Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 65 references

Probing Lepton Flavor Violation at Linear Electron-Positron Colliders

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CLIC's 3 TeV run would probe tau-mu flavor violation up to ~50 TeV

desk verdict Solid, incremental SMEFT projection for e+e- -> tau mu at ILC/CLIC; the polarization handle is genuinely useful, the ~50 TeV CLIC reach is plausible, and the flagged Jacobian issue is a harmless typo. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11653 v1 pith:XKO3OG5L submitted 2025-05-16 hep-ph

Wolfgang Altmannshofer , Pankaj Munbodh This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords leptonflavorviolationSMEFTtau-muproductionlinearcollidersbeampolarizationILCCLICmuonmomentumcut
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 colliding electrons and positrons to produce a tau and a muon of different flavor is a powerful way to search for lepton flavor violation beyond the Standard Model, complementing rare tau decay experiments. It computes the $e^+e^- \to \tau\mu$ cross section in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory with arbitrary beam polarizations and projects the sensitivities of the ILC and CLIC. The central quantitative claim is that a 3 TeV CLIC run could probe four-fermion lepton-flavor-violating operators up to new physics scales of about 50 TeV, and a 1 TeV ILC run up to about 25 TeV, either matching or exceeding the expected Belle II reach from tau decays. Beam polarization is what lets the two machines separate operators with different chirality structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the polarized cross section for $e^+e^- \to \tau\mu$, written as a sum over the four electron and positron chirality combinations with coefficients that encode dipole, $Z$-boson, and four-fermion operators (Eqs. 15 and 20). The signal is then characterized by the muon momentum fraction $x = p_{\rm det}/p_{\rm beam}$: because the tau and muon carry nearly the full beam energy, the signal is concentrated just below $x = 1$, while the dominant background from $e^+e^- \to \tau^+\tau^-$ with one tau decaying to a muon spreads over lower $x$. A cut at $x \ge 1$ removes most of the background. The muon momentum distributions are built by Monte Carlo sampling that convolves beam energy spread, initial-state radiation, and detector momentum resolution.

What would settle it

At CLIC with $\sqrt{s}=3$ TeV and 5 ab$^{-1}$, count candidate $e^+e^- \to \tau\mu$ events with one hadronic tau and one muon of momentum fraction $x \ge 1$. If the observed yield matches the Standard Model tau-pair background within uncertainties, the claimed sensitivity to four-fermion operators at scales around 50 TeV is ruled out for those operators; an excess whose rate fails to grow with $s$ or depend on beam polarization as predicted would likewise falsify the SMEFT interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors' main result is that the $e^+e^- \to \tau\mu$ process at future linear colliders provides sensitivity to SMEFT lepton-flavor-violating operators that is at least competitive with, and for four-fermion operators often stronger than, low-energy tau decay searches. Because the four-fermion operator contribution to the cross section grows with the squared center-of-mass energy $s$ while Standard Model backgrounds fall, the high energy of CLIC (3 TeV) is particularly powerful. The calculated polarized cross section shows that different beam chirality combinations pick out different operator classes, so combining runs with different electron and positron polarizations lifts the degeneracies that plague unpolarized measurements. The paper's projected event-level sensitivity uses the muon momentum fraction $x$, whose sharp peak near $x = 1$ for the signal sits above the broad background from tau-pair production.

