-ee Workshop Theory and Experiments, arXiv:1905.05078 [hep-ph] (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    B. F. L. Ward, S. Jadach, W. Placzek, M. Skrzypek, and S. A. Yost, Path to the0.01% Theoretical Luminosity Precision Requirement for the FCC-ee (and ILC), inIn- ternational Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (2019) arXiv:1902.05912 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    B. F. L. Ward, S. Jadach, W. Placzek, M. Skrzypek, and S. A. Yost, Overview of the Path to 0.01% The- oretical Luminosity Precision for the FCC-ee and Its Possible Synergistic Effects for Other FCC Precision Theory Requirements, PoSICHEP2020, 704 (2021), arXiv:2012.11437 [hep-ph]

    2021

  12. [19]

    Jadach, W

    S. Jadach, W. Płaczek, M. Skrzypek, and B. F. L. Ward, Study of theoretical luminosity precision for electron colliders at higher energies, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1047 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    M.Skrzypek, W.Płaczek, B.F.L.Ward,andS.Y.Yost, How Well Could We Calculate Luminosity at FCCee?, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.17, 2 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    B. F. L. Ward, S. Jadach, W. Placzek, M. Skrzypek, and S. A. Yost, Outlook for the Theoretical Precision of the Luminosity at Future Lepton Colliders, Proc. Sci. ICHEP2024 (2024), arXiv:2410.09095 [hep-ph]

    2024

  15. [22]

    J. A. Maestre, Precision studies of quantum electrody- namics at futuree+e− colliders, arXiv:2206.07564 [hep- ph] (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    C. M. Carloni Calame, M. Chiesa, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Electroweak corrections to e+e− → γγ as a luminosity process at FCC-ee, Phys. Lett. B798, 134976 (2019), arXiv:1906.08056 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Dam, Challenges for FCC-ee luminosity mon- itor design, Eur

    M. Dam, Challenges for FCC-ee luminosity mon- itor design, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 81 (2022), arXiv:2107.12837 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Abadaet al

    A. Abadaet al. (FCC Collaboration), FCC Physics Op- portunities: FutureCircularColliderConceptualDesign Report Volume 1, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 474 (2019)

    2019

  19. [26]

    (FCCCollaboration),FCC-ee: TheLep- ton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual De- signReportVolume2,Eur.Phys.J.ST 228,261(2019)

    A.Abada et al. (FCCCollaboration),FCC-ee: TheLep- ton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual De- signReportVolume2,Eur.Phys.J.ST 228,261(2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    Benedikt et al

    M. Benedikt et al. (FCC Collaboration), Fu- ture Circular Collider Feasibility Study Re- port: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, De- tectors 10.17181/CERN.9DKX.TDH9 (2025), arXiv:2505.00272 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [28]

    CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 1 - Acceler- ator, arXiv:1809.00285 [physics.acc-ph] (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Dong et al

    M. Dong et al. (CEPC Study Group), CEPC Concep- tual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector, arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex] (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Re- port - Volume 1: Executive Summary, arXiv:1306.6327 [physics.acc-ph] (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  24. [31]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Re- port - Volume 2: Physics, arXiv:1306.6352 [hep-ph] (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  25. [32]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Re- port - Volume 3.I: Accelerator \& in the Technical De- sign Phase, arXiv:1306.6353 [physics.acc-ph] (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  26. [33]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 3.II: Accelerator Baseline Design, arXiv:1306.6328 [physics.acc-ph] (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Abramowicz et al

    H. Abramowicz et al. , The International Linear Col- lider Technical Design Report - Volume 4: Detectors, arXiv:1306.6329 [physics.ins-det] (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  28. [35]

    I. B. Jelisavčić, S. Lukić, G. M. Dumbelović, M. Pan- durović, and I. Smiljanić, Luminosity measurement at ilc, Journal of Instrumentation8 (08), P08012–P08012

  29. [36]

    Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual De- sign Report, arXiv:1202.5940 [physics.ins-det] (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  30. [37]

    M. J. Bolandet al. (CLIC, CLICdp), Updated baseline for a staged Compact Linear Collider, arXiv:1608.07537 [physics.acc-ph] (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  31. [38]

    T. K. Charles et al. (CLICdp, CLIC), The Com- pact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report, arXiv:1812.06018 [physics.acc-ph] (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Abramowiczet al., A luminosity calorimeter for clic, https://edms.cern.ch/document/1644637483 (Year), cERN EDMS Document 1644637483

