Probing Lepton-Flavor-Violating Four-Lepton Operators at a Muon Collider

Purnath Unnikrishnan; Sukanta Dutta; Yashasvi

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Probing Lepton-Flavor-Violating Four-Lepton Operators at a Muon Collider

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A future multi-TeV muon collider could probe lepton-flavour-violating four-lepton operators at effective couplings as small as (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻², beating current limits by up to tenfold and giving the first direct access to the e−μ oper

desk verdict Solid SMEFT projection with a genuinely new eµ-channel argument; the global chirality-resolved bounds, however, ride on ±80% longitudinal polarization that the cited accelerator references do not establish. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26020 v1 pith:UPTJB5Z5 submitted 2026-07-28 hep-ph hep-ex

Sukanta Dutta , Purnath Unnikrishnan , Yashasvi This is my paper

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords leptonflavorviolationmuoncolliderSMEFTfour-leptonoperatorsbeampolarizationoptimalobservablestaureconstructionWilsoncoefficients

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 future muon collider, colliding muon and anti-muon beams at 3, 10, and 14 TeV, is a uniquely powerful way to look for charged lepton flavour violation. It focuses on the three processes μ+μ− → e±τ∓, μ+μ− → μ±τ∓, and μ+μ− → e±μ∓, which would be generated by dimension-six four-lepton contact operators in the Standard Model effective field theory. By fitting the angular distributions of the final leptons with the optimal-observable technique — and by combining runs with different beam polarizations and energies — the paper projects 1σ sensitivities of C/Λ² ~ (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻², roughly an order of magnitude better than existing bounds. The key qualitative point is that the e±μ∓ operators have no tree-level constraint from low-energy experiments, so a muon collider would provide the first direct measurement of those couplings; the polarized beams are what allow the left- and right-handed operator contributions to be told apart.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the set of dimension-six four-lepton SMEFT operators in the Warsaw basis — Oℓℓ, Oee, Oℓe — reduced via Fierz relations to a helicity-amplitude basis. The amplitudes are delta-function projections onto definite helicity configurations, so the cross section is a sum of squares with no linear interference. The optimal-observable technique, applied to binned cosθ distributions of the reconstructed charged lepton, provides statistically efficient coefficient extraction; beam polarization rotates the principal axes of the covariance ellipsoid, and the global combination of polarizations and energies shrinks the least-constrained direction from ±72.4 (unpolarized) to ±0.065 (global

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to perform the same global fit on unpolarized data from a 10 TeV run with 10 ab⁻¹: if the correlation ρ(Cℓℓ,Cee) stays near −0.99 and the condition number remains above ~300 rather than dropping to ~20 once the ±30% and ±80% runs are added, then the advertised polarization-based disentanglement is not real. Alternatively, if the accelerator program cannot demonstrate ≥80% longitudinal polarization of muon beams at multi-TeV energies, the quoted O(10⁻¹¹) GeV⁻² per-coefficient sensitivities are not achievable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cross sections for these LFV processes are cleanly quadratic in the Wilson coefficients: because the helicity amplitudes for the dimension-six four-lepton operators project onto distinct helicity configurations, the SM-EFT interference vanishes and the differential rate is a sum of squares with each coefficient controlling a specific angular shape. This lets an optimal-observable fit to the cosθ distribution isolate the three operator classes Cℓℓ, Cℓe, Cee. The paper shows that hadronic τ reconstruction plus a hard pT cut suppress Standard Model backgrounds by more than an order of magnitude while keeping most of the signal, and that the signal grows with energy