Load-bearing premise

The projected reach assumes that CLIC's detectors can identify a tau decaying into pions as efficiently as ILC's detectors can, and that the beam energy spread and muon momentum resolution match the collider design reports; if either is worse, the signal acceptance drops and the quoted reach numbers shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 1 TeV ILC run could constrain four-fermion lepton-flavor-violating operators up to new physics scales of roughly 25 TeV.
  • A 3 TeV CLIC run could reach about 50 TeV, the strongest projected constraint among the collider and tau-decay options considered in the paper.
  • Polarized beams allow individual SMEFT operator classes to be constrained separately rather than only in fixed combinations.
  • The $e^+e^- \to \tau\mu$ search at linear colliders is complementary to Belle II: for some operators the collider wins, for others the rare decay search does.
  • The same $x \ge 1$ muon-momentum strategy suppresses the tau-pair background enough that the projected sensitivities hold across the polarization settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the energy-growth scaling holds, a null $e^+e^- \to \tau\mu$ result at CLIC would set bounds on four-fermion lepton-flavor-violating operators that are largely independent of the assumptions entering tau decay analyses, giving a cross-check on Belle II.
  • The predicted polarization asymmetry is a direct chirality test: comparing the $P_- = +0.8$ and $P_- = -0.8$ runs at CLIC could discriminate left-handed from right-handed couplings without needing tau decay angular information.
  • The same $x$-peak technique could be applied to $e^+e^- \to \tau e$ or $e^+e^- \to \mu e$, where the backgrounds and operator bases differ but the kinematic separation is analogous.
  • The ~50 TeV reach depends on CLIC's hadronic tau identification being as efficient as ILC's; a lower efficiency would shrink the reach roughly as the square root of the efficiency, so a dedicated CLIC tau-tagging study would sharpen the projection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies lepton flavor violation in the process e+e- -> tau mu at future linear colliders within SMEFT. The authors derive the cross section for arbitrary electron and positron beam polarizations, including dipole, Z-coupling, and four-fermion operators. They then construct a Monte Carlo model of the signal muon momentum distribution that accounts for beam energy spread, initial-state radiation, and detector resolution, and compare it with an analytic background model for e+e- -> tau+tau- with one tau decaying to a muon. Using ILC and CLIC run parameters, they project 2-sigma sensitivities to Wilson coefficients and to the new physics scale Lambda, concluding that CLIC at 3 TeV can reach Lambda ~ 50 TeV for four-fermion operators, surpassing Belle II projections in several scenarios.

Significance. The work extends earlier FCC-ee/CEPC analyses to linear colliders and provides a first-principles SMEFT calculation with arbitrary beam polarizations, which is a genuinely useful handle for disentangling operator chiralities. The signal modeling is detailed and the background treatment is conservative, with no fitted parameters in the derivation. The numerical projections are clearly presented and compared with low-energy tau decay searches, giving a concrete and falsifiable statement about the physics reach of ILC and CLIC. The analytic formulas and the Monte Carlo implementation are cross-checked in Appendix A, which strengthens confidence in the central results.

minor comments (4)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (33)] Equation (33) contains a misprinted Jacobian prefactor. From Eq. (32), d(cosθ)/dp = 4/(√s (x_- - x_+)), so the prefactor should be 4/(√s |x_- - x_+|), not 4√s/(x_- - x_+). The correct normalized expression appears in Appendix A, Eq. (A2). Because the prefactor is constant for fixed x_±, the shape of the Monte Carlo distribution is unaffected, but the equation should be corrected and the code should be confirmed to use the absolute value of the Jacobian.
  2. [III.C, after Eq. (39)] The paper assumes that the pion identification efficiencies for the CLIC detectors are the same as those of the ILC without citing a CLIC-specific detector study. Since the projected new physics scale scales roughly as the eighth root of the efficiency, a factor-of-two change would shift Lambda by about 9%, but the assumption should be justified or explicitly caveated.
  3. [III.C, Eq. (45)] The sensitivity criterion N_sig >= 2√(N_bkg+N_sig) is a simplified Gaussian approximation that does not include systematic uncertainties or Poisson fluctuations; the authors should state this explicitly and note that the quoted '~2σ' sensitivities are therefore approximate.
  4. [General presentation] There is a typographical error at the start of Section III.C ('backround' instead of 'background'), and the unit 'ab' is used without being defined on first use; please define attobarns when they first appear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SMEFT cross-section calculation and the ILC/CLIC sensitivity projections are self-contained and do not reduce to fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the e+e- -> tau mu cross section in SMEFT (Section II, Eqs. (15)-(27)), obtained from a stated operator basis and a standard beam-polarization decomposition; no Wilson coefficient is fitted to the projected sensitivities. The sensitivity estimates in Section III translate a benchmark Ci(Lambda)=1 into cross-section reach using Monte Carlo signal distributions and analytic backgrounds, with detector and beam parameters taken from external ILC/CLIC documents (Refs. [43,46,53,54,62]). The comparison with Belle II uses an independent experimental projection, not a quantity derived from the paper's own inputs. Self-citations to Ref. [23] supply the operator basis, the background strategy, and the earlier FCC-ee/CEPC estimates; they are methodological or comparative rather than inputs whose reintroduction would force the ILC/CLIC results. The approximated treatments (e.g., assuming ILC pion-identification efficiencies for CLIC, or the numerical Jacobian in Eq. (33) flagged by the skeptic) are correctness or detector-modeling concerns, not circularity. No step reduces Eq. (20) or Eq. (41) to the projected sensitivity by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The calculation uses standard SMEFT operators and SM inputs; no new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SMEFT validity: new physics scale Lambda is much larger than the center-of-mass energy.
    Stated in the Introduction; required for the EFT expansion to be valid at the collider energies.
  • domain assumption Only the three tree-level operator classes listed in Eqs. (1)-(6) contribute to e+e- -> tau mu.
    Standard SMEFT tree-level analysis; loop-level or additional operators are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper CLIC pion identification efficiencies equal ILC efficiencies.
    Explicitly assumed in Section III.C after Eq. (39); no CLIC-specific efficiency values are used.
  • domain assumption Background from e+e- -> W+W- and ZZ is negligible with the x >= 1 cut.
    Argued in Section III.B and verified with MadGraph for off-shell gauge bosons; noted to become non-negligible at 3 TeV if the cut is below x=1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Lepton Flavor Violation at Linear Electron-Positron Colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XKO3OG5L