    H. Abramowiczet al., A luminosity calorimeter for clic, https://edms.cern.ch/document/1644637483 (Year), cERN EDMS Document 1644637483

  33. [40]

    We remark that the fiducial volume for SABS events is smaller than the geometrical acceptance of the lumi- nometer

  34. [41]

    Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and ampli- tudes with FeynArts 3, Comput

    T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and ampli- tudes with FeynArts 3, Comput. Phys. Commun.140, 418 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012260

    2001 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Mertig, M

    R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, FEYN CALC: Computer algebraic calculation of Feynman amplitudes, Comput. Phys. Commun.64, 345 (1991)

    1991

  36. [43]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, New De- velopments in FeynCalc 9.0, Comput. Phys. Commun. 207, 432 (2016), arXiv:1601.01167 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Darmé et al

    L. Darmé et al. , UFO 2.0: the ‘Universal Feynman Output’ format, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 631 (2023), 11 arXiv:2304.09883 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Dedes, W

    A. Dedes, W. Materkowska, M. Paraskevas, J. Rosiek, and K. Suxho, Feynman rules for the Standard Model Effective Field Theory in Rξ -gauges, JHEP 06, 143, arXiv:1704.03888 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  39. [46]

    Dedes, M

    A. Dedes, M. Paraskevas, J. Rosiek, K. Suxho, and L. Trifyllis, SmeftFR – Feynman rules generator for the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, Comput. Phys. Commun. 247, 106931 (2020), arXiv:1904.03204 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Dedes, J

    A. Dedes, J. Rosiek, M. Ryczkowski, K. Suxho, and L. Trifyllis, SmeftFR v3 – Feynman rules generator for the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, Comput. Phys. Commun.294, 108943 (2024), arXiv:2302.01353 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Brivio, Y

    I. Brivio, Y. Jiang, and M. Trott, The SMEFTsim pack- age, theory and tools, JHEP12, 070, arXiv:1709.06492 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Mal- toni, 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, JHEP0...

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Fuks, FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree- level phenomenology, Comput

    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, 2250 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    The running code and all the results are available on GitHub

  45. [53]

    C. M. Carloni Calame, C. Lunardini, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Large angle Bhabha scat- tering and luminosity at flavor factories, Nucl. Phys. B 584, 459 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0003268

    2000 arXiv

  46. [54]

    C. M. Carloni Calame, An Improved parton shower algorithm in QED, Phys. Lett. B 520, 16 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103117

    2001 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Balossini, C

    G. Balossini, C. M. Carloni Calame, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Matching perturba- tive and parton shower corrections to Bhabha process at flavour factories, Nucl. Phys. B 758, 227 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0607181

    2006 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Balossini, C

    G. Balossini, C. Bignamini, C. M. C. Calame, G. Mon- tagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, Photon pair pro- duction at flavour factories with per mille accuracy, Phys. Lett. B 663, 209 (2008), arXiv:0801.3360 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Budassi, C

    E. Budassi, C. M. Carloni Calame, M. Ghilardi, A. Gur- gone, G. Montagna, M. Moretti, O. Nicrosini, F. Pic- cinini, and F. P. Ucci, Pion pair production in e+e− annihilation at next-to-leading order matched to Par- ton Shower, JHEP05, 196, arXiv:2409.03469 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Masiero, P

    A. Masiero, P. Paradisi, and M. Passera, New physics at the MUonE experiment at CERN, Phys. Rev. D102, 075013 (2020), arXiv:2002.05418 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Y. M. Andreevet al. (NA64 Collaboration), Constraints on New Physics in Electrong − 2 from a Search for In- visible Decays of a Scalar, Pseudoscalar, Vector, and Axial Vector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 211802 (2021), arXiv:2102.01885 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Acanfora, R

    F. Acanfora, R. Franceschini, A. Mastroddi, and D. Redigolo, Fusing photons into nothing, a new search for invisible ALPs and Dark Matter at Belle II, JHEP 11, 156, arXiv:2307.06369 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Nguyen, F

    F. Nguyen, F. Piccinini, and A. D. Polosa, e+e− → e+e−π0π0 at DAPHNE, Eur. Phys. J. C47, 65 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602205