Load-bearing premise

The claimed chirality resolution and per-coefficient bounds at (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻² assume that muon beams with longitudinal polarizations of ±30% and ±80% are available and well-controlled at 3–14 TeV collision points; with unpolarized beams the fit is nearly degenerate (ρ(Cℓℓ,Cee)=−0.99, condition number κ≈390) and the global per-coefficient numbers do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If these projections are correct, a 3–14 TeV muon collider would push bounds on the eτ and μτ four-lepton operators to the 10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻² scale, improving on τ-decay constraints by up to an order of magnitude.
The μ+μ−→e±μ∓ channel would yield the first direct, tree-level constraints on the eμ four-lepton operators — operators that µ→eγ and µ→e conversion only touch at higher loops or through semileptonic mixing.
Polarized beams would allow disentanglement of the chiral structure: left-polarized beams probe Oℓℓ, right-polarized beams probe Oee, and Oℓe stays polarization-insensitive; combining them breaks the otherwise flat direction in coefficient space.
Because the signal cross section grows as (s/Λ²)² while backgrounds fall, higher collision energies multiply sensitivity: 10–14 TeV runs reach O(10⁻¹¹) GeV⁻² compared to O(10⁻¹⁰) at 3 TeV.
The quoted per-coefficient limits assume a 1% systematic uncertainty per angular bin; sensitivity improves only as the fourth root of integrated luminosity.

Reading between the lines

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

One implication the authors leave implicit: if ±80% longitudinal polarization is not achievable at the interaction point, the chirality separation and the global per-coefficient bounds quoted at (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻² would degrade; raw sensitivity to individual operators would survive, but the advertised decomposition would not.
A direct extension: the optimal-observable covariance framework is transferable to any polarized lepton collider; at an e+e− machine with polarized beams the same angular-distribution fits would resolve chiral operator mixtures, though the e±μ∓ four-lepton operators have no tree-level counterpart in e+e− collisions.
A testable projection: if the e±μ∓ channel yields a null result at 10 ab⁻¹, the resulting 1σ bound would be the first direct limit on those operators, complementing (rather than improving) the loop-level constraints from µ→eγ.
A methodological caveat with practical weight: since the RGE running between mτ and 14 TeV is small but non-zero, future global SMEFT fits should treat the fit coefficients as scale-dependent; at the 1% precision level claimed here, that O(few %) shift is no longer negligible.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I’d send this to a referee, with a clear request to fix the polarization question and the abstract. The new and useful thing is the global optimal-observable combination of three four-lepton operators—Cℓℓ, Cℓe, Cee—across μμ→eτ, μτ, eμ at 3/10/14 TeV with hadronic τ tagging. The eμ channel is the real selling point: the corresponding operators genuinely lack a direct tree-level low-energy probe, since μ→eee is kinematically closed and μ→eγ is dipole/loop. That physics case survives scrutiny.

The paper does most of what it promises. The likelihood/covariance machinery is standard, the cross-section scalings and the Cℓe=Cℓℓ/2 relations check out, and the RGE section only maps existing bounds to the collider scale rather than slipping fitted numbers back in as predictions. Nothing circular there. The cut flow also multiplies correctly. So the central statistical construction is sound.

The soft spot is load-bearing rather than cosmetic. The per-coefficient 1σ bounds in Table V and the claimed chiral decomposition come from combining Pμ− = 0, ±30, ±80%. The paper’s own Eq. (28) shows that without polarization the fit is nearly flat between Cℓℓ and Cee (ρ=-0.99, κ=393); κ only falls to ~20 after including the ±80% runs. The cited accelerator reports (refs 47–51) describe the muon-collider program but do not demonstrate 80% longitudinal polarization at the interaction point at 3–14 TeV. So the global chirality-resolved numbers are conditional on an external assumption that may be plausible but is not established. One-operator sensitivity at fixed chirality would survive unpolarized running; the decomposition would not.

Presentation also undersells or misstates the results. The abstract’s (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ range omits the Cℓe entries, which are 2.6–6.1×10⁻¹¹, and “up to an order of magnitude” understates the paper’s own ~two-order improvement over current τ limits. Eq. (28) and Table V don’t label their units. All fixable, but they affect how readers parse the headline.

Minor assumptions—1% systematics, 80% tau-tagging at multi-TeV pT, BIB dismissal—are optimistic but typical for projections; worth a sentence of sensitivity study, not disqualifying.