@misc{pith2026250511653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Lepton Flavor Violation at Linear Electron-Positron Colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XKO3OG5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11653}
}
abstract

The production of $\tau\mu$ pairs in electron-positron collisions offers a powerful probe of lepton flavor violation. In this work, we calculate the $e^+ e^- \to \tau \mu$ cross section within the framework of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, allowing for arbitrary $e^+e^-$ beam polarizations. We then estimate the sensitivities of proposed future linear colliders, ILC and CLIC, to effective lepton flavor-violating interactions. The high center-of-mass energies achievable at these machines provide particularly strong sensitivity to four-fermion operators. Furthermore, the polarization of the $e^+e^-$ beams enables novel tests of the chirality structure of these interactions. We find that our projected sensitivities not only complement but in certain scenarios surpass those achievable with low-energy tau decay measurements at Belle~II.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Histogram of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulated events for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Sensitivity to pairs of SMEFT coefficients at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Sensitivity to pairs of SMEFT coefficients at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Sensitivity to the new physics scale Λ from LFV tau decays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Probing lepton flavor violation at Circular Electron-Positron Colliders,

    Wolfgang Altmannshofer, Pankaj Munbodh, and Talise Oh, “Probing lepton flavor violation at Circular Electron-Positron Colliders,” JHEP 08, 026 (2023), arXiv:2305.03869 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Exotic Decays of the Muon and Heavy Leptons in Gauge Theories,

    W. J. Marciano and A. I. Sanda, “Exotic Decays of the Muon and Heavy Leptons in Gauge Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 67, 303–305 (1977)

    work page 1977

  3. [2]

    The Processes µ→e +γ,µ →e +e,ν′→ν +γ in the Weinberg-Salam Model with Neutrino Mixing,

    S. T. Petcov, “The Processes µ→e +γ,µ →e +e,ν′→ν +γ in the Weinberg-Salam Model with Neutrino Mixing,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 25, 340 (1977), [Erratum: Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 25, 698 (1977), Erratum: Yad.Fiz. 25, 1336 (1977)]

    work page 1977

  4. [3]

    Natural Suppression of Symmetry Violation in Gauge Theories: Muon - Lepton and Electron Lepton Number Nonconservation,

    Benjamin W. Lee and Robert E. Shrock, “Natural Suppression of Symmetry Violation in Gauge Theories: Muon - Lepton and Electron Lepton Number Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. D 16, 1444 (1977)

    work page 1977

  5. [4]

    Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An Experi- mental and Theoretical Introduction,

    Lorenzo Calibbi and Giovanni Signorelli, “Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An Experi- mental and Theoretical Introduction,” Riv. Nuovo Cim. 41, 71–174 (2018), arXiv:1709.00294 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [5]

    The design of the MEG II experiment,

    A. M. Baldini et al. (MEG II), “The design of the MEG II experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 380 (2018), arXiv:1801.04688 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    COMET Phase-I Technical Design Report,

    R. Abramishvili et al. (COMET), “COMET Phase-I Technical Design Report,” PTEP 2020, 033C01 (2020), arXiv:1812.09018 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    The Mu2e Experiment,

    R. H. Bernstein (Mu2e), “The Mu2e Experiment,” Front. in Phys. 7, 1 (2019), arXiv:1901.11099 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 65 references
  1. [8]