    2006 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Babusci et al

    D. Babusci et al. (KLOE-2 Collaboration), Measure- ment of η meson production in γγ interactions and Γ(η → γγ ) with the KLOE detector, JHEP 01, 119, arXiv:1211.1845 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Budassi, C

    E. Budassi, C. M. Carloni Calame, C. L. Del Pio, and F. Piccinini, Single π0 production in µe scatter- ing at MUonE, Phys. Lett. B 829, 137138 (2022), arXiv:2203.01639 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    S. J. Brodsky, T. Kinoshita, and H. Terazawa, Two Pho- ton Mechanism of Particle Production by High-Energy Colliding Beams, Phys. Rev. D4, 1532 (1971)

    1971

  57. [65]

    Bauer, P

    M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer, and J. Jaeckel, Hunting All the Hidden Photons, JHEP07, 094, arXiv:1803.05466 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    N. Nath, N. Okada, S. Okada, D. Raut, and Q. Shafi, Light Z ′ and Dirac fermion dark matter in theB − L model,Eur.Phys.J.C 82,864(2022),arXiv:2112.08960 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys

    B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  60. [68]

    Boehm and P

    C. Boehm and P. Fayet, Scalar dark matter candidates, Nucl. Phys. B683, 219 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0305261

    2004 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Secluded WIMP Dark Matter, Phys. Lett. B 662, 53 (2008), arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. P. Leeset al. (BaBar), Search for Invisible Decays of a Dark Photon Produced ine+e− Collisions at BaBar, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 131804 (2017), arXiv:1702.03327 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A. J. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatlós, L. Csige, Z. Gácsi, J. Gulyás, M. Hunyadi, T. J. Ketel, A. Krasznahorkay, I. Kuti, B. M. Nyakó, L. Stuhl, J. Timár, T. G. Tornyi, and Z. Vajta, Observation of anomalous internal pair creation in 8be: A possible signature of a light, neutral bos...

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. L. Feng, B. Fornal, I. Galon, S. Gardner, J. Smolin- sky, T. M. P. Tait, and P. Tanedo, Protophobic fifth force interpretation of the observed anomaly in8be nu- clear transitions (2016), arXiv:1604.07411 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A. J. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatlós, L. Csige, J. Gulyás, A. Krasznahorkay, B. M. Nyakó, I. Rajta, J. Timár, I. Vajda, and N. J. Sas, A new anomaly observed in4he supports the existence of the hypothetical x17 particle (2021), arXiv:2104.10075 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    A. J. Krasznahorkay, A. Krasznahorkay, M. Begala, M. Csatlós, L. Csige, J. Gulyás, A. Krakó, J. Timár, I. Rajta, I. Vajda, and N. J. Sas, New anomaly observed in 12c supports the existence and the vector character of the hypothetical x17 boson (2022), arXiv:2209.10795 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Afanaciev et al

    K. Afanaciev et al. (MEG II), Search for the X17 par- ticle in 7Li(p, e+e−)8Be processes with the MEG II de- tector, (2024), arXiv:2411.07994 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    F. B. et al., Search for a new 17 mev resonance via e+e− annihilation with the padme experiment (2025), arXiv:2505.24797 [hep-ex]

    2025

  69. [77]

    Arias-Aragón, G

    F. Arias-Aragón, G. G. di Cortona, E. Nardi, and C. Toni, Combined evidence for the x17 boson after padme results on resonant production in positron an- 12 nihilation (2025), arXiv:2504.11439 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Barducci, D

    D. Barducci, D. Germani, M. Nardecchia, S. Scacco, and C. Toni, On the atomki nuclear anomaly after the meg-ii result, Journal of High Energy Physics 2025, 10.1007/jhep04(2025)035 (2025)

    2025 doi

  71. [79]

    Di Luzio, P

    L. Di Luzio, P. Paradisi, and N. Selimovic, Hunting for a 17 MeV particle coupled to electrons, (2025), arXiv:2504.14014 [hep-ph]

    2025

  72. [80]

    Brivio and M

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

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso, and K. Mimouni, Compilation of low-energy constraints on 4-fermion op- erators in the SMEFT, JHEP08, 123, arXiv:1706.03783 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Aebischer, W