Bottom line: the methodology is honest and the eµ channel is a genuinely useful observation. The paper deserves a serious referee, and the referee should push on polarization evidence and the abstract before it is published.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies charged-lepton-flavour-violating (LFV) processes μ+μ− → e±τ∓, μ±τ∓, and e±μ∓ induced by dimension-six four-lepton SMEFT operators at a future multi-TeV muon collider. It translates existing τ-decay bounds into constraints on the Wilson coefficients, evolves them from the τ mass scale to collider energies with one-loop RGEs, and performs detector-level simulations with FeynRules/MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes, hadronic τ tagging, hard-pT selections, and an optimal-observable analysis of the angular distributions. Combining three centre-of-mass energies (3, 10, 14 TeV) and five muon-beam polarization configurations, the paper reports global 1σ sensitivities C/Λ² ∼ (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻² and claims that polarization and energy combination resolve the chiral correlations among the ℓℓ, ee, and ℓe operators.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful physics case: a multi-TeV muon collider would directly probe LFV four-lepton operators, including the eµ operators that have no tree-level low-energy constraint, with sensitivities well beyond current τ-decay limits. The manuscript has real strengths: the low-energy bound translation in Eq. (7) is explicitly checkable and reproduces Table II; the leading-order signal cross sections in Table III scale as s; the cut flow in Table IV is internally consistent; and the RGE treatment is documented. The central physics idea is interesting and the simulation chain is standard and reproducible.

major comments (2)

[Sec. VI, Eqs. (23)–(27), Table V] The statistical definition of the quoted 1σ uncertainties is internally inconsistent. The cross-section depends quadratically on C (Eq. (21), with no SM–EFT interference), so the derivative of the event yield with respect to C vanishes at C=0. Equation (23) defines V^{-1} from products Nαα Nββ / (ΔN)²; this is the covariance of the squared coefficients yα = Cα², not of Cα. Nevertheless, Eq. (27) calls εα = √Vαα the projected 1σ uncertainty of the Wilson coefficient, and Table V and the abstract quote values such as C = ±0.0161 (i.e., 1.6×10⁻¹¹ GeV⁻²) as bounds on C. If εα is really σ(Cα²), then the corresponding bound on C is √εα, which changes the quoted sensitivities by roughly an order of magnitude. The authors must either specify the reference point at which the covariance is evaluated and justify a linearized Fisher information for C, or consistently report uncertainties on C² and t
[Sec. V, Tables III–IV; Sec. VI.1, Eqs. (28)–(35)] The advertised per-coefficient sensitivities and the chiral-structure resolution depend on including Pµ− = ±80% longitudinal polarization. The covariance improvement from κ = 392.7 (unpolarized, Eq. (30)) to κ = 26.27 (polarization-combined, Eq. (32)) and finally κ = 20.15 (global, Eq. (35)) is driven by the ±80% configurations, which are the only ones in Table IV that strongly differentiate the Cℓℓ and Cee rates. The cited accelerator reports (refs. [47–51]) describe the muon-collider programme, detector card, and physics cases, but they do not demonstrate 80% longitudinal polarization at the interaction point through cooling, acceleration, and spin rotation at 3–14 TeV. If ±80% is not available, the ℓℓ–ee degeneracy is not resolved and the global per-coefficient bounds in Table V — including the claimed chiral decomposition — do not follow. The one-operator-at-a-time sensitivity for a

minor comments (4)