    Technical design of the phase I Mu3e experiment,

    K. Arndt et al. (Mu3e), “Technical design of the phase I Mu3e experiment,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1014, 165679 (2021), arXiv:2009.11690 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    New limit on the µ±→e±γ decay with the MEG II experi- ment,

    K. Afanaciev et al. (MEG II), “New limit on the µ±→e±γ decay with the MEG II experi- ment,” (2025), arXiv:2504.15711 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    The Belle II Physics Book,

    W. Altmannshofer et al. (Belle-II), “The Belle II Physics Book,” PTEP 2019, 123C01 (2019), [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    2019

  4. [11]

    Indirect bounds onZ→µe and lepton flavor violation at future colliders,

    David Delepine and Francesco Vissani, “Indirect bounds onZ→µe and lepton flavor violation at future colliders,” Phys. Lett. B 522, 95–101 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106287

    2001 arXiv

  5. [12]

    New bounds on lepton flavor violating decays of vector mesons and theZ boson,

    Thomas Gutsche, Juan C. Helo, Sergey Kovalenko, and Valery E. Lyubovitskij, “New bounds on lepton flavor violating decays of vector mesons and theZ boson,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 115015 24 (2011), arXiv:1103.1317 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [13]

    LHC sensitivity to lepton flavour violating Z boson decays,

    Sacha Davidson, Sylvain Lacroix, and Patrice Verdier, “LHC sensitivity to lepton flavour violating Z boson decays,” JHEP 09, 092 (2012), arXiv:1207.4894 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Z lepton flavour violation as a probe for new physics at future e+e− colliders,

    Lorenzo Calibbi, Xabier Marcano, and Joydeep Roy, “Z lepton flavour violation as a probe for new physics at future e+e− colliders,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1054 (2021), arXiv:2107.10273 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Lepton flavour violating Higgs and tau to mu gamma,

    Sacha Davidson and Gerald Jean Grenier, “Lepton flavour violating Higgs and tau to mu gamma,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 095016 (2010), arXiv:1001.0434 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Flavour-Changing Decays of a 125 GeV Higgs-like Particle,

    Gianluca Blankenburg, John Ellis, and Gino Isidori, “Flavour-Changing Decays of a 125 GeV Higgs-like Particle,” Phys. Lett. B 712, 386–390 (2012), arXiv:1202.5704 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Flavor Violating Higgs Decays,

    Roni Harnik, Joachim Kopp, and Jure Zupan, “Flavor Violating Higgs Decays,” JHEP 03, 026 (2013), arXiv:1209.1397 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Uncovering Mass Generation Through Higgs Flavor Violation,

    Wolfgang Altmannshofer, Stefania Gori, Alexander L. Kagan, Luca Silvestrini, and Jure Zupan, “Uncovering Mass Generation Through Higgs Flavor Violation,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 031301 (2016), arXiv:1507.07927 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Lepton Flavour Violating top decays at the LHC,

    Sacha Davidson, Michelangelo L. Mangano, Stephane Perries, and Viola Sordini, “Lepton Flavour Violating top decays at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 450 (2015), arXiv:1507.07163 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Targets for Flavor-Violating Top Decay,

    Wolfgang Altmannshofer, Zev Balme, Christopher M. Donohue, Stefania Gori, and Siddharth Vignesh Mukundhan, “Targets for Flavor-Violating Top Decay,” (2025), arXiv:2504.18664 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Charged Lepton Flavour Violation in Heavy Particle DEcays,

    Wolfgang Altmannshofer, Cecile Caillol, Mogens Dam, Stefania Xella, and Yongchao Zhang, “Charged Lepton Flavour Violation in Heavy Particle DEcays,” in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2205.10576 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,

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

    2010 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Lepton Flavor Violation at FCC-ee and CEPC,

    Pankaj Munbodh, “Lepton Flavor Violation at FCC-ee and CEPC,” in 17th International Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics (2024) arXiv:2406.01935 [hep-ph]. 25

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    The Future Circular Collider: a Summary for the US 2021 Snowmass Process,

    G. Bernardi et al. , “The Future Circular Collider: a Summary for the US 2021 Snowmass Process,” (2022), arXiv:2203.06520 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detectors,

    M. Benedikt et al. (FCC), “Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detectors,” (2025), 10.17181/CERN.9DKX.TDH9, arXiv:2505.00272 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,

    Mingyi Dong et al. (CEPC Study Group), “CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,” (2018), arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator,