    J. Aebischer, W. Dekens, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, D. Sengupta, and P. Stoffer, Effective field theory in- terpretation of lepton magnetic and electric dipole mo- ments, JHEP07, 107, arXiv:2102.08954 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    J. Kley, T. Theil, E. Venturini, and A. Weiler, Electric dipole moments at one-loop in the dimension-6 SMEFT, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 926 (2022), arXiv:2109.15085 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Grzadkowski, M

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

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    We stress that if the electromagnetic coupling is not taken as an input also an overall∆α ̸= 0 shift is present at dimension six [46, 103]

  78. [86]

    We have verified that, by takingα(0) instead of α(MZ ) as input, the results change by a factorα(MZ )/α(0), which is well within the68% error ∆δSMEFT

  79. [87]

    Schael et al

    S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak), Electroweak Measurements in Electron- Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP, Phys. Rept.532, 119 (2013), arXiv:1302.3415 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Dawson and P

    S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino, Electroweak and QCD corrections to Z and W pole observables in the stan- dard model EFT, Phys. Rev. D 101, 013001 (2020), arXiv:1909.02000 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Dawson and P

    S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino, New physics through Drell-Yan standard model EFT measurements at NLO, Phys. Rev. D 104, 073004 (2021), arXiv:2105.05852 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Asteriadis, S

    K. Asteriadis, S. Dawson, P. P. Giardino, and R. Szafron, Impact of Next-to-Leading-Order Weak Standard-Model-Effective-Field-Theory Corrections in e+e− → ZH, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 231801 (2024), arXiv:2406.03557 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Asteriadis, S

    K. Asteriadis, S. Dawson, P. P. Giardino, and R.Szafron,The e+e− → ZH ProcessintheSMEFTBe- yond Leading Order, arXiv:2409.11466 [hep-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Dawson, M

    S. Dawson, M. Forslund, and P. P. Giardino, NLO SMEFT Electroweak Corrections to Higgs Decays to 4 Leptons in the Narrow Width Approximation, arXiv:2411.08952 [hep-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Bartocci, A

    R. Bartocci, A. Biekötter, and T. Hurth, Renormalisa- tion group evolution effects on global SMEFT analyses, arXiv:2412.09674 [hep-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    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, 091, arXiv:2404.12809 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  87. [95]

    Should the real data give values for the WCs not com- patible with zero, this would be a clear indication of NP

  88. [96]

    Berthier and M

    L. Berthier and M. Trott, Consistent constraints on the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP02, 069, arXiv:1508.05060 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    A low/intermediate energy run would therefore be im- portant for precision measurements

    Since we are considering a large-angle observable, going to higher energies could spoil the validity of the EFT. A low/intermediate energy run would therefore be im- portant for precision measurements

  90. [98]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (SLD), Precise measurement of the left- right cross-section asymmetry in Z boson production by e+ e- collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 25 (1994), arXiv:hep-ex/9404001

    1994 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (SLD), Direct measurement of leptonic coupling asymmetries with polarized Zs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 804 (1997), arXiv:hep-ex/9704012

    1997 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (SLD), An Improved direct measure- ment of leptonic coupling asymmetries with polarized Z bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 1162 (2001), arXiv:hep- ex/0010015

    2001

  93. [101]

    Aryshev et al

    A. Aryshev et al. (ILC International Development Team), The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021, arXiv:2203.07622 [physics.acc-ph] (2022)

    2022

  94. [102]

    Funatsu, H

    S. Funatsu, H. Hatanaka, Y. Hosotani, Y. Orikasa, and N. Yamatsu, Bhabha scattering in the gauge- Higgs unification, Phys. Rev. D 106, 015010 (2022), arXiv:2203.16030 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Miller and J

    C. Miller and J. M. Roney, Comparison of left-right asymmetry calculations in the Bhabha process at an up- graded SuperKEKB, arXiv:2411.16592 [hep-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  96. [104]

    de Florian et al

    D. de Florian et al. (LHC Higgs Cross Section Work- ing Group), Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sec- tions: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph] (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Bartocci, A

    R. Bartocci, A. Biekötter, and T. Hurth, A global analy- sis of the SMEFT under the minimal MFV assumption, JHEP 05, 074, arXiv:2311.04963 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  98. [106]

    Biekötter, B

    A. Biekötter, B. D. Pecjak, D. J. Scott, and T. Smith, Electroweak input schemes and universal corrections in SMEFT, JHEP07, 115, arXiv:2305.03763 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.