[Table V] The correlation matrices are malformed in the printed text (e.g., “1.85−.95 / .85 1−.95 / −.95−.95 1”); the intended 3×3 matrices should be typeset correctly. Also, the text states ρ(Cℓℓ,Cee) ≃ 0.85 after the global combination, which should be contrasted with the negative correlation in Eq. (28) to avoid confusion.
[Table IV caption] The caption mentions integrated luminosities (1 ab⁻¹ and 10 ab⁻¹), but the table lists cross sections in fb, not event yields. Please state explicitly that the cross sections are not luminosity-weighted and that the luminosities enter only through the significance calculation.
[Eq. (25)] The notation in Eq. (25) should be clarified: as written, χ² is quartic in C, which is consistent with treating V as the covariance of C² but not with the interpretation of εα in Eq. (27). Please define the units of C, Nαβ, and V explicitly.
[References] Reference [14] (Grzadkowski et al.) is missing the publication year/volume; several other references also lack full bibliographic data. Please standardize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected sensitivities are Monte-Carlo/optimal-observable extrapolations, and the low-energy constraints are inputs rather than fit outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Signal and background cross sections are obtained from explicit Monte Carlo simulation (FeynRules/MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes) with defined cuts, and the covariance and chi-square are built from the binned angular yields via Eqs. (21)-(27); the global combination is the sum of statistically independent chi-squares in Eqs. (31) and (34). No parameter is fitted to low-energy data and then repackaged as a collider prediction. The tau-decay limits in Table II enter only as RGE initial conditions (Sec. IV, Fig. 1) and as external benchmarks for comparison; they do not feed back into the collider covariance. The only self-citation, ref. [62] (Dutta, Hagiwara, Matsumoto), is a methodological citation for the optimal-observable technique and is not load-bearing for any sensitivity result. The assumption of ±80% longitudinal muon polarization is an external accelerator-physics modeling input; its feasibility is a correctness/robustness question, not a circular reduction. Likewise, the statement that µ→eγ vanishes at one loop for these operators is imported from an external reference and would be a physics-correctness concern, not a circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; invented_entities is empty. Its central claim rests on: (i) the Warsaw-basis four-lepton operator set with real coefficients; (ii) dominance of four-lepton over dipole/Higgs operators (cited to ref. [41]); (iii) the import from ref. [41] that µ→eγ receives no one-loop four-lepton contribution; (iv) unvalidated external inputs — ±80% beam polarization, negligible BIB after cuts, 1% per-bin systematics, Delphes-card tau-tagging at extreme pT; and (v) an assumed luminosity programme (1 ab⁻¹ at 3 TeV, 10 ab⁻¹ at 10/14 TeV). The free parameters are hand-chosen collider configurations, not fitted quantities.

free parameters (4)

Muon beam polarization settings P = {0, ±30%, ±80%} = 0%, ±30%, ±80%
Chosen by hand as the collider configuration (Sec. V, Tables III–IV). Load-bearing for the chirality decomposition: unpolarized data alone give ρ(Cℓℓ,Cee) = −0.99 and a near-flat direction; κ drops from 393 to 26 only after combining polarizations (Eqs. 28–32).
Integrated luminosity programme = 1 ab⁻¹ (3 TeV), 10 ab⁻¹ (10 and 14 TeV)
Taken from the proposed muon-collider programme (Table IV caption). Projected bounds scale as L^{−1/4}, so the headline (0.6–1.6)×10⁻¹¹ numbers include these assumed luminosities.
Per-bin systematic uncertainty ϵ = 1%
Adopted in Eq. (24) and Sec. V.1. Not strongly load-bearing because background counts are low (statistics dominate), but it sets ΔN in the OOT covariance matrix.
Benchmark coupling for cross-section tables = C/Λ² = 10⁻⁹ GeV⁻²
Used for Tables III–IV; illustrative only, does not enter the fitted 1σ bounds, which are extrapolated as C ∝ L^{−1/4}.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Four-lepton contact operators dominate; dipole and Higgs-mediated contributions are negligible via s-channel suppression.
Sec. II, ¶3: 'their contribution to the LFV cross section... is smaller compared to the four-fermion operator [41]'. The argument is qualitative and inherited from ref. [41]; no numerical check is reproduced in the text.
domain assumption µ→eγ receives no one-loop contribution from the four-lepton operators, so the eµ operators have no tree-level low-energy probe.
Sec. III, ¶3, citing [41]. The analogous three-body decays with two muons are kinematically forbidden, so the claim is plausible, but the one-loop vanishing is imported by citation.
domain assumption Beam-induced backgrounds are negligible after the hard pT cuts.
Sec. V, ¶4: 'Qualitative studies... do not contribute significantly' — stated without simulation.
domain assumption Longitudinal muon-beam polarization of up to ±80% is available at the interaction point.
Sec. V and Tables III–IV; no accelerator study establishing 80% polarization at 3–14 TeV is cited (refs. 47–51 are programme reports). This is the paper's weakest load-bearing premise.
domain assumption Wilson coefficients are real.
Sec. II: 'assumed to be real to avoid additional CP-violating phases'. Standard simplification; affects interpretation of interference but not the projected bounds.
domain assumption One-loop RGE of the 3×3 four-lepton sub-sector (gauge + hypercharge terms only) captures the scale evolution; Yukawa terms are negligible.
Sec. IV, Eqs. (12)–(17). Not load-bearing for the central claim: the reported allowed-volume shift between m_τ and 14 TeV is small.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Lepton-Flavor-Violating Four-Lepton Operators at a Muon Collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UPTJB5Z5