    Waleed Abdallah et al. (CEPC Study Group), “CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator,” Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 8, 1–1105 (2024), [Erratum: Ra- diat.Detect.Technol.Methods 9, 184–192 (2025)], arXiv:2312.14363 [physics.acc-ph]

    2024

  21. [29]

    Flavor Physics at CEPC: a General Perspective,

    Xiaocong Ai et al. , “Flavor Physics at CEPC: a General Perspective,” (2024), arXiv:2412.19743 [hep-ex]

    2024

  22. [30]

    Mu-Tau Production at Hadron Colliders,

    Tao Han, Ian Lewis, and Marc Sher, “Mu-Tau Production at Hadron Colliders,” JHEP 03, 090 (2010), arXiv:1001.0022 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Searching for lepton flavor violation at a future high energy e+e- collider,

    Brandon Murakami and Tim M. P. Tait, “Searching for lepton flavor violation at a future high energy e+e- collider,” Phys. Rev. D 91, 015002 (2015), arXiv:1410.1485 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Lepton flavor violation via four-Fermi contact interactions at the International Linear Collider,

    Gi-Chol Cho, Yuka Fukuda, and Takanori Kono, “Lepton flavor violation via four-Fermi contact interactions at the International Linear Collider,” Phys. Lett. B 789, 399–404 (2019), arXiv:1803.10475 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Charged Lepton Flavor Violation at the EIC,

    Vincenzo Cirigliano, Kaori Fuyuto, Christopher Lee, Emanuele Mereghetti, and Bin Yan, “Charged Lepton Flavor Violation at the EIC,” JHEP 03, 256 (2021), arXiv:2102.06176 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Searching for lepton flavor violating interactions at future electron-positron colliders,

    S. M. Etesami, R. Jafari, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, and S. Tizchang, “Searching for lepton flavor violating interactions at future electron-positron colliders,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 015034 (2021), arXiv:2107.00545 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Indirect con- straints on lepton-flavor-violating quarkonium decays,

    Lorenzo Calibbi, Tong Li, Xabier Marcano, and Michael A. Schmidt, “Indirect con- straints on lepton-flavor-violating quarkonium decays,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 115039 (2022), arXiv:2207.10913 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Search for Lepton Flavour Violating Signals at the Future Electron-Proton Colliders,

    Anjan Kumar Barik, Atri Dey, and Tousik Samui, “Search for Lepton Flavour Violating Signals at the Future Electron-Proton Colliders,” (2023), arXiv:2306.10540 [hep-ph]. 26

    2023

  29. [37]

    Com- plementarity ofµTRISTAN and Belle II in searches for charged-lepton flavour violation,

    Gabriela Lichtenstein, Michael A. Schmidt, German Valencia, and Raymond R. Volkas, “Com- plementarity ofµTRISTAN and Belle II in searches for charged-lepton flavour violation,” Phys. Lett. B 845, 138144 (2023), arXiv:2307.11369 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Revisiting for maximal flavor violating Z′ eµ and its phenomenology constraints,

    Jia Liu, Muyuan Song, and Haohao Zhang, “Revisiting for maximal flavor violating Z′ eµ and its phenomenology constraints,” JHEP 10, 128 (2024), arXiv:2407.05831 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Exploring optimal sensitivity of lepton flavor violating effective couplings at the e+e- colliders,

    Sahabub Jahedi and Abhik Sarkar, “Exploring optimal sensitivity of lepton flavor violating effective couplings at the e+e- colliders,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 095021 (2024), arXiv:2408.00190 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Leptoquark-induced CLFV decays with a light SM-singlet scalar,

    Bibhabasu De, “Leptoquark-induced CLFV decays with a light SM-singlet scalar,” Phys. Lett. B 855, 138784 (2024), arXiv:2405.06970 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 2: Physics,

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

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    The International Linear Collider: A Global Project,

    Philip Bambade et al. , “The International Linear Collider: A Global Project,” (2019), arXiv:1903.01629 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021,

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

    2022

  36. [44]

    Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report,

    “Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report,” (2012), 10.5170/CERN- 2012-003, arXiv:1202.5940 [physics.ins-det]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [45]

    The CLIC Potential for New Physics,

    J. de Blas et al. (CLIC), “The CLIC Potential for New Physics,” 3/2018 (2018), 10.23731/CYRM-2018-003, arXiv:1812.02093 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The CLIC project,