@misc{pith2026260726020,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Lepton-Flavor-Violating Four-Lepton Operators at a Muon Collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UPTJB5Z5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26020}
}

abstract

We investigate charged lepton-flavour violation (LFV) induced by dimension-six four-lepton operators within the Standard Model Effective Field Theory at a proposed high-energy muon collider. We study the processes $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\to e^{\pm}\tau^{\mp}$, $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\to e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$, and $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\to \mu^{\pm}\tau^{\mp}$ at $\sqrt{s}=3$, $10$, and $14$~TeV, incorporating beam polarisation and hadronic $\tau$ reconstruction. Using an optimal-observable analysis of the angular distributions, we perform a global fit to the relevant set of four-lepton operators. Projected sensitivities reach $C/\Lambda^{2}\sim(0.6$-$1.6)\times10^{-11}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$, depending on the flavour and chiral structure of the operator, exceeding current limits by up to an order of magnitude. A combined analysis of multiple centre-of-mass energies and beam polarisations significantly improves the resolution of correlations among the Wilson coefficients. These results highlight the strong sensitivity of a future multi-TeV muon collider to charged lepton flavour violating four-lepton interactions, establishing it as a powerful probe of the SMEFT parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26020 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** shows the renormalisation-group evolved values of the experimentally allowed Wilson coefficients at µRS = √ s = 14 TeV, obtained by evolving the low-energy constraints extracted from LFV τ decays at µRS = mτ . The initial points are generated on the ellipsoidal surface defined by the low-energy constraints and subsequently evolved using the one-loop SMEFT RGEs. Since the evolution includes operator mixing, individua… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** compares the energy dependence of the LFV signal evaluated for a benchmark Wilson coefficient and the dominant SM background cross sections. As expected, the dominant SM background cross sections, arising primarily from the W+W− and τ +τ − production channels, decrease with increasing centre-of-mass energy owing to s-channel suppression. In contrast, the LFV signal, induced by dimension-six four-lepton contact inter… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Cheng and L.-F

T.-P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Muon-number-nonconservation effects in a gauge theory withv+acurrents and heavy neutral leptons, Phys. Rev. D16, 1425 (1977)

1977
[2]

S. T. Petcov, The Processesµ→e+γ, µ→e+ e, ν′ →ν+γin 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)]

1977
[3]

Ilakovac and A

A. Ilakovac and A. Pilaftsis, Flavour-violating charged lepton decays in seesaw-type models, Nuclear Physics B437, 491–519 (1995)

1995
[4]

Alonso, M

R. Alonso, M. Dhen, M. B. Gavela, and T. Hambye, Muon conversion to electron in nuclei in type-i seesaw models, Journal of High Energy Physics2013, 10.1007/jhep01(2013)118 (2013)

work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2013)118 2013
[5]

G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Theory and phenomenology of two- Higgs-doublet models, Phys. Rept.516, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2012
[6]

Pich and P

A. Pich and P. Tuzon, Yukawa Alignment in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model, Phys. Rev. D80, 091702 (2009), arXiv:0908.1554 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2009
[7]

Langacker, The Physics of HeavyZ′ Gauge Bosons, Rev

P. Langacker, The Physics of HeavyZ′ Gauge Bosons, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1199 (2009), arXiv:0801.1345 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2009
[8]

Hisano, T

J. Hisano, T. Moroi, K. Tobe, and M. Yamaguchi, Lepton-flavor violation via right-handed neutrino yukawa couplings in the supersymmetric standard model, Phys. Rev. D53, 2442 (1996)

1996

Show all 63 references

[9]

Barbieri, L

R. Barbieri, L. Hall, and A. Strumia, Violations of lepton flavour and cp in supersymmetric unified theories, Nuclear Physics B445, 219–251 (1995)

1995
[10]

Barbieri and L

R. Barbieri and L. Hall, Signals for supersymmetric unification, Physics Letters B338, 212–218 (1994)

1994
[11]

Davidson, D

S. Davidson, D. Bailey, and B. A. Campbell, Model independent constraints on leptoquarks from rare processes, Zeitschrift für Physik C: Particles and Fields61, 613–643 (1994)

1994
[12]

Agashe, A

K. Agashe, A. Azatov, and L. Zhu, Flavor Violation Tests of Warped/Composite SM in the Two-Site Approach, Phys. Rev. D79, 056006 (2009), arXiv:0810.1016 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[13]

Buchmuller and D

W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation, Nucl. Phys. B 268, 621 (1986)

1986
[14]

Grzadkowski, M

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

arXiv
[15]

A. M. Baldiniet al.(MEG), Search for the lepton flavour violating decayµ+ →e +γwith the full dataset of the MEG experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 434 (2016), arXiv:1605.05081 [hep-ex]

2016 arXiv
[16]

Bellgardtet al.(SINDRUM), Search for the Decayµ+ →e +e+e−, Nucl

U. Bellgardtet al.(SINDRUM), Search for the Decayµ+ →e +e+e−, Nucl. Phys. B299, 1 (1988)

1988
[17]

Kouet al., The belle ii physics book, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2019, 10.1093/ptep/ptz106 (2019)

E. Kouet al., The belle ii physics book, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2019, 10.1093/ptep/ptz106 (2019)

2019 doi
[18]

Hayasakaet al.(Belle), New Search for tau ->mu gamma and tau ->e gamma Decays at Belle, Phys

K. Hayasakaet al.(Belle), New Search for tau ->mu gamma and tau ->e gamma Decays at Belle, Phys. Lett. B666, 16 (2008), arXiv:0705.0650 [hep-ex]

2008 arXiv
[19]

Aubertet al.(BABAR Collaboration), Searches for lepton flavor violation in the decaysτ± →e ±γandτ ± →µ ±γ, Phys

B. Aubertet al.(BABAR Collaboration), Searches for lepton flavor violation in the decaysτ± →e ±γandτ ± →µ ±γ, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 021802 (2010)

2010
[20]

K.Hayasakaet al.,SearchforLeptonFlavorViolatingTauDecaysintoThreeLeptonswith719MillionProducedTau+Tau- Pairs, Phys. Lett. B687, 139 (2010), arXiv:1001.3221 [hep-ex]

2010 arXiv
[21]

W. H. Bertlet al.(SINDRUM II), A Search for muon to electron conversion in muonic gold, Eur. Phys. J. C47, 337 (2006)

2006
[22]

Bartoszeket al.(R.Group),Mu2e Technical Design Report, Tech

L. Bartoszeket al.(R.Group),Mu2e Technical Design Report, Tech. Rep. (2015) comments: compressed file, 888 pages, 621 figures, 126 tables; full resolution available at http://mu2e.fnal.gov, arXiv:1501.05241

2015 arXiv
[23]

Abramishviliet al.(The COMET Collaboration), Comet phase-i technical design report, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2020, 10.1093/ptep/ptz125 (2020)

R. Abramishviliet al.(The COMET Collaboration), Comet phase-i technical design report, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2020, 10.1093/ptep/ptz125 (2020)

2020 doi
[24]

Aaijet al.(LHCb), Search for the lepton flavour violating decayB + →K +µ−τ + usingB ∗0 s2 decays, JHEP06, 129, arXiv:2003.04352 [hep-ex]

R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Search for the lepton flavour violating decayB + →K +µ−τ + usingB ∗0 s2 decays, JHEP06, 129, arXiv:2003.04352 [hep-ex]

2003
[25]

Aaijet al.(LHCb), Search for Lepton-Flavor Violating DecaysB+ →K +µ±e∓, Phys

R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Search for Lepton-Flavor Violating DecaysB+ →K +µ±e∓, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 241802 (2019), arXiv:1909.01010 [hep-ex]

2019
[26]