    O. Brunner et al. , “The CLIC project,” (2022), arXiv:2203.09186 [physics.acc-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Lepton Flavor Violation in the Stan- dard Model with general Dimension-Six Operators,

    Andreas Crivellin, Saereh Najjari, and Janusz Rosiek, “Lepton Flavor Violation in the Stan- dard Model with general Dimension-Six Operators,” JHEP 04, 167 (2014), arXiv:1312.0634 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Model-discriminating power of lepton flavor violating τ decays,

    Alejandro Celis, Vincenzo Cirigliano, and Emilie Passemar, “Model-discriminating power of lepton flavor violating τ decays,” Phys. Rev. D 89, 095014 (2014), arXiv:1403.5781 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Global lepton flavour violating constraints on new physics,

    Enrique Fern´ andez-Mart´ ınez, Xabier Marcano, and Daniel Naredo-Tuero, “Global lepton flavour violating constraints on new physics,” Eur. Phys. J. C84, 666 (2024), arXiv:2403.09772 [hep-ph]

    2024

  42. [50]

    Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence,

    Elizabeth E. Jenkins, Aneesh V. Manohar, and Michael Trott, “Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence,” JHEP 27 01, 035 (2014), arXiv:1310.4838 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Renormal- ization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology,

    Rodrigo Alonso, Elizabeth E. Jenkins, Aneesh V. Manohar, and Michael Trott, “Renormal- ization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology,” JHEP 04, 159 (2014), arXiv:1312.2014 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Tau-lepton Physics at the FCC-ee circular e +e− Collider,

    Mogens Dam, “Tau-lepton Physics at the FCC-ee circular e +e− Collider,” SciPost Phys. Proc. 1, 041 (2019), arXiv:1811.09408 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 3.II: Accelerator Baseline Design,

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

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report,

    T. K. Charles et al. (CLICdp, CLIC), “The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report,” 2/2018 (2018), 10.23731/CYRM-2018-002, arXiv:1812.06018 [physics.acc-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Soft photons and second order radiative corrections to e+e−→z0,

    O. Nicrosini and Luca Trentadue, “Soft photons and second order radiative corrections to e+e−→z0,” Physics Letters B 196, 551–556 (1987)

    1987

  48. [56]

    LePDF: Standard Model PDFs for high-energy lepton colliders,

    Francesco Garosi, David Marzocca, and Sokratis Trifinopoulos, “LePDF: Standard Model PDFs for high-energy lepton colliders,” JHEP 09, 107 (2023), arXiv:2303.16964 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    On Radiative Corrections to e+ e- Single Photon Anni- hilation at High-Energy,

    E. A. Kuraev and Victor S. Fadin, “On Radiative Corrections to e+ e- Single Photon Anni- hilation at High-Energy,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41, 466–472 (1985)

    1985

  50. [58]

    Coherent exclusive exponentiation for precision Monte Carlo calculations,

    S. Jadach, B. F. L. Ward, and Z. Was, “Coherent exclusive exponentiation for precision Monte Carlo calculations,” Phys. Rev. D 63, 113009 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0006359

    2001 arXiv

  51. [59]

    ISR effects for resonant Higgs production at future lepton colliders,

    Mario Greco, Tao Han, and Zhen Liu, “ISR effects for resonant Higgs production at future lepton colliders,” Phys. Lett. B 763, 409–415 (2016), arXiv:1607.03210 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

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

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,” JHEP ...

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Review of particle physics,

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 4: Detectors,

    Ties Behnke et al. , “The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 4: Detectors,” (2013), arXiv:1306.6329 [physics.ins-det]

    2013 arXiv

  55. [63]

    The Linear Collider Facility (LCF) at CERN,

    C. Balazs et al. (Linear Collider), “The Linear Collider Facility (LCF) at CERN,” (2025), arXiv:2503.24049 [hep-ex]. 28

    2025

  56. [64]

    Search for Lepton Flavor Violating Tau Decays into Three Leptons with 719 Million Produced Tau+Tau- Pairs,

    K. Hayasaka et al. , “Search for Lepton Flavor Violating Tau Decays into Three Leptons with 719 Million Produced Tau+Tau- Pairs,” Phys. Lett. B 687, 139–143 (2010), arXiv:1001.3221 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Limits on tau Lepton-Flavor Violating Decays in three charged leptons,

    J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), “Limits on tau Lepton-Flavor Violating Decays in three charged leptons,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 111101 (2010), arXiv:1002.4550 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.