Abreuet al.(DELPHI), A Search for lepton flavor violation in Z0 decays, Phys

P. Abreuet al.(DELPHI), A Search for lepton flavor violation in Z0 decays, Phys. Lett. B298, 247 (1993)

1993
[27]

Adrianiet al.(L3), Search for lepton flavor violation in Z decays, Phys

O. Adrianiet al.(L3), Search for lepton flavor violation in Z decays, Phys. Lett. B316, 427 (1993)

1993
[28]

Calibbi and G

L. Calibbi and G. Signorelli, Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An Experimental and Theoretical Introduction, Riv. Nuovo Cim.41, 71 (2018), arXiv:1709.00294 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[29]

Banerjee, B

S. Banerjee, B. Bhattacherjee, M. Mitra, and M. Spannowsky, The Lepton Flavour Violating Higgs Decays at the HL-LHC and the ILC, JHEP07, 059, arXiv:1603.05952 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[30]

A. K. Barik, A. Dey, and T. Samui, Search for lepton flavor violating signals at the future electron-proton colliders, Physics Letters B872, 140048 (2026)

2026
[31]

Calibbi, X

L. Calibbi, X. Marcano, and J. Roy, Z lepton flavour violation as a probe for new physics at futuree+e− colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1054 (2021), arXiv:2107.10273 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[32]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators I: Formalism and lambda Dependence, JHEP10, 087, arXiv:1308.2627 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[33]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence, JHEP01, 035, arXiv:1310.4838 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[34]

R.Alonso, E.E.Jenkins, A.V.Manohar,andM.Trott,RenormalizationGroupEvolutionoftheStandardModelDimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology, JHEP04, 159, arXiv:1312.2014 [hep-ph]. 21

2014 arXiv
[35]

Casarsa (Muon Collider), Prospects of a future multi-TeV muon collider, SciPost Phys

M. Casarsa (Muon Collider), Prospects of a future multi-TeV muon collider, SciPost Phys. Proc.8, 061 (2022)

2022
[36]

T. Han, D. Liu, I. Low, and X. Wang, Electroweak couplings of the higgs boson at a multi-tev muon collider, Phys. Rev. D103, 013002 (2021)

2021
[37]

Buttazzo, D

D. Buttazzo, D. Redigolo, F. Sala, and A. Tesi, Fusing Vectors into Scalars at High Energy Lepton Colliders, JHEP11, 144, arXiv:1807.04743 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[38]

Abadaet al.(FCC), FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2, Eur

A. Abadaet al.(FCC), FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2, Eur. Phys. J. ST228, 261 (2019)

2019
[39]

J. F. Kamenik, A. Korajac, M. Szewc, M. Tammaro, and J. Zupan, Flavor-violating Higgs and Z boson decays at a future circular lepton collider, Phys. Rev. D109, L011301 (2024), arXiv:2306.17520 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[40]

Altmannshofer, P

W. Altmannshofer, P. Munbodh, and T. Oh, Probing lepton flavor violation at Circular Electron-Positron Colliders, JHEP 08, 026, arXiv:2305.03869 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[41]

Jahedi and A

S. Jahedi and A. Sarkar, Exploring optimal sensitivity of lepton flavor violating effective couplings at the e+e- colliders, Phys. Rev. D110, 095021 (2024), arXiv:2408.00190 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[42]

Davidson,µ→eγand matching atm W, Eur

S. Davidson,µ→eγand matching atm W, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 370 (2016), arXiv:1601.07166 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[43]

Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

2024
[44]

M. Ardu, S. Davidson, and M. Gorbahn, The sensitivity ofµ→eprocesses toτflavour change, Phys. Rev. D105, 096040 (2022), arXiv:2202.09246 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[45]

Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), A search for lepton-flavor-violating decays of theZboson into aτ-lepton and a light lepton with the ATLAS detector, Phys

M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), A search for lepton-flavor-violating decays of theZboson into aτ-lepton and a light lepton with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D98, 092010 (2018), arXiv:1804.09568 [hep-ex]

2018 arXiv
[46]

N.V.MokhovandS.I.Striganov,DetectorBackgroundatMuonColliders,Phys.Procedia37,2015(2012),arXiv:1204.6721 [physics.ins-det]

2015 arXiv
[47]

J. P. Delahayeet al., Muon Colliders (2019), arXiv:1901.06150 [physics.acc-ph]

2019 arXiv
[48]

K. M. Blacket al., Muon Collider Forum report, JINST19(02), T02015, arXiv:2209.01318 [hep-ex]

arXiv
[49]

K. Long, D. Lucchesi, M. Palmer, N. Pastrone, D. Schulte, and V. Shiltsev, Muon colliders to expand frontiers of particle physics, Nature Phys.17, 289 (2021), arXiv:2007.15684 [physics.acc-ph]

2021 arXiv
[50]

T. Han, Y. Ma, and K. Xie, High energy leptonic collisions and electroweak parton distribution functions, Phys. Rev. D 103, L031301 (2021), arXiv:2007.14300 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[51]

Aimeet al.,Muon Collider Physics Summary, Tech

C. Aimeet al.,Muon Collider Physics Summary, Tech. Rep. (IMCC, 2022) 21 pages, 7 figures; Contribution to Snowmass 2021, arXiv:2203.07256

2022 arXiv
[52]

Alloul, N

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

2014 arXiv
[53]

Alwall, M

J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond, JHEP06, 128, arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[54]

Sjöstrand, S

T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191, 159 (2015), arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[55]

de Favereau, C

J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3), DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP02, 057, arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

arXiv
[56]

Lucchesi and D

D. Lucchesi and D. Zuliani, Release of simplified detector performance model (delphes card or/and similar format) (2024)

2024
[57]

Delphes Collaboration, Muon collider detector delphes card (2024)

2024
[58]

Cacciari, G

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[59]

Cowan, K

G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

2011 arXiv
[60]

Diehl and O

M. Diehl and O. Nachtmann, Optimal observables for the measurement of three gauge boson couplings in e+ e- —>W+ W-, Z. Phys. C62, 397 (1994)

1994
[61]

J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and S. Dawson,The Higgs Hunter’s Guide, Vol. 80 (Front.Phys., 2000)

2000
[62]

Dutta, K

S. Dutta, K. Hagiwara, and Y. Matsumoto, Measuring the higgs-vector boson couplings at lineare+e− collider, Phys. Rev. D78, 115016 (2008)

2008
[63]

Bhattacharya, S

S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, S. Nandi, and A. Sarkar, Probing flavor constrained SMEFT operators through tc production at the muon collider, JHEP07, 061, arXiv:2312.14872 [hep-ph]

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Cheng and L.-F

T.-P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Muon-number-nonconservation effects in a gauge theory withv+acurrents and heavy neutral leptons, Phys. Rev. D16, 1425 (1977)

1977

[2] [2]

S. T. Petcov, The Processesµ→e+γ, µ→e+ e, ν′ →ν+γin 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)]

1977

[3] [3]

Ilakovac and A

A. Ilakovac and A. Pilaftsis, Flavour-violating charged lepton decays in seesaw-type models, Nuclear Physics B437, 491–519 (1995)

1995

[4] [4]

Alonso, M

R. Alonso, M. Dhen, M. B. Gavela, and T. Hambye, Muon conversion to electron in nuclei in type-i seesaw models, Journal of High Energy Physics2013, 10.1007/jhep01(2013)118 (2013)

work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2013)118 2013

[5] [5]

G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Theory and phenomenology of two- Higgs-doublet models, Phys. Rept.516, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2012

[6] [6]

Pich and P

A. Pich and P. Tuzon, Yukawa Alignment in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model, Phys. Rev. D80, 091702 (2009), arXiv:0908.1554 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2009

[7] [7]

Langacker, The Physics of HeavyZ′ Gauge Bosons, Rev

P. Langacker, The Physics of HeavyZ′ Gauge Bosons, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1199 (2009), arXiv:0801.1345 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2009

[8] [8]

Hisano, T

J. Hisano, T. Moroi, K. Tobe, and M. Yamaguchi, Lepton-flavor violation via right-handed neutrino yukawa couplings in the supersymmetric standard model, Phys. Rev. D53, 2442 (1996)

1996